Its apparent, some of yall foolz are certified ignorant and can't be rehabilitated! In the US. your are presumed innocent until PROVEN GUILTY!! No matter the crime, cameras, circumstances, victims, etc. etc. Its called A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!
As far as Christopher Darden, he has a right to make a living and can work whatever side he wants provided there is not conflict of law. So yes legally he can defend OJ and then defend EH without it being a conflict. He is arguing the law and how it applies to the FACTS of the case. It is the prosecutor job to convict, not the defense. As far as his decisions about whom to defend, its not much different that what you choose to eat or not eat. A personal decision based on multiple factors. Somme big, some small, some obvious, some not so obvious. Being a lawyer is not always about right or wrong but about the law and how the facts apply in a particular case. That's why lawyers can defend the seemingly indefensible because its not about their client but about the Law & how the facts apply in that particular case.
he didnt defend oj