As a resident of California at the time of the OJ trial, I have a few comments to make.
First, the only qualification for being on a jury is that you are a resident over a particular age (21, but I'm not positive, it could easily be 18 these days). The ONLY other qualification is that you can't get out of it. That means most jurors are blue-collar workers or retired.
Second, the prosecution tried to teach that jury about HOW DNA evidence works. That might put me to sleep, and I have a degree in engineering. They unfortunately spent way too much time numbing the minds of the jurors.
Third, the defense (successfully and rightly, IMHO) threw the race card at Mark Fuhrman's testimony. He would have been the best witness as far as physical evidence (gloves, socks, watch cap and where they were found), but his apparent racism made his testimony very suspect, to say the least.
Fourth, the tracking of the DNA evidence had a doubt cast over it by some apparently careless record keeping. It seems highly unlikely that a genuine mistake was made (getting samples mixed up), but all you need for an acquittal is "reasonable doubt."
When I heard that he had been arrested, I really didn't believe it was possible that he could have done the crime. It was impossible to ignore the trial - it was EVERYWHERE the whole time it was going on, and during that time, I came to believe that the evidence showed clearly that he had killed two people. I know I didn't want it to be true, but there was and is no doubt in my mind that it is.
I've sat on juries myself, and although they weren't anything like the OJ trial, I found that a lot of defense lawyering is psychology. You need to make the jury have doubts about what prosecution is presenting. If you do that, you win, no question about it.
Johnnie Cochran and the rest of OJ's team of lawyers did an excellent job. They knew how to create that doubt in the minds of those 12 people. If I ever get my RE in a sling, Johnnie Cochrane is who I want for my hired gun.
--I know what I like--