It is clear that Johnnie Cochran has many admirable qualities ("For the Defense," by Michael J. Goodman, Jan. 29). He's intelligent, dedicated, hard-working, religious and a family man. He'd probably have been a success in any field. Unfortunately, however, he chose to become a defense attorney and thus represents many guilty individuals.
Also, he has opened an office composed 100% of minorities. (What would his reaction be to an office that was 100% white?) And he has chosen to fan the flames of racism in a city that's trying its best to recover from the ugliest racial riots in American history.
Finally, he has spearheaded an attempt to ruin the reputation of police officer Mark Fuhrman in an effort to gain his celebrity client acquittal on technical grounds.
The Los Angeles Police Department has had to field altogether too many unwarranted accusations. By now there should be a cry of outrage from all corners of the city, chastising Cochran and praising our peace officers.
Michael L. Salter
It appears that it's not important whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. What seems to matter is that the defense lawyer wears $2,000 suits, has a great gift of gab and doesn't care what his client has done--only that he wins. The truth be damned! They ought to put the attorneys on the stand under oath. That would trim our crowded court calendars.
Cochran conjures up such wild theories to cloud the evidence that I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously. To me, he seems to be an ego-driven con artist who himself may be guilty of wife abuse, but that apparently is unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
Nowadays, all a defense attorney needs to do, it seems, is throw up smoke screens, impugn the integrity of prosecution witnesses and, of course, throw God into the mix. Equal justice for all--yeah, right! But what about Nicole and Ron?
How ironic! Two great covers in a row. Last week, "The Sliming of Big Bird." This week, Johnnie Cochran and the sliming of criminal justice.
Roy A. Berry
Your headline asks: "Why Did Johnnie Cochran Pray Before He Took On the O.J. Simpson Case?" The answer should be obvious, and he surely must have said: "Lord, forgive me for what I am about to do."
Susie B. Fisk
After reading the article about Cochran, I now understand the cavalier stand of the defense team on spousal abuse.
What a chilling statement: "The appearance of being innocent is far more important than being innocent." Is this trial designed to groom someone for an Emmy nomination in the Best Actor category?
Cochran has made a lot of money, but is he proud that he got Todd Bridges out of jail? In the Tupac Shakur case, does he take pride in having tried to get a convicted murderer out on parole? And does it help his self-esteem that when he can't come up with anything more substantial, he sees nothing wrong with fanning the flames of racism?