Guest Post: If It Doesn't Fit

This guest post is an observation from Eric Fish, a federal public defender in San Diego and a law professor at UC Davis (beginning in 2021), in response to "The Concept of The Theme in Advocacy," which included a television commercial for Chicago Jewish Funerals:

Johnny Cochran's famous couplet is universally misquoted as "if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit."  But that's not what he said -  he didn't say the word "gloves."  During his closing he said several times: "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."  At one point he was discussing the claim that OJ disguised himself with a knit cap, and he said: "It's no disguise. It's no disguise.  It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. And if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4.  Later he was discussing the gloves not fitting and said "I want you to remember these words, like the defining moment in this trial, when Mr. Darden asked Mr. Simpson to try on those gloves and the gloves didn't fit.  If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."  He also used the "it doesn't fit" theme when discussing the prosecution's theory of the timeline.

I think this makes it an even better example of developing themes in a closing argument.  He didn't have to say "gloves."  Everyone knew what he was referring to.  And he applied that theme to every part of the case, not just the gloves.  In a way, the fact that Mr. Cochran is universally misquoted is the best evidence that the theme worked.

Comments

[anon]

Comment, in response to the original post by Lubet, on 1/21:

"If it's such a great line, why mangle it?

'If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.'

Moreover, you've mangled it trying to make 'gloves' grammatical, which misses the entire point. Johnny used this phrase repeatedly to test the validity of evidence, not just the gloves."

That comment included a link to show the true author of the line. Later, someone chimed in to "comment" on that same point.

It is incredible the lengths to which Lubet and others on this blog will go to marginalize anonymity in comments. "I won't respond" is the common refrain; but posting the same comment, now adopted elsewhere, as if it is something new and noteworthy really does deserve a certain sort of praise for consistency, which, one supposes is a form of "integrity" however misguided and pernicious.

It is just another indication of how a mind set, prejudice and a false sense of superiority based on bogus criteria distorts reality for so many these days.