In the OJ case, the defense successfully established that Fuhrman had used racist language in the past and lied about it on the stand. They were able to use that fact to taint his testimony but could produce no reason to believe that Fuhrman actually planted the glove.

Interestingly, with all of the investigation the defense obviously made into Fuhrman's background (imagine the effort to come up with the incriminating audio tape), they were able to find ex-cons that said Fuhrman was brutal, that said he was racist, but not one ex-con ever accused him of planting evidence. Had there been one, is there any doubt he would have been the defense's star witness?

I believe Fuhrman is innocent of that accusation and that the jury should have taken his testimony into account.

What the jury took into consideration (in my opinion) is their community experience with the LAPD.

The widely traveled blood sample with the missing blood was key for me. And the sudden finding of blood on the gate after the blood sample collection.

The key, I think, is that once trust in the justice system breaks down, eventually so does the system. We are treading a very dangerous road with drug prohibition. Not unlike what happened during alcohol prohibition.

You paint with a broad brush. In my experience dealing with, and observing both law enforcement and the court system, the vast majority are not corrupt. Defense attorneys very often will imply that evidence is planted simply to cast doubt: "And just how did that weapon without fingerprints find its way under my client's car, which was stopped on a public street? Anyone, even a police officer could have thrown it there, blah, blah, blah."

Charles K.,

It is widely accepted that testilying is wide spread and that prosecutors and judges look the other way except in the most egregious cases where alternative evidence can be presented.

Care to comment?

The practice is named. Rather unusual for something that is not very common.

Look at my post "Corruption is Routine" for links. Available here at Classical Values or at my site linked above.

I once ran the board for Mark Fuhrman's radio show.

It was very weird— he asked me questions during the break, and though they were the normal things like "what do you plan to do with your life?" it was impossible to ignore the fact that this man had been a cop, because every question felt like an interrogation. He was just so very focused on my answers.

(The show was "All About Crime" and had things like how to make your home unattractive to burglars or major cases in the past and present. It was actually pretty good. I was still at that radio station when the Spokane serial killer was caught and because one of the talk hosts was working with Fuhrman on a book about the guy, I got to hear all sorts of evidence that we weren't reporting on, like how they got the DNA samples. Serious ICK.)