O.J. Acquittals Shock Law Profs.

Months of testimony culminated yesterday in the acquittal of O.J. Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. And as Simpson thanked members of the jury in the Los Angeles courtroom for their verdict, much of Harvard's legal community reacted with outrage.

"The verdict is a catastrophe," said Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson '60. "In terms of the perception that if you're rich you can buy your way out through lawyers...it is a disaster."

Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, a member of Simpson's "dream team" of defense lawyers, expressed satisfaction with the verdict.

"[The case] brought about a national civics lesson on distrusting the police and the prosecutors when they rush to judgment," said Dershowitz, who spoke from his office where he watched the conclusion of the trial on TV--while members of the news media looked on.

Dershowitz had been working on the appeal he would have been called on to file in case Simpson was found guilty.

For Dershowitz and other members of Simpson's defense team, the verdict marked the end of a long process whose outcome was never certain.

"I had some doubt that he would be acquitted, not that he was innocent," Dershowitz told The Crimson. "We won this case despite Judge [Lance A.] Ito."

But others at Harvard Law School said the Simpson trial has adversely affected the judicial system by giving lawyers an incentive to use race-based arguments in future trials.

"Whites will incorrectly assume that black juries are unwilling to convict" Nesson said.

"In terms of relations between black and whites, relations between rich and poor, in terms of perceptions of how lawyers operate this is not a happy verdict," he said.

Williston Professor of Law Robert H. Mnookin '64 said reaction to the verdict is a product of pre-existing racial and social divisions.

"There are so many, especially around here [at Harvard], who believe that Simpson is guilty, and can't even imagine how someone could think he is innocent," Mnookin said. "That speaks of a vast gulf in perception."

David S. Friedman '93, president of the Harvard Law Review, said the verdict reflects the country's attitudes.

"The different responses by the different race groups is disturbing and really highlights the racial division in our system," Friedman said.

In the Law School's Harkness Commons, where law school students gathered to watch the verdict on TV, some said they were more interested in understanding the case in the context of the legal system.

First-year law student Steve R. Hansen seemed at a loss to explain how the verdict could have been reached in light of the case against Simpson.

"It seems like the jury ignored all of the evidence, especially given the complexity of the trial," Hansen said. "A lot of people have lost faith in the justice system."

Third year law student Teresa A. Gonslaves said her faith in the jury system has not been shaken.

"You're probably going to hear a lot of people criticizing the jury system, but I love the jury system," Gonslaves said. "I saw a lot of room for doubt in the prosecution's case."

But not all students retained as much optimism about the criminal justice system as did Gonslaves.

Second year law student Richard Perez, who said he was leaning away from courtroom law before the Simpson trial, said watching the ordeal helped him make up his mind.

"It reaffirmed why I don't want to be a lawyer," said Perez, who plans to use his law degree in business.

Robert Fakhas, a second year law student, said he was angered by the verdict because it was clearly influenced by the lawyers involved.

"[Simpson] was guilty enough for 10 men," Fakhas said. "There was no reasonable doubt. The only reasonable doubt was an army of expensive lawyers who could talk up a storm."  --This report was compiled with Associated Press wire dispatches. Todd F. Braunstein and Justin Danilewitz also contributed to this report.Photo courtesy Associated PressFrankfurter Professor of Law ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team, touches a television screen in his office at Harvard Law School immediately after his client was acquitted of dual murder. Dershowitz would have worked on Simpson's appeal if the jury had convicted the former football star.

Third year law student Teresa A. Gonslaves said her faith in the jury system has not been shaken.

"You're probably going to hear a lot of people criticizing the jury system, but I love the jury system," Gonslaves said. "I saw a lot of room for doubt in the prosecution's case."

But not all students retained as much optimism about the criminal justice system as did Gonslaves.

Second year law student Richard Perez, who said he was leaning away from courtroom law before the Simpson trial, said watching the ordeal helped him make up his mind.

"It reaffirmed why I don't want to be a lawyer," said Perez, who plans to use his law degree in business.

Robert Fakhas, a second year law student, said he was angered by the verdict because it was clearly influenced by the lawyers involved.

"[Simpson] was guilty enough for 10 men," Fakhas said. "There was no reasonable doubt. The only reasonable doubt was an army of expensive lawyers who could talk up a storm."  --This report was compiled with Associated Press wire dispatches. Todd F. Braunstein and Justin Danilewitz also contributed to this report.Photo courtesy Associated PressFrankfurter Professor of Law ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team, touches a television screen in his office at Harvard Law School immediately after his client was acquitted of dual murder. Dershowitz would have worked on Simpson's appeal if the jury had convicted the former football star.