Why wouldn't the judge allow potential jurors to be asked if they consider OJ Simpson to be a murderer?

OJ is rich, no matter the race if your rich you will go to court, but can buy your way out. Sadly this country is greedy and runs on cash. I know for a fact he did it, even if he hired someone to do it he is still guilty. Also I get a odd feeling he offered those jurors money if he is free, but he already paid the judge I bet.

Probably because EVERYBODY consideres OJ Simpson to be a murderer. But she should have allowed the question in voir dire if the defense wanted it.

Yeah i comprehend if only the gun that replaced into flashed to threaten memorabilia sellers Bruce Fromong and Al Beardsley, replaced into shown to be too small to in high-quality condition OJ's hand. Then perchance only perchance OJ will be out on the streets taking area in golf including his acquaintances...I mean searching for his spouse's killer, and why did not OJ's attorneys attempt to reveal the gun replaced into too small for his palms? the position is Johnny Cochran once you opt on him!!!... Oh authentic he's useless.

Everyone knows OJ is a murder, anyone who thinks he is not is a fool. so they want to find fools who will find OJ innocent even though they evidence will point out he is guilty.

Because it is irrelevant to the current case and he was never convicted of being a murderer.

Possibly because his "Prior Bad Acts" are not admissable in court.

You can't just "consider" one to be a killer without being convinced first by evidential presentation. That's bias, unfair and rediculous. The only way you can know if someone's a killer is by proving it, no trial [should] be based on personal opinion. Duh.