Inevitably when discussing the Simpson case with somebody I will hear the phrase, “But Mark Fuhrman pleaded the 5th when asked if he had planted evidence!” Clearly the implication is that Fuhrman is indirectly admitting his criminal behavior. To be clear, I am not a fan of Mark Fuhrman, so this isn’t a defense of him personally. I, for one, think his involvement in the case is way overstated since Robbery-Homicide took over shortly after he was on the case. But here is the video of what happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDPecYKEjM
But there are several reasons as to why this means absolutely nothing if you think that he actually planted the evidence, in particular the Rockingham glove.
1) Watch Fuhrman’s reactions as he receives each of the defense team’s questions. His lawyer is telling him not to answer each of these questions and that he should invoke his 5th amendment right. It is not just the question about planting evidence; it is every question he is being asked. He is clearly shutting down and refusing to play ball any more. And all of this happened after he got busted lying about using the n-word and the screenplay tapes came out. It’s absolutely clear, because Fuhrman had brought Darryl Mounger along with him to the stand, that he was going to answer none of the questions. So to suggest that him not answering that one question means he planted evidence makes little sense.
2) According to former Los Angeles D.A. Vincent Bugliosi, “a witness can’t pick and choose, an answer to one question being a waiver of the witness’s right under the Fifth to refuse to answer any others connection to the transaction or incident about which he testified.” Furhman has also stated that this was one of his reasons, though there is some grey area about witnesses actually doing this and answering some questions (and possibly facing penalties for perjury, for example). Do I suspect he was more influenced by what his lawyer was telling him to do in this situation than his own awareness of that particular law? Yes, probably. But it's still a good reason to plead the 5th down the line instead of picking and choosing which questions to answer.
3) Let’s say Fuhrman did plant evidence. It would be the most serious and heinous of crimes if so, but then why would he take the 5th when asked about it? This is why the “he took the 5th” argument falls apart completely. Why in the world would Mark Fuhrman be worried about perjuring himself in court if the crime he was accused of and actually did was far worse? What possible motive would he have to incriminate himself in the crime by tacitly admitting it when there wasn’t a single eyewitness to corroborate it or piece of forensic evidence tying him to the crime? At that point in the trial, the only thing the defense team really had against him was that he had lied about using the n-word.
Fuhrman has said, “Once the tapes came out, I might have been beyond rehabilitation for the prosecution. But other witnesses could corroborate my investigation and evidence. In that case, that was essential.” Now, if you don’t believe this and think that Fuhrman was doing this to save his own ass, I think that’s actually quite reasonable. But in the end, his behavior on the stand, where the jury wasn’t even in the room for that episode, simply does not indicate anything about him planting evidence. Never mind that the defense team never once proved that the Rockingham glove had been planted, or had a single witness to support the allegation. Fuhrman ended up pleading guilty to perjury to lying about using the n-word, but the defense team's allegation about him planting evidence was only that: an allegation.
