Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

O.J. lawyers' rivalry raises cain and ethical concerns; litigators say the public falling-out is unique and hurts Simpson's defense

Article Abstract:

Attorneys Robert L. Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey are both defending O.J. Simpson in his trial for murdering ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson. Both attorneys are feuding, Shapiro having accused Bailey of orchestrating leaks to boost his status on the defense team at the expense of Shapiro. Johnnie Cochran, another lawyer on the defense team, is confident that the two will resolve their differences. Other attorneys observing the case say the clash is bad for the Simpson defense.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Attorneys, Behavior, Beliefs, opinions and attitudes, Shapiro, Robert L., Bailey, F. Lee

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


O.J. defense gave ground with hidden-witness play: last-minute disclosures can hurt, consultants say

Article Abstract:

Legal consultants believe O.J. Simpson's defense team lost credibility with the jury when Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr was penalized by Judge Lance Ito for not disclosing evidence and witnesses. However, prosecutor Marcia Clark also lost some support when Ito had to warn her several times during the almost unprecedented rebuttal. Simpson's defense team may still benefit from the new evidence because some of the negative information about one new witness may be inadmissible.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Analysis, Trial practice, Testimony, Murder

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Judge: lawyer can jabber with juror; federal court enjoins Hawaii rule that bars contact with jurors after trial ends

Article Abstract:

A federal judge ruled in Rapp v. Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court that a Hawaii rule restricting an attorney from talking to jurors after a trial was a constitutional violation because it restricted freedom of speech. The lawyer in the case, John Rapp, thinks he is the first to challenge the Hawaii rule, which took effect Jan 1, 1994. Rules on juror contact by attorneys vary between the states.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
United States, Freedom of speech, Legal ethics

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Lawyers, Simpson, O.J.
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Market power in vertical cases. Communication and cooperation among competitors: introduction and overview. The boundaries of horizontal restraints: facilitating practices and invitations to collude
  • Abstracts: The differing approach to commercial litigation in the European Court of Justice and the courts of England and Wales
  • Abstracts: Dueling software makers: company president claims badmouthing in suit against competitor, then lobs his own allegations
  • Abstracts: Speedy O.J. trial raises doubts; some wonder: is a quick decision better than none at all? Jury to hear that O.J. beat his spouse; among 500 potential witnesses, some may tell of a history of wife abuse
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.