San Jose, California. -- Everyone pretty much knows now whether O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. According to the polls, two-thirds of whites know he did. Eighty percent of blacks know he didn't. That isn't going to change much, whatever the outcome of the trial, barring some unforeseen arrival at unquestionable proof.
So as this trial meanders along, it becomes something else entirely. Now it's show time and game time. The prosecutors vs. the defense. Lawyers vs. lawyers. This has a fascination all its own. There's constant confrontation. Clever tactics. Strategies and game plans. May the best lawyers win.
I was talking to a courtroom maven the other day on just these points. He's George P. Fletcher, Cardozo professor of jurisprudence at Columbia University's School of Law. And he's author of "With Justice for Some," a study of criminal trials.
Mr. Fletcher is one of an army of lawyers gaining fame as experts on this or that, thanks to the Simpson trial. He scored big when prosecutor Marcia Clark quoted from his new book while urging Judge Lance Ito to allow the victims' families into the courtroom.
Said Ms. Clark, quoting Mr. Fletcher: "The minimal task of the criminal trial is to stand by victims, to restore their dignity, to find a way for them to think of themselves, once again, as men and women equal to all others." She went on in her own words: "I think the Brown and Goldman families have that right, and I think their presence in this trial will serve to fulfill that right for them."
Judge Ito agreed. Ms. Clark (and Mr. Fletcher) won their point.
Mr. Fletcher, on the phone from New York, seemed delighted to have scored even peripherally. He mentioned that he had been on Geraldo Rivera's ongoing Simpson-focused TV show the previous night and was going to return.
Because he is an expert on the theory and practice of criminal law, I sought to explore the case with him from the angle that interested me most. That is: How does one arrive at a fair verdict? Will justice be done?
Mr. Fletcher's responses dealt entirely with tactics. His implication was that if Ms. Clark were clever enough and used some of the weapons she had at hand -- including the sad visages of the victims' family members -- she would win.
Mr. Fletcher said that Ms. Clark's wearing of the "angel" pin, a piece of jewelry meant to symbolize affinity for the victims (to which defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran objected), was a great move. "The prosecutor has the extraordinary capacity to bond with the [victims'] families. She should. More power to her."
I kept talking about a fair verdict. But we appeared to be at cross purposes. Mr. Fletcher kept talking tactics.
Will a mostly black jury convict Mr. Simpson, I wondered, given the poll results?
Mr. Fletcher felt that blacks tended to be tougher on murder defendants than whites. But Ms. Clark had to keep pressing the point -- there were victims in this case. Here they are. They hurt. This is what they look like. If she does, Fletcher said, "This will be a fair trial."
I noted that the defense was pressing another point. The cops. They are bad. Here they are. This is what they look like.
Mr. Fletcher understood the gambit. We kept talking gambits. Justice to a lawyer is not some abstract search for truth but the assumed byproduct of tactical lawyers locked in confrontation.
"This [trial] is the best we can do today in the U.S.," he said. "Young people, though, are cynical. I don't know why."
I do.
Murry Frymer is a columnist for the San Jose Mercury News.