Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey, everybody, it's Lacey.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren, and we're here for.
[00:00:09] Speaker A: Another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: So today we are going to talk about O.J. simpson, and we're going to talk about it from a little bit different perspective than just the legal side of it, but because we are law moms and how women are treated differently in a lot of fields, but especially in male dominated fields like the legal world. So how the prosecutor in that case, Marcia Clark, was just treated differently than all the other people as part of the case. So we're kind of going to dig into that a little more, but Lacey's going to start us off with the question she actually has received.
[00:00:43] Speaker A: Yep. So this is actually a question for myself.
So unfortunately, my grandfather on my mom's side is passing away.
They did not as my mom and my aunt, and they did not notify my uncle of his illness.
I assume he'll find out when he passes. But my question, Lauren, is are they legally obligated to tell a sibling if a parent passes what information legally are they required to disclose or not disclose? I guess is my my question.
[00:01:22] Speaker B: So in South Carolina, if you're listed in the will, obviously, like, everybody that's listed in the will has to be told about the death, given a copy of the will, told that probate's being open, and that type stuff. But what a lot of people don't realize is even if you're writing out a child from the will, they still have to be informed or if there is no will.
So in a situation, if there was no will, all children have to be informed by the probate court. And actually all children have to be given right to decide who to be executor, and that type stuff. But say there is a will, this child was specifically written out, they still have to be given notice, have to know that the will is on file, be able to review the will. So that way, if they believe this will was done, you know, improperly, such as, you know, under undue influence, didn't have capacity or is just a fake will, they can contest that with the court. So legally, even though you may write your child out and think your other kids, and I'm not saying that's in your situation, but this is usually what a lot of times people question, like, well, they're written out of the will. Why do I have to tell them? Or the will doesn't list them. Because if you are an intestate heir, which means if there was no will, you would have inherited. So that would be like children or possibly grandchildren, if a child has died, or spouse or whoever's list is intestate heirs has to be informed, so they have the right to contest it if they don't think the will was valid. So in this situation, legally, do they have to tell, you know, your uncle that your grandpa is passing away? I think that's more just, you know, a moral ambiguity kind of area there, like right, the right thing to do or not. But once he passes away, they do have to notify him with that information through the probate court.
[00:03:12] Speaker A: Now, that's just South Carolina law.
[00:03:13] Speaker B: Right.
[00:03:14] Speaker A: Because my family is out of state.
[00:03:15] Speaker B: That is South Carolina law. But most states follow what's known as the Uniform Probate code.
So typically that's probate in most states can be a little different. But notifying the intestate heirs, which most states follow the same laws of intestacy we do, has to be done. So I would imagine probably in Ohio, it is the exact. Maybe the paperwork's a little different, but he's still going to need to be notified.
[00:03:42] Speaker A: Now, who has the duty? My last question, sorry. To notify. Would it be the attorney that drafted the will that read it, or is it the personal representative?
[00:03:50] Speaker B: It would be the personal representative, which, if the wheel lists one, you know, it's that person. If there's no will, they have to go in front of usually a judge to get appointed, and that person would have to notify.
[00:04:03] Speaker A: Interesting.
I didn't know any of this. I was curious. You know, we view these things morality, but it's. It's good to know that there's legal grounds for a lot of this as well. So thank you, Lauren. I appreciate it.
[00:04:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't think Lacey's dealt with this since we took Will Trust in estates and back in like 2011. So.
[00:04:24] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, some. So moving forward with our topic today, this is Lauren's true crime baby. This is the case that I think she said got her really into true crime. And I think this is the final episode of our pop culture series that we've done right.
[00:04:44] Speaker B: Yeah, I think this kind of wraps up not saying we won't venture back into this, you know, as things change in pop culture. But for right now, this is kind of our wrap up of pop culture. And we got some good things coming up that we'll be sharing on our Instagram and pages to get you excited. But yes, OJ Is probably one of my favorite cases out there.
I think it is because it doesn't deal with children like Those cases, yeah, they just hurt me.
