Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

O.J. Simpson Dead At 76 After Cancer Battle; Was Convicted In 2008 In A Sports Memorabilia Robbery Case; Acquitted In 1995 Of The Murders Of Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 11, 2024 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Then later, Simpson was charged with the horrific murders by knife of Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ron and Nichole were butchered.

ELAM: The trial made lawyers and even witnesses household names.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are involved James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder.

ELAM: When the jury freed Simpson, celebration erupted in parts of Los Angeles, but Simpson would never recapture his idle status. Simpson first Brennan into the national spotlight as the Heisman Trophy winning running back at the University of Southern California. Then 11 spectacular years with the NFL vaulted him to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Simpson cashed in on the popularity -- becoming a pitchman for Hertz and an actor. Becoming well known for the Naked Gun movies.

(PLAYING VIDEO CLIP)

ELAM: Simpson played a law man on screen and ran into trouble with the courts off screen. He lost the multi-million-dollar wrongful death suit brought by the families of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, then moved to Florida. In 2000, Simpson was accused of assault and a road rage incident in Miami. He was found not guilty.

In 2005, he was found guilty and fined for stealing satellite television. Then in 2007 in Las Vegas, police arrested him on several felony charges including kidnapping and armed robbery. In that case, Simpson and armed accomplices raided a hotel room in what he called an attempt to just get back some of his stolen belongings.

O.J. SIMPSON: And I didn't know I was doing anything illegal. I thought I was confronting friends and retrieving my property.

ELAM: The Nevada jury never bought his story and instead sent him to prison. He was released on parole nine years later in the dead of night with no fanfare and no bright future, just the distinction of arguably the greatest rise and fall in pop culture history.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: What an amazing rise and fall. It was Jean Casarez is joining us right now. I want to thank Stephanie Elam for that report. Jean, you covered O.J. Simpson in those final years when he was in Las Vegas getting into more legal trouble. Talk a little bit about that.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I was the correspondent for that kidnapping trial in Las Vegas and they were very serious charges. I think everyone thought at the time, you know, this was a life felony, kidnapping. That's what he's charged with. But the factual scenario was he and his cronies wanted to go get back some of his personal items, like his trophies and things they were owned by others.

So, they had meetings and they got together, and they went over there. Well, two of his buddies had guns on them. One even pointed the gun. And that culminated into kidnapping and armed robbery charges. I covered the trial. I was a correspondent. He was out on bail. He would just talk to everybody in the hallway. And he was so nice to everyone, anyone. He was just very humble. And I would talk to him.

But when he found out that I was from Southern California and I graduated from USC, he just wanted to talk to me like crazy because of his passion for those days. His passion for USC. I remember, he thought we went there together. And I said, no, no, no. I went a little after you did. So, I did. I was much younger than him. But he was very humble.

Now when he got to the trial itself, he had two sisters, and they came every single day to that trial. And I got to know them. They were quiet. They were demure. They would stand in a corner, it breaks. Nobody even knew who they were, but they will wonderful, wonderful ladies. One has passed away now. One I believe is still alive. But they were there every day to support their brother.

Now he was convicted. The judge couldn't stand him. It was so obvious. The jury convicted him, and many people will have believed at the time that because he was acquitted in California, Nevada was going to show that they meant business. You're not going to get away with something in Nevada. We're law and order.

And he was convicted by that jury sentenced to 33 years in prison, lovelock northern Nevada. And we had heard after that that he became a mentor for young men in the prison that he was counseling them. And that was sort of his job there to lead the right road in life.

Well, he went before the parole board after nine years and that was televised too. We watched that. When he got out and the parole board allowed him out. I was in Las Vegas. And he went up at the dead of night. But we heard that the next day we were still in Las Vegas. For the next day, he was out at the golf course. So -- and he really lived a fairly quiet life after that with some Twitter videos, but he was still in the public eye.

BLITZER: All right. Jean, standby. If you're of a certain age as I am, you of course will remember that moment back on October 3, 1995, when O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the murder trial against for murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Let me play that moment. So many of us will never forget it. Watch and listen to this.

[12:05:00]

(PLAYING VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Robertson?

MRS. ROBERTSON: Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, in the matter of the People of the State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of a crime of murder in violation of Penal Code Section 187A, a felony upon Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being as charged account one of the inflammation.

The Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles in the matter of the People of State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Penal Code Section 187A, a felony up on Ronald Lau Goldman, a human being as charged in count to have the information.

We the jury in the above entitled action further find a special circumstance that the defendant Orenthal James Simpson has in this case been convicted of at least one crime of murder of the first degree and one or more crimes of murder of the first or second degree to be not true. Sign this second day of October 1995, Juror 230. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury is this your verdict, say you once, so say you all?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, counsel. Mr. Simpson, would you be seated please? Just have a quiet the courtroom, please. All right, Mrs. Robertson, would you please pull the jurors?

MRS. ROBERTSON: Juror number one, as to count one, is this your verdict. Juror number two, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number three, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number four, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number five, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number six, as to count one, is this your verdict?

Juror number seven, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number eight, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number nine, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number 10, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number 11, as to count one, is this your verdict? Juror number 12, as to count one, is this your verdict?

BLITZER: Historic moment indeed and many of us will never forget that moment indeed. I want to bring in John Miller, CNN's Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst. As you are watching that video, what goes through your mind? It was really an incredible moment for so many of us.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it was a stunning verdict because, while there was much drama in the case, there was significant evidence tying O.J. Simpson to those murders that many people who watched the whole trial felt met the bar. What the important lesson from the trial was and what people learned from that dramatic moment you just played was, reasonable doubt doesn't come in one chunk.

It was the cross examination of Dennis Fung, the LAPD criminalist, who was asked by moving one glove from the crime scene to O.J. Simpson's house. Where the other glove was found to see if they matched could that have caused a blood transfer? The blanket that was put over one of the bodies could hair or fiber from the Bronco or O.J. have come there in different way.

It was the testimony of Mark Fuhrman and what he had lied about. It was the doubt that was cast on Dennis Fung and the scientific evidence collected. And the way it was collected and processed, was it put in the refrigerator, or wasn't it? All of these things added up from the death of a thousand doubts to one large reasonable doubt that convinced that jury in so many pieces.

BLITZER: It was just an amazing, amazing moment for so many millions and millions of people who were watching all of this unfold. You know, Jean, we saw the reaction in that video from the Goldman family. They were in the courtroom watching the members of the jury acquitting O.J. Simpson as the verdict was being read. What do we know about how the family is doing all these years later today?

CASAREZ: They have remained in their pursuit for justice. Now, you know, there was a civil trial. A civil case and trial following this, where they did get a civil verdict that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. And so that was some soloists.

[12:10:00]

Now for years, they've been trying to get the money from that. They've had an attorney out of -- out of the west coast that has been gallantly trying to get any type of monies for that verdict, really largely unsuccessful and all that. But I think another thing about that criminal trial, Court TVs cameras were in that courtroom and Court TV and CNN were the two networks that carried this trial, gavel to gavel.

And this was almost a year long trial. This was months after months of testimony. But it was really where the country got to see the demeanor of witnesses. They got to see the questioning. They got to see the expertise on those cross examinations, like John was just talking about it.

You don't have it second or third hand, you see it for yourself. And that's why the country I think, became even more fixated on this verdict. And when this verdict rang out, it did divide the country and it remained a mystery.

Because what really happened to Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on that day outside of that house, will we ever know the truth? Did O.J. Simpson know the truth? If so, that has gone forever. And it's something that once that that mystery just keeps perpetuating itself. BLITZER: And I think it's fair to say so much of the country is still divided over that verdict all these years later. Everyone stay with us. We're going to continue our special breaking news coverage of O.J. Simpson's death. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This same case number BA097211, we the jury and the above entitled action find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Penal Code Section 187A, a felony on Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being as charged in count one of the information.

The Superior Court of the State of the County of Los Angeles in the matter of the People of California versus Orenthal James Simpson. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Penal Code Section 187A a felony upon Ronald Lyle Goldman, a human being as charged in count two of the information.

BLITZER: That was the moment O.J. Simpson was acquitted on October 3, 1995. That was the reaction from the audience during the Oprah Winfrey Show. Once again back in 1995, O.J. Simpson has died now at the age of 76 after a battle with prostate cancer.

CNN's Jean Casarez is back with us. CNN's John Miller, and CNN's legal analyst Joey Jackson is with us as well. Joey, first of all, what do you make of that reaction well from the Oprah Winfrey audience back in 1995?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. You know, I think, well, it speaks to the controversial nature of what people were thinking and their own views with respect to what they viewed as guilt or innocence. And so, I think that you can look at reactions on Oprah Winfrey, or reactions really throughout the country, not just limited to her show. And you had some reactions that were very joyous in nature. And you had some other reactions that were not, right?

