I think that things are so blatant now that it is easy to believe that a prosecutor would bring such a ridiculous statement before the highest court in the land and to be honest about it I would not be surprised if the court bought into his argument. This so called O.J. Result is not new, Whites have been using it for years to get the trial result it wants. How many times have we seen cops who get away with wrong doing because the powers that be moved the trial to the white side of town to get a not guilty verdict? As far as The O.J. Jury, If I was on that jury and the so called nurse who drew the blood from O.J. all of a sudden after thirty years in the field "mistakenly" drew 6CC's instead of the standard 8 ifor the vial and then the lead detective picks up the blood to take and book into evidence instead takes the blood and goes out to the crime scene then acts as though he was insulted that people would suggest he might have planted blood, I would have voted not guilty also. People should try and get more involved in whats going on.

Sent by Don Scott | 5:59 PM ET | 12-05-2007

As an African American, I would hope that the Supreme Court's decision would be rule in favor of the plantiff in this case, as we have been denied many rights for many years and have been seen as only a portion of a person. Not that I care about OJ Simpson, as I think he is a fool, but I don't think it's fair that a white prosecutor eliminates African Americans for deciding a case against an African American. Does he think all African Americans are that shallow that we would decide in favor of a case just because that person shares the same skin color????? I find this kind of thinking an insult of the intelligence of all African Americans.

Sent by Kimberly | 7:35 PM ET | 12-05-2007

On the topic of the Jena 6 plea agreement, I was quite disappointed to hear the guests on today's bristle at the perceived abuse of prosecutorial discretion evidenced by the acceptance of a plea of guilty to a lesser charge without substantiating or elaborating on their claims.

Certainly they cannot be referring to the district attorney's prosecution in an assault case. After all, prosecuting those who committed violent crimes - even juveniles - is a essential duty of the job to which he was elected by residents of the parish. As no one has seriously suggested that Mychel Bell did not, in fact, commit an assault, one can hardly fault the prosecutor for performing his job.

Perhaps they are referring to the fact that criminal charges were not brought against the white students who hung the noose from the tree on campus that fanned the flames of violence and precipitated the assault. However, there can be no "abuse of discretion" by the prosecutor in failing to bring charges because, in Louisiana, there is no statute that criminalizes such conduct, deplorable as it is. In this instance, it's more accurate to say the prosecutor absolutely lacked the discretion to file criminal charges for hanging a noose.

Perhaps the guests were referring to the fact the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser charge than was originally filed. This cannot be it either. Plea bargaining and plea agreements are legitimate, necessary and, in many cases desirable, for prosecutors and defendants alike. It surely cannot be called an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to take advantage of a procedure that is universally accepted and employed many times every day by nearly every prosecutor across the country.

As a law student in southern Louisiana, I keep a close eye on the developments in the Jena case. In my personal opinion, I feel the better target for disappointment is the school administration and school board who failed to appropriately punish those who hung the noose. However, I do not feel the DA is acting vindictively, nor do I think he is abusing his discretion in pursuing charges against Bell. The guests on the show obviously feel otherwise.

Sent by Chase, Baton Rouge, LA | 9:52 PM ET | 12-05-2007