Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with the oj simpson trial
Analysis of o.j simpson trial
Problems with the oj simpson trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems with the oj simpson trial
The O.J. Simpson Trial
On June 12,1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered. Their bodies were discovered outside Nicole Simpson's condominium. Nicole Simpson was the estranged wife of the famous football player and T.V. star O.J. Simpson.
The people directly involved with this case are Judge Lance Ito, the prosecution lawyers, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, the defense lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro and Robert Blasier , the jury and the defendant, O.J. Simpson. The families of the victims have also been present in the courtroom, as well as other spectators and news media. This case has heard one hundred and twenty witnesses over a nine month period.
The prosecution's physical evidence includes a bloody glove, bloody socks, hair, and fibres and a trail of blood drops connecting the crime scene and O.J.'s estate. Defence lawyers say this physical evidence means nothing because it was either purposely tainted or contaminated. Kenneth Berris testified that two laundry bags are still missing from Simpson's Chicago hotel room. The bloody clothes and murder weapon have never been found.
The prosecution says DNA tests place Simpson's genetic markers on the drops of blood leading away from the bodies. There were also blood samples, similar to Simpson's and the victims, found on O.J.'s Bronco truck. Simpson's blood was also found on his driveway and his foyer. The prosecution says Simpson cut his hand during the murder. The defence says Simpson cut his hand when he reached for his phone in his Bronco and later cut his hand on a glass. The main focus of the defence is the contamination of physical evidence.
Roger Martz testified, for the prosecution, that the blood he tested contained no significant amounts of EDTA. He said the blood found at the crime scene didn't come from a test tube with special preservatives used at a crime lab. Defence lawyer Robert Blazier filed papers stating that Roger Martz has a habit and custom of changing F.B.I. reports, removing helpful defense information and has falsely testified in a number of cases.
Microbiologist, John Gerdes, testified that he found sloppiness so serious at the LAPD lab that it could have allowed foreign DNA to be introduced into evidence samples. He showed pictures of the lab where test tubes were touching each other which could cause the contamination. Gerdes also...
... middle of paper ...
...s claimed " I did not, could not and would not have committed this crime."
My opinion about this case is that O.J. Simpson is guilty. The defence tries to say there was all this conspiracy to frame O.J. but I don't think they proved any of this happened. The defence said Furhman was a racist but this does not prove that Simpson didn't commit the crime. They say the blood samples were contaminated but I don't think every single one was. The prosecution proved he was an abuser and I think something finally snapped inside him and he killed Nicole and Goldman. The gloves the killer wore were the same type O.J. wears. When they say O.J. tried on the gloves and they didn't fit I think he tightened his hand up so the gloves would be hard to put on. The shoeprints at the crime scene were the same style and size he wears. Bloody clothes or a murder weapon have never been found but neither has the missing laundry bags from O.J.'s hotel room. I have to wonder why O.J. lead the police on a big chase if he is so darn innocent. My opinion is that O.J. Simpson would have been found guilty a long time ago if it wasn't for all the publicity surrounding the case and the fact that he's famous.
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
...on’s blood was found at the scene of the crime. There may be ways to plant such evidence, but it would be rather difficult to draw blood from a man without him realizing it and planting it at the scene of a crime. I also would have expressed that O.J. had a motive to kill his ex-wife, as well as a history of violent outbursts towards her. With all of the evidence that the prosecution had at their disposal, they should have been able to pin the murder on O.J. beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything pointed to O.J. and showed that he was the murderer. The only thing the prosecution was not able to do was fit the bloody glove on O.J’s hand. The only issue is, the glove was made of leather and had been soaking in blood prior to being found. When leather is soaking in a liquid, it tends to shrink. If only the prosecution had realized this, the case would have been theirs.