[00:05:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:05:15] Speaker B: This one is all adults. But also, it's because this case, I think, changed the way the media. I was, like, five or six years old when all this is going down. And I truly remember it from my grandmother and my aunt being, like, really into it and watching, like, the news all the time. But I think O.J. and the DNA aspect of this, like, I'm a science major. I love science stuff. And so, like, the DNA not coming in in this case and that type stuff has really, like, all of it just combined. But, like, this case is the first time, you know, we're seeing such media coverage of a case. Like, literally, people were sitting around the world watching a Bronco go down the highway. Like, this just changed our media. Like, for instance, a lot of news. A lot of attorneys became news anchors during this, or specialists, because this is when they brought on a lot of, like, attorney correspondence to understand what was happening in the case. Because all of America is invested, because OJ Was like a golden boy. Like, people loved him. He was. He did acting, he did commercials. He was, you know, famous football player. And then his story, like, people were captivated by him. And he was, from when it seems, very charismatic. And I think he kind of crossed a racial divide in that time when things were racially unrest because he associated with white people, black people. Like, he did not.
He was just. Everybody loved him. And I think his case just set the precedent for how we deal with cases now. Look at how much media coverage we get on a case now. And I think O.J. really started that.
[00:07:03] Speaker A: Yeah. When you were just talking, it made me think of the Murdoch case, because I know some attorneys that went down there during the trial, and they were put on Court TV or different news stations, like you said, as pretty much anchors. And would we have that without O.J. i don't know, but I know Dane Phillips was down there. I. I think Lori Murray went down there. So I have some attorney friends that were asked to come down and speak on it. John Mobley was one that was on Court tv, another friend of mine. So, yeah, even with the Murdoch trial, you see a lot of resemblance to the O.J. case and how it was covered with the media.
[00:07:42] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think he kind of. And I think that's where kind of like. I mean, I think with the O.J. case, we all know, like, he had a dream team of criminal defense attorneys. I mean, like, yeah, Johnny Cochran was, like, the best of the best out there. I mean, if it doesn't fit, you Must equip. We all know that line like that is how big, like, what other case do you know a closing argument from for the most part, besides, like, watching To Kill a Mockingbird and hearing him and his arguments like that.
[00:08:12] Speaker A: Right.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: Sensationalized cases that we all know stuff from. And I think the role of the media in this also really impacted Marcia Clark as the prosecutor, because she was going into this where I feel she. She was an assistant prosecutor. She was not the head prosecutor, which means she was not the elected official. And I think in California, they call them district attorneys. We call them here in South Carolina solicitors.
[00:08:40] Speaker A: But.
[00:08:41] Speaker B: So she was an assistant. She wasn't the elected person. She wasn't even making a lot of the big decisions. She was being told what to do. Yet she was scrutinized constantly for every decision in the media. So, for example, I think the first one that comes in is where the case was held. A lot of people blame her for them moving the case from Brentwood, where O.J. was, and, you know, more of the more white area, to a more urban area. And I think a lot of times they are blaming Maria Clark for that. And that wasn't even her decision. That was the district Prosecutor's decision, the DA's decision, the elected position to do that. A lot of the things that they blame the case for being lost, they blame on her, even though she had nothing to do with it then. I think the biggest thing is how they portrayed her in the media and also how the judge even portrayed her based on her physical appearance. Have you ever seen a judge comment on an attorney's clothing choice in the courtroom? Unless they were, like, dressing like sweatpants or so I would get that, but.
[00:09:44] Speaker A: So I haven't. But I have heard stories. So I used to clerk for Jennifer Purdy and Vanessa Overbay, and they were both pregnant at the same time, and it was summer, and they couldn't fit in their shoes and they had to wear flip flops to court. So it's the only thing that fit. So they were dressed very nicely. They had on the flip flops, and the judge called them out for that, and they were literally, like, about to burst. Story number two, Amy Lawrence with the lovely law firm in Myrtle Beach. She had just given birth and she had a C section, and she was in pain. And one of the. I can't remember what judge it was, but they were. Even though she had an order of protection from court, they were demanding that she be there. And she was so emotional. The Amy today would not have gone they would. She would just said, shove it. But then I think just dealing with the emotions, she's like, oh, my God, I gotta go. I'm gonna get in trouble. So she put on.
[00:10:39] Speaker B: Tells you to do something, you get scared. Like, they have a lot of power.
[00:10:43] Speaker A: Yep. And she put on, like the only pants she could find, threw something together that she could, that she could wear that was comfortable. And she got there and the judge criticized what she war took what that day.
And I can't remember how that ended. So, yeah, I. I haven't seen it. I haven't personally witnessed it, but I have heard stories of some very close friends that have endured that.
