Although the frantic pace of the College never seems to slow down -- not even for national holidays or blizzards -- life came to virtual standstill yesterday afternoon at 1, when the Dartmouth community sat glued to their televisions with a common purpose -- to watch the verdict of the O.J. Simpson trial.
Students skipped class, administrators scurried to find the trial on television and one physics professor even delayed his lecture so he could show his class the verdict on the room's big screen.
Indeed, the College was infected with "O.J. Fever."
As Judge Lance Ito instructed the jury forewoman to read the verdict, the anxious crowd of almost 300 people who had packed into Collis Common Ground to discover Simpson's fate grew completely silent and shifted to the edges of their seats.
Once the jury made its announcement of Simpson's innocence, thus ending perhaps the most sensational murder trial in U.S. history, the crowd erupted with a mixture of relief and outrage.
When the news had finally sunk in, opinions across campus about the verdict ranged from complete surprise to utter disgust.
Provost Lee Bollinger, former dean of the University of Michigan Law School, said he found Simpson's acquittal "deeply puzzling."
"As an average reader of the press and viewer of television, I did not see reasonable doubt," Bollinger said.
However, one person who was not surprised by yesterday's verdict was College President James Freedman.
Freedman, who is the former dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said when a jury finishes its deliberations quickly, it usually points to an acquittal. The jury reached a verdict in less than four hours on their first day of deliberations.
"My guess is that an overwhelming number of the jurors favored acquittal and that one or two jurors weren't so sure because of the testimony of the limousine driver," Freedman said.
The jury on Monday asked the court to re-read the testimony of Allan Park, Simpson's limousine driver. Prosecutors had called Park's testimony one of the centerpieces of their case.
Freedman said the verdict was probably a surprise to most people, since many legal experts had indicated the re-reading of Park's testimony might point to a guilty verdict.
"The jury heard [Park's testimony] one more time, but it obviously did not dislodge their reasonable doubt," Freedman said.
Physics Professor John Kidder delayed the beginning of his 1:00 x-hour class yesterday so his class could watch the verdict on the television in his classroom.
Kidder said he was "totally disgusted" with the verdict. "To me, [Simpson] is very guilty," he said.
"That day when he was on the run ... and his friend read a letter [Simpson] wrote which was interpreted as almost a suicide note," Kidder said, "now why would he have written that when he was innocent?"
Amanda Nelson '98 said she was surprised by the verdict because there seemed to be "so much evidence stacked against [Simpson] and it took so little time" for the jury to reach a verdict.
Some people said they personally believe Simpson is guilty, but felt the police's poor handling of the case may have led to his acquittal.
Government Professor Gordon Silverstein said the lasting legacy of the Simpson trial will probably be its impact on the police department.
"There's a large portion of the population that simply doesn't trust the police anymore," said Silverstein, who teaches on the Supreme Court and constitutional development.
The uncovering of tapes that quoted former Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman making numerous racial slurs touched off public outrage at police across the nation and triggered an internal investigation in the L.A.P.D.
Earlier in the trial, Fuhrman had sworn under oath that he had not uttered any racial epithets in the past 10 years. The existence of the tapes was seen as very damaging to the prosecution's case.
Legal experts also cited the sloppy handling of evidence by Los Angeles police and criminologists as one of the major weaknesses of the prosecution's case.
Many students thought Simpson received preferential treatment by the jury because of his public popularity.
"It's obvious that had it not been O.J. Simpson, I think it would have been a completely different verdict," Colin Bills '98 said.
Others said the verdict was largely a product of Simpson's so-called "Dream Team" of lawyers.
"He got the best defense money could buy," Stuart Davidson '98 said. "He had an excellent defense team, and I think the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Davidson added he felt the lack of a murder weapon seriously damaged the prosecution's case.
Many experts say the presence of a camera in the courtroom led to lawyers posturing for the audiences.
Bollinger said over the past few decades there has been a "loosening of the decorum" in courtrooms, brought about in large part by the media.
"My own view is that all of this has gone way too far," Bollinger said.
While most people found yesterday's verdict questionable, Simpson did have a few supporters in the College community.
"I was hoping he'd be found not guilty," Alison Hodges '97 said, adding she was pleasantly surprised by the verdict.
Another Simpson supporter, Jeff Loeb '99, simply said with a grin, "I knew he was innocent all along."
