"Today, lawyers are attacking more; they're attacking everything. A good example is the O.J. Simpson case"
About this Quote
Wambaugh’s line lands like a weary punchline from someone who’s spent a career watching institutions sweat under bright lights. “Today” sets up a generational complaint, but the real barb is in the escalation: lawyers aren’t just attacking opponents; they’re “attacking everything.” That “everything” is doing heavy cultural work. It suggests a legal style that treats truth, character, procedure, even reality itself as fair game for demolition - not to clarify what happened, but to win.
The O.J. Simpson case is the perfect shorthand because it wasn’t merely a murder trial; it was a national seminar on adversarial theater. The defense didn’t just contest evidence. It put the LAPD, forensic science, race, celebrity, domestic violence narratives, and the credibility of the entire system on trial. Wambaugh, a crime novelist with deep law-enforcement roots, is signaling less outrage at any single tactic than alarm at a broader turn: the courtroom as an arena where “attack” becomes a default mode of civic discourse.
Subtextually, there’s a critique of professional incentives. Lawyers are rewarded for reframing, destabilizing, creating doubt; the media rewards the most combustible version of that. The Simpson trial taught the public to watch argument as spectacle and to interpret institutions as partisan actors. Wambaugh’s intent reads as a cultural diagnosis: when litigation becomes total war, everyone starts speaking in cross-examination, and the social cost is a chronic suspicion that nothing is solid - except the need to keep attacking.
The O.J. Simpson case is the perfect shorthand because it wasn’t merely a murder trial; it was a national seminar on adversarial theater. The defense didn’t just contest evidence. It put the LAPD, forensic science, race, celebrity, domestic violence narratives, and the credibility of the entire system on trial. Wambaugh, a crime novelist with deep law-enforcement roots, is signaling less outrage at any single tactic than alarm at a broader turn: the courtroom as an arena where “attack” becomes a default mode of civic discourse.
Subtextually, there’s a critique of professional incentives. Lawyers are rewarded for reframing, destabilizing, creating doubt; the media rewards the most combustible version of that. The Simpson trial taught the public to watch argument as spectacle and to interpret institutions as partisan actors. Wambaugh’s intent reads as a cultural diagnosis: when litigation becomes total war, everyone starts speaking in cross-examination, and the social cost is a chronic suspicion that nothing is solid - except the need to keep attacking.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Joseph
Add to List