[00:11:09] Speaker B: Unfortunately, I will say, in my whole time clerking, the judge I worked for did not make any comments on, you know, people's appearances. For the moment. He would tell, like, so he didn't make the comments. But if jurors showed up in pajamas, they were not allowed in the courtroom. And I think that was completely fair. Like put on some blue jeans or something. The only comment he made about an appearance was, one man did show up wearing a Christmas tie in July, but that was not a meme that he just was right. Is that all you had in your closet? But I do think as women, we are scrutinized more on our appearances. Is that like. So in the case of Marsha Clark, the issue was Judge Ito told her her dress was too short.
And I'm like, what is that? I guess he thought she was trying to be like, sexy for the jury to try to get them on her side. When you go in the pictures, her dress, I mean, she just had on the fashion of the time. The suit jackets were long.
[00:12:05] Speaker A: Right.
[00:12:05] Speaker B: Skirts were a little bit shorter. This is the early to mid-90s. But he didn't comment on any of the men's appearances. And knowing that she's probably in a suit from Dress Barn or something, and those men who are worth millionaires are in the most nice suits with the nicest shoes and didn't comment on anything about their appearance, but hers was told about her dressing. And I feel like that was really played in the media too. Like, oh, she's trying to dress provocative. And then during the course of those, she's completely covered.
[00:12:34] Speaker A: She's completely covered. Not provocative at all.
[00:12:37] Speaker B: Okay. You know, if a woman came into court with, you know, a very low cut blouse, I could see saying, you know, that's not appropriate for the courtroom because you don't want a juror to be like, oh, that's not our judge. Either way, because you're gonna have some prudes on the jury, you're gonna have some people that like it. But no, in any sense, she was in a suit, she was in the normal court attire, same as her males. And this is the stuff she wore all the time. And yet she was scrutinized about her. And when you're in a trial, as an attorney, you shouldn't be having to worry about, oh, my gosh, is a judge going to call me out for what I'm wearing when I'm wearing the same clothes that I always wear that are completely court appropriate? Right.
[00:13:19] Speaker A: I think that's important to note too. Like, have I seen people come in?
Not so much attorneys. I mean, I have, but not significantly, but I have seen people come to court. And one was a victim in one of my cases. And it was just, it was a dress that would have been so cute at girls night, ready to go to the club after a couple drinks. Like, she, she looked great for that. But to be taken in, in court, seriously, I don't think the judge took her very seriously when she was talking because of her attire. So I think when talking about being court appropriate, you have to take into consideration how you're going to be appeared, are heard with, you know, credibility and stuff. And I do think if you're not dressed appropriately, you're not going to have the credibility as an attorney, as a victim, as a judge. So I think those are things that, you know, you're. If you have a court, you know, think about that, what are you displaying? But I don't think it should have been up to the judge to say that if she had been dressed inappropriately, then that perception is going to come from the jury, that's going to come from, you know, the judges. It's not your job to comment on it, though. Just we all need to know how when we walk into court, we are going to be judged on our appearance, but it's by everybody else. You don't have to say anything.
[00:14:40] Speaker B: I will say I have noticed, like in the Postco Air, people are a little bit more relaxed with stuff when they go to like Zoom Court or something. And I still think even if you're on Zoom Court, you need to follow the formalities of how you address in a courtroom, at least from here up right shorts or whatever. But no, as far as I think you're right, like, we constantly have to tell our clients how to dress on the stand, and it's not about our judgment in them. But if you're In a case, and you come in there and you don't look like you're taking it seriously. Like you are in like sweatpants or something. Why would the jury take you seriously? But in this case, she was in a skirt suit, which I will tell you, starting law school, we went to a seminar, and this was back in probably 2010, that women were not supposed to wear pants suits to court. We only were supposed to wear skirt suits. And with tight. Not tights, but pantyhose or tights or those type things. So now I don't think I hardly ever wear a skirt suit. I wear a dress sometimes, but not a skirt suit. But in that time, she was dressing what women were told they were supposed to wear in decor. You needed a skirt suit and you needed to wear the pantyhose and the high heels.
[00:15:52] Speaker A: I went to a different law school my first year, Lauren, and we were told the same thing. I remember my legal writing argument that we had to do our oral arguments or whatever it was. And I was in a skirt suit and every woman was in a skirt suit. We were told, pantyhose, skirt suit, have to have heels and you can't wear your hair down. And we were also told that we had to pull our hair back.