And because people -- some people thought that this was an unjust verdict. There were others who thought it was quite just. You know, Stephanie Elam earlier broke down the context of the times. You look at things like Rodney King and the beating of Rodney King and the officers not being accountable, at least as it related to the state trial for beating Rodney King in 1992, this year's earlier.

You look at what the defense team did in the O.J. case, in terms of tape making this a case about the alleged racism of the LAPD, the transgressions of the LAPD, the targeting of an African American community by the LAPD, mock firm and who testified in this trial, the use of the N-word, et cetera. And there were many who believed that apparently, the jury believed that there was an injustice exacted upon O.J. Simpson. And so, what I make of it really, Wolf, is it speaks to again, which will be debated throughout all time. And that's the question of whether the jury got it right. There are those up till today who will tell you the jury got it wrong, the civil jury thereafter, right, different case, different time. But relating to the same issues, right, was O.J. Simpson responsible, said the civil jury. They concluded right at some later time that he was responsible and issued monetary damages to the Goldman family.

Certainly, they would want, right, their son and Nicole Brown Simpson's family would want her. But there was responsibility there. And so, we could go on. And we could debate this forever as to whether or not the prosecution proved their case beyond the reasonable doubt, or whether they fail to do so.

Obviously, this jury believed that, but I think it was largely connected to the sign of the times. And what the defense did to make this a larger issue, not just about O.J. limited to the facts of what he did or did not do. But the broader issue of policing, the broader issue of what police are doing, the broader issue of injustice, the broader issue of how African Americans are treated by a system.

And so that's why, Wolf, in my view, you have distinctions in terms of what people were believing were they joyful about the verdict, or were they quite upset about the verdict? I think you'd speak to people today and get very mixed reactions.

[12:20:00]

BLITZER: Yes, you're absolutely right. And Jean that clip from the Oprah Winfrey Show showing the audience reacting to the not guilty verdict that really speaks to the way that case divided the country, millions of people were divided over this verdict, right?

CASAREZ: Absolutely. And what's fascinating, I told you that the trial took months. This was not a short trial. This was months -- nine months, I think. And the verdict came in after 30 minutes. That jury rendered a verdict after a nine-month trial. And because they have to look at the evidence, and many people believe that that was based on emotion. It was not based on the facts, the evidence that was laid out right there.

And I think also celebrity may have played a role in that because this was Southern California. This was O.J. Simpson. This is someone who was adored in Southern California, USC graduate, Heisman Trophy. This was their own person right there. And that may have all interplay with that also.

And so, the fact of whether he's guilty or not, yes, a jury rendered him not guilty. But forevermore, people will really think that maybe the result was actually -- should have been the opposite.

BLITZER: John Miller, how did this verdict shape the way police departments not only in Los Angeles, but all across the country, collected evidence and approached these high-profile criminal trials?

MILLER: Well, it was a shock to the system of law enforcement forensic.

BLITZER: Talk about that.

MILLER: Scientific Investigation Division. We're operating at a fair ---

BLITZER: I think we're losing a connection with John Miller. Joey Jackson, let me bring you into this. All of us who were watching the trial. It was on TV live every single day. We were getting a lot of analysis after the trial. And it all of us who are watching.

We learned so much about the criminal justice system. We learned so much about the law and how the law deals with these kinds of charges, these criminal charges. Talk a little bit about the impact -- the long-term impact of the O.J. Simpson trial on the legal profession.

JACKSON: Yeah. I think it was huge, Wolf, in every way. Number one, when you look at a criminal justice system, you have to look at people in general, right, because it's people's confidence in a system that makes any system work. And so here was a case where people were seeing for themselves.

What the evidence was that was being put in on a daily basis? Who were the witnesses, who were testifying? Evaluating for themselves, the credibility of police witnesses, the credibility of DNA evidence, the credibility of doctors, the credibility of any witnesses who would testify.

And then of course, you have the jury themselves that are there, making that decision. You have a jury of 12 that has to establish proof of guilt or lack thereof beyond the reasonable doubt. But then you have the 13th juror at home, who's making an assessment as to that. And so, I think that in looking at that it really gave us an inside look to how the system and the criminal justice system operates, right?

