Closing argument — Marcia Clark (part 1) — September 29, 1995 (Day 164)

📄 Closing argument — Marcia Clark (part 1) — Friday, September 29, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\29\CLOSING-ARGUMENT-MARCIA-CLARK-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 164 of 167

◀ Closing argument — Christopher Darden Jury instructions and argument conduct ▶

Closing argument — Marcia Clark (part 1)

Date: Friday, September 29, 1995 • Utterances: 14

Marcia Clark opens her closing argument by attacking the defense's theory that Mark Fuhrman planted the bloody glove found at Rockingham, calling it a story with 'no substance' and 'no logic.' She then pivots to a lengthy personal statement about her integrity as a prosecutor, which triggers a series of objections from Cochran and Scheck for improper vouching — ultimately causing Judge Ito to clear the jury from the courtroom.

# 1 MS. CLARK:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 2 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

# 3 MS. CLARK:

Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

How are you? I'm not allowed to ask you that, I just realized that. Excuse me. I know you are tired of hearing us talk. I'm going to get right into the evidence because I want to go through what they said. I want to show you how the evidence corrects that and I want to talk to you about logic. I want to talk to you about what makes sense, okay, because you have heard a lot of things that really make no sense. You have been here. Lawyers spin stories and spin yarns, too, with no evidence to it. Not only no evidence, but no logic, and in that specifically I'm talking about this story about Mark Fuhrman swiping the bloody glove inside the Bronco. That is a story. That is an interesting story, but it has no substance. Not only does it have no proof to it, but it also has no logic to it, and I will show you why and that is what I want to talk to you about now; logic, what makes sense.

In this case we have seen what the Defendant has done and it has been a very contorted, inconsistent thing. I'm going to point out the inconsistencies to you, but basically they have jumped from we are stupid bumblers and we are brilliant conspirators, and he includes us in this. And I find that particularly painful, ladies and gentlemen, particularly painful, because I have been doing this a lot of years. I didn't start here, I started on that side of counsel table. I was a Defense attorney and I know what the ethical obligations are of a Prosecutor. I took a cut in pay to join this office because I believe in this job. I believe in doing it fairly and doing it right and I like the luxury of being a Prosecutor because I have the luxury on any case of going to the judge and saying guess what, your Honor, dismiss it, it is not here. Ladies and gentlemen, I can come to you and I can say don't convict, it is not here.

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

Your Honor, I object. This is irrelevant.

# 6 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

I have that right. I have that luxury. This job gives me that luxury. It doesn't give me a lot of money, but it gives me that luxury. I can get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror and say I tell you the truth. I will never ask for a conviction unless I should, unless the law says I must, unless he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on credible evidence that you can trust, that you can rely on. I can never do it otherwise. That is my obligation.

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

Objection, your. Honor, this is improper.

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

Improper.

# 10 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 11 MS. CLARK:

And that is why I'm standing here before you today, because we have proven it to you, ladies and gentlemen. If I thought for one minute there was a conspiracy--

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

Object, your Honor. This is improper.

# 13 MR. SCHECK:

Improper vouching.

# 14 THE COURT:

Be seated. Ladies and gentlemen, would you have a seat in the jury room, please.

Temperature

emotional

Key Quotes (3)

Marcia Clark

That is a story. That is an interesting story, but it has no substance. Not only does it have no proof to it, but it also has no logic to it.

Clark's opening salvo against the Fuhrman plant theory — framing the entire defense narrative as fiction rather than evidence.

Marcia Clark

I can get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror and say I tell you the truth. I will never ask for a conviction unless I should, unless the law says I must, unless he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on credible evidence that you can trust.

The personal vouching passage that triggered sustained objections and ultimately got the jury removed — a significant tactical misstep that ended the opening minutes.

Marcia Clark

I took a cut in pay to join this office because I believe in this job. I believe in doing it fairly and doing it right.

Clark attempting to counter the defense's 'corrupt prosecution' narrative by establishing personal credibility — the very argument the court would not allow.

Evidence (1)

Informal

The bloody glove allegedly swiped by Fuhrman from inside the Bronco and planted at Rockingham

discussed and challenged — Clark dismisses the defense theory as unsupported story

Notable Exchanges (1)

Johnnie Cochran•Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Cochran and Scheck mount three successive objections as Clark's personal vouching escalates. The first two are overruled, but the third — with Scheck specifically naming 'improper vouching' — prompts Ito to clear the jury entirely before ruling.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Marcia Clark

Clark greets the jury with 'How are you?' then immediately catches herself: 'I'm not allowed to ask you that, I just realized that. Excuse me.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Defense narrative (Fuhrman plant theory)

logical deconstruction

Clark argues the Fuhrman glove-swipe theory fails on both evidentiary and logical grounds, framing it as a 'story' without substance — previewing the argument she will develop further.

Objections

3 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 7881 • 14 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103