[00:16:19] Speaker B: Yeah, it's pretty. And so a lot has changed in that most of us wear pants or whatever we want to wear now. But in that speaking of hair, during her trial, she also changed her hair appearance. And that got commented on the media. Like, what does it matter how she wears her hair? I mean, I think if they would have focused on the real issues of the case instead. Like, I feel like she is blamed for that case being lost. And it has nothing to do with the arguments made in the case. It has nothing to do with the case they put on. It is clearly because of how she dressed, her hair changing. She smoked. People didn't like that she was a woman smoke. And they blame her for all the missteps in the trial, even though a lot of those were not her decisions. She was on a team. It was her and other attorneys. She was not just the only attorney on this case. If you watch the documentary. Well, it's a series. It came on FX. The OJ one with it has, I think, Cuba Gooding Jr. Who's who plays OJ it's a really great documentary. Well, not documentary series that shows you this. But she didn't make all the crucial decisions. She did not, from my understanding. She didn't make the final decision on him putting on the glove Which I think we all admit that probably lost the case and I think common sense would have told us not to, but she didn't make those big decisions. She also. But she's the one that is going to go down. I think things have changed for her. And I think, you know, realistically, you know, people are seeing now how bad, you know, it took 30 years, but people are seeing how bad she was treated in the media and she was completely blamed when a lot of it. And I do want to speak to the DNA evidence in this because at this point, DNA hadn't been used much in the criminal world here in the us, but DNA actually using DNA evidence and trial had been around since the 1980s in the UK, but here in the US, which we think we're so above and beyond everything, we weren't used to that. But that wasn't her fault either that the DNA didn't come in. There's nothing you can do about that. When a judge doesn't understand DNA or he just doesn't care. I feel like in this case from the get go, because of OJ's fame and who he was, there was never going to be a fair trial.
[00:18:41] Speaker A: Right, right.
I mean, I do think there could have been circumstances with a fair trial, but, yeah, I do think it would. It definitely made it harder, you know, and there I've got to give some points to the, the defense side and what they did to win this case. You know, I do think they, I mean, clearly they got a not guilty verdict, they did a good job defending, you know, their client.
But, you know, I do think this is a case where I think we all do, we know the jury got it wrong.
I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind at this day and age that he did commit that crime.
[00:19:22] Speaker B: Well, and then I think another interesting point with this case is it shows the overlap with the civil world because in his situation after his trial and he was found not guilty in the criminal world, the families of the victims did sue him in the civil world and he was found guilty in that. And he was supposed to pay restitution and damages to these families. There's some laws, and I haven't really done a lot of research in this, but these families haven't hardly seen a dime of his money because there's all these laws in South Carolina that protect wages and his income is mostly earned from wages because of him being an NFL star. So the victims really have seen hardly no money in this situation. And then this ties into the estate side of things. So this is why, this is the case that keeps on giving here. Because with OJ's passing, his estate is actually being administered in Lost Nevada, because he died, I think, as a resident of Nevada, but because he had all these judgments against him for these civil side things. And also that's not double jeopardy, because with a case like you can't be tried in a criminal case twice where a jury has actually rendered a verdict. Now if they're hung, you can do a retrial. If you go on the. No matter if the jury rendered a verdict, the civil side is completely different because it's not the prosecution going after you. It's not jail time, it's money, it's damages, it's the victims. So it's two completely separate trials, no double jeopardy. But he had all these judgments against him. So he bought some real estate and put it in an llc, but didn't make himself the owner of the llc, he made his son the owner of the llc, even though he paid for all this real estate. From what I'm reading in like the news and pleadings and all, he paid for all of this real estate, but because he did not want his victims families to get this. So this tells you the caliber person, right? Which I know there are plenty of people that do stuff to avoid creditors, but. So he put all this in his son's name. So the LLC is technically owned by one of his sons. And he has multiple children. I believe he has three or four total. I know he had two with his wife that, well, ex wife at the time, and I think he had one or two prior. So there's multiple children involved in this. So there's multiple heirs of the estate. But right now the personal representative of the estate, or the executor, whatever you want to call it, is trying to pull in this LLC with the real estate in it in Nevada, because they're saying I was really OJ's because he paid for it. But I will tell you here in South Carolina, the argument to me is going to be it doesn't matter who paid for it. It was a gift. His name's on the deed, it's his. So there's a lot of bickering back and forth in his estate case right now about who owns part of the property, but he did this all to avoid creditors from where he was found guilty in a civil case. And it's still going to this day. So 30 year.
Yeah, close to. Yeah, 30 years.