All in all, O.J Simpson should have been found guilty without a doubt because of all the evidence and credible resources that proved that he did commit the crime. Especially because it was such a serious crime, all factors should have been considered while determining the final outcome. the main reason I think that O.J should have been found guilty is because neither Nicole nor Ronald got justice. They were both stabbed to death and received no justice, nor did their families receive any form of payment.
During the time that O.J was on trial for the murders of Nicole and Ronald, everyone who was following the hearing had a deep sense of fear and pity. They were fearing that the man they once adored and aspired to be like was actually capable of committing such an inconspicuous crime. Also, due to the accusations of the murder, the viewers were also feeling in the sense of pity, in both sadness and disappointment. The acts that O.J Simpson was accused of caused the audience to feel disappointed in his actions, as well as sadness towards his family. The accusations developed about O.J left people who didn’t even personally know him in tears. People were so sad about his downfall. The accusation led to the fact that O.J left his family with no mother and technically no father, as he’d be spending time in prison. Furthermore, since he was found not guilty, there was a large part of the audience that felt a sense of release and emotion, and some felt bad that he was ever accused of this, but rather he just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Due to the fact that O.J and Nicole were separated for a couple years before she died, Nicole had made new friendships, and there was no proof that someone new that she met could have caused this crime and tried to frame Simpson, due to his past accused abuse
After a lengthy two hundred and fifty-two-day trial “not guilty” were the words that left the world in shock. O.J Simpson was your typical golden boy. He had it all, the nice car, the football career, and his kids. Unfortunately, this all came to an end when two bodies came to be spotted deceased in Nicole Browns front yard and was a gruesome sight. O. J’s ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman both found with brutal stab marks. Unfortunately, all his glory days now brought to an end, he went from playing on the field to begging for his freedom when becoming the main suspect of their murders. Since this trial has not only altered the way Americans viewed celebrities, but it also racially divided society,
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
Believe it or not, wounds from the victim are also evidence. The wound can allow the investigators to match up any marks that could have been made from the weapon and therefore allows them to determine at what angle, distance, and how fast the weapon was used. The last type of evidence I will discuss is documents. Everyone has different handwriting and different characteristics that make it unique. Computers are also unique in the way they type and print things.
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
One of the most coveted trials in terms of popularity and media attention the O.J Simpson trial which took place between 1994 and concluded on October 2,1995 with O.J Simpson being acquitted of charges laid upon him during the Murder Trial Due to handling of physical evidence and questions over whether Mark Fuhrman planted the bloody glove at the scene to frame O.J. so in an attempt to understand how a deviation from standard operating procedures in the handling of physical evidence can affect the outcome of a criminal trial; One most first understand evidence and how to preserve it. When the crime scene technician took blood samples from Simpson’s Ford Bronco (1996) she used a cotton swab to take samples; but instead of using
Some important visual evidence for the jury to see would be a reenactment to see how the murder went down, pictures to show the aftermath, and some witnesses or previous victims to testify. The jury doesn’t need to see what they already know. For example, if the jury is aware that Jeffrey Wright was killed by being stabbed, showing them the murder weapon will not help them understand any more than they already do. The same can be said about the ties used to hold him down to the bed.
On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues so that the issues do not repeat themselves in the future from the lack of knowledge and from learning from the mistakes of previous cases such as this one.
Simpson murder trial, there are a couple of things that piqued my interests. One was the notorious car chase down the Los Angeles freeway in a white Ford Bronco driven by AL Cowlings with O.J. Simpson hiding in the back. Robert Shapiro was supposed to surrender his client to the Los Angeles Police Department, but instead it is my opinion that O. J. Simpson lawyers and friends came up with a plan to get publicity and supporters. The second was the most crucial point of the trial is when O.J. Simpson squeeze his hand into the leather glove that was linked to the killings. This led to the famous argument by Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” As the years passed by many untold stories are revealed. A recent new documentary states that “Simpson had stop talking his arthritis medicine two weeks” in advance so his hands would be swollen to persuade the jury of his innocents.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.