Jun 12, 2014|
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
Defense attorney call Camry is with us on the WB Ian -- -- morning Paul where were you twenty years ago today. Well I was actually in Los Angeles and I. Covering that trial. I mean I was working their but I was covering it for channel seven. And and northeastern seat for APC score -- was -- there everyday on the platform reporting actually. You say you were in Los Angeles the night of the chase however I would. Holding. It -- I was I was there during the whole thing. It was a time when it first started to establish an office about a lot and so I spent a lot of time there. That trial really changed. A murder trials going forward did not. Well I think it did it not only get people interested in watching that humans fall on the number of not only to commentators -- shall. Out trials. After that but you know it true some not questions into the whole system. And people have been looking at and I think differently -- percent and it it actually brought a spotlight on domestic while. Do you agree with the verdict in the case. Well I do -- -- a way to case was tried. It was so you know that was the verdict that was going to occur the major mistake that was made that case by the prosecution by Gil Garcetti at the time. What he had a choice he could try that case -- ban. Which would have been mostly. White population no intercity no issues like they developed at trial which also. You know it seemed like at the trial that China is needed as a racial thing you remember actually Bailey's cross examination and so on. Using -- and war every other sentence to China fire that. They're so they decided to try it in the year city any doubt outlaws and source. I guess so he could micro manages to as you know he was on upper floor and that same -- dealer tried it and then I think we had a much different verdict. And the civil burglars that curious Santa Monica the civil verdict was in Santa Monica and in of course. There they found him liable so I think that was the big mistake. What about Johnnie Cochran's closing argument if it doesn't fit. He must acquire all. It was very -- you know when you're dealing -- jurors. You'd have to make things understandable. -- -- have to give them something put their hand. And should go win it and feel comfortable. And something like that is very simple. Mean he made the case I think alienated operational change. And what Cochran and it would say look this is easy. You know attendance at the club itself were kind of thing and the people can simple. And if you get a jury to feel comfortable. That's out -- And yet in the twenty years sense I've often heard you speak out against the idea. Of cameras in the courtroom and television is this the case is this the reason why for you that opinion comes about. No for me what what what bothers me about cameras in the courtroom as that -- fer sure. Your client and it jumps and an orange jumpsuit. And you know the law says presumption of innocence and that's totally be out at. And then every time there's a story about. York case they shall your client walking around a jumpsuit and yet they're guilty are ready and or during the course of testimony. And I can't play in the news people they focus in on something that you see an arm hole. And that's easy in direct examination. But it a day later true cross examination you may have destroyed that witness. The media and -- to do -- days later -- to test. You know in in great detail they take quite some things that are provocative. So bad urged the defense and that's why I'm against -- and you know on the big First Amendment guy but there's others. Yeah hey Paul great talk you into this morning thank you for the time are my pleasure. Ex buffalo defense attorney Paul came Brea.