[00:22:28] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:29] Speaker B: About three decades happen. We are still Seeing the impacts of this case now with his estate litigation. So I just feel like. I think that's why, like this case, I think really changed the media and changed the way when I make it not that women weren't scrutinized before. I think we saw this on such a big picture because the media was so involved stuff that normally, yeah, the judge probably would have been a jerk and told her stuff, but that wouldn't have been out there everywhere. And the media commenting on her appearance just really changed everything with this case. And this case was one now that, you know, 30 years later, we're still seeing the impacts of it in his estate litigation.
[00:23:11] Speaker A: Yeah. And two points to add to that information.
With the criminal case and civil case, I think it's important to point out that the burden is different. The highest burden of proof that party has is the state. In a criminal case, they have to prove someone guilty, be beyond a reasonable doubt to win. In a civil case, the burden is much lower. It is the preponderance of the evidence. So it's basically a balancing scale. If you find that one party is just 51% at fault, you can find them at fault in that case. So the burden was much higher in the criminal case than the civil case, which, you know, could explain as well why he was found not guilty when you had that higher burden of proof in criminal court, but pretty much guilty or at fault in the civil world because it was a much lower burden that the family had to prove his responsibility.
[00:24:08] Speaker B: Well, and the thing with the civil cases, you can damages is really how, like if you do find them guilty but don't think they were, I guess in the criminal world, you either go like you're either guilty or not. And in the civil world, yes, you are guilty or not. But they really can play with the money figures to how much much Kind of how I talk about in the Johnny Depp case, the civil case is where we get that money side of things. That really is what impacts more than the guilty versus not we're in criminal. It's kind of an all or nothing thing.
[00:24:39] Speaker A: Yeah. And just to kind of tie all this up together, I do believe, Lauren, that we are better than we were 30 years ago, but we're still not there completely. I had. It was a bond hearing one time in court, and I clearly wore a dress that day.
My dresses are usually right at my knee or right above it. But in this case, to get my client bond, I had mitigation, I had set up counseling, I had set up rehab facilities. I had the family there to show that they would make it to court. Like, I had done all these things in preparation to make the judge feel comfortable setting a reasonable bond for my client. And I'd work really hard on that. And it's things I do normally because when I represent my clients, I want them to get the help that they need too. It's not just for bond, but I want them to seek help that they need. So it's twofold. Right. So I put all this together because that's the attorney that I am. I present it to the judge and the judge agrees to lower the bond and grants my motion.
And I was walking away from the bench and a male defense attorney looked at me and he goes, well, I guess next time I just need to wear a skirt to win.
[00:25:57] Speaker B: Oh, my gosh.
[00:25:58] Speaker A: So, no, that's still not where we need to be.
[00:26:02] Speaker B: No, that's ridiculous. Because I don't think. I think in judges in today's time, I don't think that would really impact their decision on if you came in there looking like you're going to the club or like you're going to church. Like, I think they are above for the most part, not all of them, but I think for the most part they're gonna look at the facts to determine. And you're not. You'd already. You obviously had done your work, put.
[00:26:27] Speaker A: It together, had nothing to do with what I wore. Yeah, yeah. He just needs to do his job better.
[00:26:34] Speaker B: Right?
[00:26:35] Speaker A: That's nothing. My parents.
[00:26:37] Speaker B: That is disgusting that a male attorney was. But I will say in this field, and I know in a lot of fields, like medical fields, accounting, all those things, y'all are all dealing with the same stuff as still a male dominated field. Right. And it's getting better, but we still want it to be better for everybody.
[00:26:54] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. So I think that wraps up what we wanted to talk to you about in this case. But we're getting better, but we're still not there. And. And we still have, you know, mountain to climb in this male dominated world. And Lauren, I think me and you are killing it though.
[00:27:14] Speaker B: Luckily I don't have to go to court much. And I'll be honest, in my law office, if you come in here on a Friday, you're going to find me in jeans and a sweatshirt or T shirt and I don't care because I'm my own business. And yep, it is what it is. Judge me all you want.
[00:27:27] Speaker A: I have a cold today and I am in leggings and oversized sweater and boots, but I promise you, it is not going to affect how my brain attacks a case.
[00:27:40] Speaker B: But I think so. We are wrapping this series up. We're gonna be posting some information about our new series coming up, but we, as always, DM us. Let us know what you want to hear. And if you enjoy our podcast, please share it on your social media pages so more people can learn about us and enjoy it with you.
[00:27:58] Speaker A: Yep. All right, I'll see you next week. Bye, Lauren.
[00:28:01] Speaker B: Bye.
