The Law School
Willie J. Epps Jr., president of the student government at Harvard Law School, says most law students dislike the attention the media has given to the case. But the same students also enjoy seeing their profession "in the spotlight."
"In general, I think on one level most of the law students are fairly turned off by lots of the media hype," Epps says. But, he adds, "Law students are excited that for the first time the American public is going to watch a trial from start to finish."
First-year law students will not only watch it; they'll act it out. Epps says that because the case raises many legal issues, this fall's first-year course on lawyering concentrates on a trial similar to the Simpson case. In fact, one piece of required reading was the book Juice, a biography of Simpson.
"It shows you how it has pretty much saturated the American lifestyle," Epps says.
"Juice wasn't a serious book," he adds.
This year, the course is being taught by visiting Professor of Law from Practice Peter L. Murray '65-'64 and Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson '60. Efforts to reach the two instructors were unsuccessful.
At least one other member of the Law School community has an important stake in the case. In July, Simpson hired Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz as a consultant to the defense team to evaluate constitutional issues in the event of an appeal.
Dershowitz declined a request to discuss his role in the case.
But Mary Prosser, a clinical instructor at the Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, says that whatever role Dershowitz plays, his involvement may stimulate interest in the case on campus.
"It may make certain folks pay closer attention and have either a local hero or not," Prosser says.
Epps, however, says Dershowitz's involvement in the case has not had a significant effect on Law School students.
"Professor Dershowitz has lots of commitments and has been hired by lots of famous people," Epps says.
Prosser is supportive of Dershowitz and all of Simpson's attorneys. So far, she says, the defense has litigated pretrial matters appropriately.
"If you're going to challenge the evidence, you're going to do that ahead of time through motions to suppress and hearings where witnesses testify about how evidence was seized," Prosser says. "They're doing what they should be doing on behalf of their clients, but that doesn't mean that's going to be their full defense."