Judge Jackie Glass told prospective jurors Monday in Las Vegas, "If you are here to think that you're going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles back in '95, this is not the case for you."
Somewhere in the courtroom, the prosecutors were snickering.
Thirteen years after O.J. Simpson's acquittal on two counts of murder, the former Heisman Trophy winner faces the prospect of life in prison before an all-white jury.
The media surmised back in 1995 that Simpson avoided life in prison because he faced a mostly black jury.
Given the same logic, I think we've seen the last of O.J. Simpson playing on a golf course in Miami.
I know what you are thinking. We have a black man seriously challenging for the presidency, so racism isn't that big of an issue in 2008 America.
Not only is Simpson going to face an inherently racially biased jury, but he also goes into the trial with a slightly higher profile than the average criminal.
As much as potential jurors may pretend to act like they don't remember or weren't interested in the Simpson trial back in the mid-1990s, they are only kidding themselves.
The case dominated both print and broadcast media, not to mention countless watercooler conversations.
As unavoidable as media bombardment is in 2008, 1995 managed to elevate the Simpson trial to a cultural phenomenon before the Internet became a major news source.
Who can forget the white Ford Bronco? Everyone knows about the bloody glove and Johnnie Cochran's if-the-glove-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit defense.
Some may call it karma; others may call it justice. The fact that O.J. Simpson faces an all-white jury stacks the chips in the prosecutors' favor - Vegas pun certainly intended.
Whether Simpson got away with murder should not matter in his latest case. Unfortunately, creating an unbiased environment where jurors have had no thoughts regarding what may have happened in 1994 is unattainable.
Don't let me confuse you into thinking that I attended the University of Southern California as an undergrad or that I root for the Buffalo Bills. I don't write as a Simpson sympathizer so much as a staunch critic of the current judicial system where a man can't have at least one true peer decide his fate.
I can only imagine the uproar of the media if someone like Terry Bradshaw faced life in prison before an all-black jury.
The case probably would have been settled out of court.
We may live in a society that touts Sen. Barack Obama as a sign that racism has been mostly curtailed, but in reality, skeletons still occupy space in our closets.
Do the Jena Six ring a bell? How about Hurricane Katrina?
For all I know, Simpson may be undeniably guilty, offsetting the relevance of the jury's racial makeup. Unfortunately, Simpson and his case represent a microcosm of every minority forced to deal with the social inequities that continue to exist in a culture so quick to turn a blind eye. A black man deserves to have every advantage that is granted to his white counterpart.
Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?
To soften the blow of a baseless guilty verdict, the jury's foreman could always console Simpson with the fact that Southern Cal is No. 1 and his Bills face a Tom Brady-free AFC East.
Hardly a fair trade-off, if you ask me.
Daniel Seco is a first-year journalism graduate student.