How do you select the jury? Do you and can you get a jury that is fair and impartial? And can regardless of celebrity, draw conclusions with respect to guilt or innocence? Who is testifying in these cases? Should we be believing police because they're police? Or should we be skeptical? Should we believe that people who do DNA because they're experts in that? Should we be challenging that? Should we look at theories of cases?

So, it really gave us a ringside view into a system itself. And then it had because of the defense strategy in this case, Wolf, how does peel back the mass in terms of, wow, is the LAPD really racist. How could Mark Fuhrman use the N-word? Can we trust them? Why is it O.J. who's responsible? Or is he guilty or is he not guilty?

And so, I think forevermore, it had people looking, examining a system, questioning whether they should be confident or not confident about a system. And it was -- of course, the trial was happening in L.A., but the implication throughout the country for police, policing, jury, jury systems, Court TV, you know, people looking at cases, reality TV that we have today, Wolf. Wow, it just had such an impact that have -- that had an impact on, you know, lawyers like myself who were becoming lawyers, right? And how -- what lawyering is about? What storytelling is about? What prosecutors do? Do they have sufficient evidence? What does it mean to have evidence beyond the reasonable doubt? So yes, it changed the system as we know it.

You know, I would argue critical reforms as a result of this case. And I think that, you know, forevermore, we'll look at this case as really the trial of the century. And it really earned the right to be called that because of all that we saw, all that it taught, all the lawyering on both sides and all that it tried to do in terms of looking at the justice system and making it more than the victims which are significant in this case.

And remember, families are ailing to this day over the loss of, you know, Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman. But the reality is, is that a jury concluded at least in the criminal case that O.J. was not responsible, and it made us take a very critical look at the system and what that system was all about.

[12:25:00]

BLITZER: It was a unanimous decision by that jury indeed. John Miller, we've reconnected with you. When our connection stopped, you were speaking about the O.J. Simpson case and how it shaped law enforcement all over the country. I used to work at NYPD. Go ahead and give us your thoughts. How did the O.J. Simpson case shape law enforcement around the United States?

MILLER: It really made them look at their forensic collection policies and procedures. I mean, when you walked into the O.J. Simpson case, you're like, there's the Bronco and O.J. is driveway. There's the blood stain on the Bronco's handle. There's blood on the console. There's a blood trail leading to the house. All of this is collected.

You go into this with -- not just detectives who are trained to do crime scene, but by criminalists. These are civilians trained in science. This is their only job. And they collected all of this. And by most standards that was a pretty high standard.

When he was acquitted based on so much of the doubt about the -- about the forensics, about how it was collected, about the testimony of the experts and the cross examination bringing into question and things like, well, why wasn't it in the refrigerator? Well, because the refrigerator didn't always work for more than a few hours at a time. Crime scene units across the country.

And this was before there was a TV show called CSI, where everything's done perfectly, and the results come magically within 20 minutes. Crime scene units really had to step up their game. And this was a challenge for a lot of smaller places where police budgets, budget cuts, getting gasoline and patrol cars is paying overtime, you know, cause challenges to invest in things like that.

The FBI started its evidence recovery teams with extremely high training and consistent procedures, cities up their game. It made a real difference. Wolf, one of the really interesting things is O.J. Simpson getting acquitted in a murder trial where both eyewitness, testimony and mostly the forensic evidence was so strong.

And then being convicted in Las Vegas, in Nevada, in a fairly low rent case about trying to rob back stuff he said belong to him. And the difference in the two cases was significant. The Las Vegas case wasn't about science. It wasn't about forensics. It wasn't about DNA. It was about eyewitnesses who said they were in the room and what happened. It was about video from the hotel, showing the comings and goings of the people before and after the incident.

It was a -- he said -- he said case with direct testimony, and that's why he got 33 years. He was paroled after eight and a half. But that's the kind of sentence you would get in a murder case. And as I think you raise the issue earlier, a lot of people thought that that was some subliminal payback by the criminal justice system for what many believed was getting away with murder. What others, as Joey said, thought was justice and well served.

BLITZER: The country was deeply, deeply divided on that issue, as we all remember. Everyone stay with me. We're going to take a very quick break. Up next. I'll speak to a former CNN reporter who covered the trial. Our breaking news coverage of O.J. Simpson's death will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)