Penn profs say questions linger after decision

and Amy Lipman While national pundits continue to debate the acquittal of former football star O.J. Simpson, University experts are also discussing the verdict, the trial and the messages left by both. Simpson was found "not guilty" yesterday of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Many at the University note that even though the trial is over, its long-term implications are far reaching. Law School Senior Fellow David Rudovsky said he hoped the trial showed the faults of the Los Angeles Police Department -- and therefore other police departments as well. "I would hope that the message is that police departments that tolerate the sloppiness and poor laboratory work and racist conducts of police officers are going to have trouble getting convictions," he said. "If for no other reason, they ought to be making sure that those things don't happen." Legal Studies Professor Bill Laufer also mentioned the need for reform in the LAPD, adding that the problems with the evidence may have contributed to the final verdict. "We have to think about ways we can improve the criminal justice system to make sure the investigations of subsequent murder cases are handled in a more professional manner," Laufer said. "Based on prior cases, there was probably enough to convict the average defendant. "In this case it just wasn't enough," he added. Laufer said he thought the evidence of Simpson's guilt was strong, but was not surprised by the verdict. He added that the jury's short deliberations gave him confidence that they really believed there was reasonable doubt of Simpson's guilt. "It must have been that they came in very much convinced that the state had failed in its burden and that makes me feel much more comfortable with [the verdict]," he said. Criminology Professor Marvin Wolfgang said he thought the jurors had made up their minds before deliberations even began. "They may have deliberated for three hours but they were sitting as a jury for a year and they had plenty of time to think about it," said Wolfgang, who also serves as the director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology. Rudovsky also said that despite admonitions by Judge Lance Ito, the jurors might have been talking with one another before deliberations officially began. Laufer agreed, saying that jurors probably discussed the trial amongst themselves last weekend in particular. Laufer added that the jury probably went into deliberations mostly agreeing to acquit Simpson with one or two "hold outs." Therefore, the piece of evidence which the jury asked to re-hear -- the testimony of limousine driver Allan Park -- convinced the remaining jurors of the reasonable doubt involved. Communications Professor Joseph Turow said he saw the trial as a very important cultural event. "It tapped into something in American culture that people cared about," he said. Turow was concerned that the trial created an image of "an incredibly racially divided America." "But if the stark divisions of a culture are in fact the realities of the circumstance, it should be faced head on, and we ought to do something about it, not just spout it." he said.