Darden explained that the attention generated by the case was "bad enough 20 years ago," and while the scrutiny isn't quite as severe now, he says he could "do without it."
"Maybe in three years I can go back and read Twitter and not be offended, you know? Or angry," Darden, 59, said. "You spend 20 years trying to get past something like that, you spend 20 years trying to move on with your life and then it all catches up with you all over again."
Thinking back with the luxury of hindsight, Darden said there were a number of things the prosecution team should have done differently.
"They could have waited and prepared and been ready," Darden noted. "Because they were not ready."
One of the major problems the prosecution faced stemmed from starting the trial without having everything they needed to present a solid case.
"Why file the case before all the DNA is in? If you go back and look at the trial, on every other day there's more DNA, more DNA coming in, more forensics," Darden recalled. "We shouldn't be in a trial where we don't have all the science. And we didn't… that was really the biggest mistake of all."
Another huge misstep, according Darden, was filing the case in downtown Los Angeles instead of in Santa Monica "where we might have had a more diverse jury, or a jury of O.J.'s peers."
"But instead the decision was made, 'File it now. File it Downtown.' And once that happened, that boat was sinking," Darden said.