Prima Facie Evidence: People Vs. O. J Trial

The burden of proof in any case lies to the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to provide evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is the work of the prosecutor to convince, through evidence, the judge or the jury of a criminal case that the accused committed the offense and did so knowingly or out of negligence. The evidence must point the defendant as guilty such that any reasonable person would have no doubt of a guilty verdict. The prosecutor’s evidence in a criminal case must be of a set standard such that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the accused committed the offense. Prima facie evidence refers to evidence that is sufficient to prove a conviction against a defendant

unless other evidence opposing it is brought forward in its rebuttal. A prima facie case is one that has sufficient evidence to prove the charged as guilty unless there is substantial opposing evidence presented. It is used to refer to self-evident case or evidence that could be said to be sufficiently strong to make a case out. The prosecution of O.J Simpson was brought under the code of rights for all accused. He was given the right to representation by counsel as required by the code of criminal procedure. The prosecutors believed they had enough evidence to close the case and thus started with establishing a history of spousal abuse which derailed the case.
The trial of O.J Simpson was pivotal in the prosecution of crimes in the United States because it was transforming in the American racial, social, and legal history. It allowed the confrontation of the ugly underbelly of the criminal justice system at the time. The case brought celebration to the African Americans since they saw the justice system in their favour. The criminal justice system remained intact since justice prevailed despite the various reactions people had regarding the case. The case made the jury to understand the reactions people have, and they have more suspicions on the evidence of police which when all put together contributes to the beneficial effect the case had on the law and justice in America. The case brought an overhaul of the DNA labs in all States that has enabled the prosecution of cases with more solid evidence. It is used by many prosecutors and judges across the country as a benchmark to examine their protocols and procedures if they were to face cases of this magnitude.
Opening statements are the introductory remarks made by each side at the beginning of a trial, the prosecution, and the defence. It helps apprise the jury with the issues in question and summarize the evidence intended for the trial by each side. Defence attorney, Johnnie L. Conchran gave the most persuasive opening statement in the trial of Simpson. Conchran tailored his opening remarks to suit an audience who wanted to feel his message rather than understand it all together. He portrayed the prosecution as evasive in leaving important details pertaining to the case and thus stated he would start by mentioning them. In particular he brought out information about the Simpson’s lady neighbour who walked her dog several times the night of the murder. She explicably gave an account of the events as she perceived them from her compound through the words of Conchran which was in a way very persuasive in an opening statement. Robert Shapiro was the attorney who exhibited the most prowess in being able to organize evidence and shift the focus of the jury to reach the precise conclusions he felt they should get to from the provided evidence.
Establishing a Prima facie case for murder means that the prosecution should have solid evidence that is enough to convict the suspect in the trial of the murder charges unless there is opposing evidence. The defence attorney is charged with the responsibility to challenge the prima facie case in bid to show the defendant as not guilty of the murder charges. In the O.J Simpson case, the lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, helped establish a prima facie of homicide for the prosecution. As a key witness, he hurt the prosecution by lying on the stand about using racist language in reference to the African Americans. In the lying and covering up of his racism, he was identified as a liar and thus could not be trusted. His evidence was key to the prosecution as it involved the bloody glove from Simpson’s estate but worked against them as the defence lawyers suggested that he placed the glove out of a racist aspiration to frame Simpson, a black man.
Other than the testimony from the witnesses in the people vs.

O.J trial, there were other key evidence materials that challenged the prima facie murder case of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. First was the crime scene blood where blood drops were found alongside bloody shoeprints leading away from the bodies of Nicole and Goldman, there was blood on a gate at the back of the condominium, and blood from both sites contained O.J’s genetic markers. O.J had a cut on his hand when interviewed by police after the murders. The defence alleged that the blood samples were collected improperly and handled poorly rendering the DNA results unreliable. The bloody gloves found on the crime scene and the one found behind O.J’s guest house were cashmere-line Aris Light leather similar to the 2 pairs Nicole bought for her husband in 1990. The blood on the gloves seemed to contain Simpson’s genetic markers and had a long strand of blond hair similar to Nicole’s. The defence disputed by suggesting that the glove was planted by detective Fuhrman who they termed as a racist trying to fix Simpson and that hair analysis is not sophisticated enough to be trusted in a prima facie of murder. Then there was a pair of dark, crumpled socks whose DNA tests established genetic markers of O.J and Nicole. The defence said the socks were placed by cops then blood put on them later at the police lab. Blood soaked through one sock to the other side a scenario that wouldn’t have happened had the sock been on a foot. This was compelling that this piece of evidence was tampered

with.
The defense’s closing arguments were more persuasive than the prosecution’s. The prosecution started their closing statement with Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clark who called detective Fuhrman a racist and liar but asked the jury not to consider his testimony and keep focus on the big picture. Defence lead attorney Cochran’s strong closing remark, “If it does not fit, you must acquit,” was of astounding success and had epistemological determinism. The way he expressed his closing statement was definite and made a more effective argument than if it were probable. The trial of the people vs. O.J Simpson was affected by some outside factors including the media coverage and the society reactions. the media coverage was controversial at times and judge Ito had to rule on whether to allow cameras into the courtroom. The case was viewed as a case between the whites and blacks and thus racial comments affected the trial in a huge way. The case was a divisive one in the United States because the white people believed and could not be convinced otherwise, even after the acquittal of Simpson, that he was guilty of the charges, whereas the black Americans believed it was a case against a fellow black man. The African Americans believed justice prevailed while the white Americans thought there was injustice.
This case is important to the study of criminal justice and criminal prosecution since it helps us to understand the requirements of establishing a prima facie murder case as the prosecution thought they had. On reading the primary documentation about this case, I believe the prosecution would have a better chance if they had taken more precaution in the handling and collection of evidence and in the presentation of their closing statement.