And so, the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson ended in acquitt al. The similarities run deeper than the public nature of the proceedings, the tactics of the defense, or even the use of DNA evidence. The real link is how the cases were resolved. Despite clear evidence, those who decided the fate of the accused in both trials ruled not based upon what the law demands, but rather in order to reach a desired outcome. In other words, the O.J. jury and the Congress found the respective accused not guilty by means of jury nullification.
Jury nullification occurs when a deliberative body decides to acquit the accused in spite of guilt.
President Clinton's impeachment, like the trial of O.J. before him, concluded with little serious question of guilt. While the President's lawyers proffered strained legal arguments that he did not actually commit perjury and obstruction of justice per se, most of Clinton's defenders in Congress conceded some degree of guilt, and argued instead about how he should be punished. Given this constitutional imperative, the Senate's previous findings that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors, the findings of the House of Representatives that the President's alleged crimes do constitute impeachable offenses, and the evidence that the President did in fact commit perjury and obstruct justice, it is difficult to reach a conclusion other than removal. This is also the President whose reckless handling of the Lewinsky investigation created a campaign issue that neither Republicans nor Democrats wanted to touch. There are a number of possible reasons for Congress giving Clinton a pass, but the simplest is because they could .