Article assessment: Simpson on trial

This article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/05/simpson.juror/index.html
Simpson Jury: we relied on tapes, not witnesses.

The lede to this is short and strong, a succinct summary: The jury that convicted O.J. Simpson of robbery and other charges relied mostly on audio and video evidence -- and very little on testimony from prosecution witnesses -- jury members said Sunday.
All the good stuff is right in front, and the date and attribution is at the end. It gets right to the point of the article based on the headline and it keeps me interested.

The lede is followed by a killer quote that also backs up the lede: "We honestly felt we could not rely on that witness testimony," said Michelle R. Lyons, one of seven jurors who spoke to reporters in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sunday. "There was not one decision we made that was based only on witness testimony."
It adds to the lede in a quote, which is naturally more fun to read than a block of text.

The quote is followed by a nut graf for the the article, explaining a bit more and giving an answer to "so what?": Jury foreman Paul Connelly said some of the prosecution's witnesses didn't seem trustworthy. At least three former Simpson co-defendants who cut deals to testify in the case had criminal records
I actually wasn't sure if this was the nut graf or the one written two paragraphs later that explained why Simpson was on trial. I decided that the paragraph about the Jury foreman gave the nut graf for this specific article while the other paragraph gave a nut graf for this chapter of the Simpson saga, adding background to bring readers up to speed who hadn't seen previous articles stating why Simpson was on trial.

The ending is a quote from one of the jury members that sums up the arguments for the jury in response to Simpson's explanation that he was just retrieving stolen merchandise: "Under Nevada law ... even if you're recovering your own stuff, you can't do it in the manner that they all went in and did it," Pettit said.

Other interesting points: Simpson's lawyer is trying to bring up race again, as if he's being targetted again because he's black and there are 11 white jury members. It would be hard for me to write this article or be an objective juror, so I can see how he might feel at a disadvantage. Fortunately, the case seems transparent enough, with video evidence of his robbery, that claiming this as a race issue is just grasping at straws.