OJ Case Study 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 …show more content…
Things only got worse when it was alleged that he transported and planted one the gloves on the Simpson estate, and the defendants legal team stating the officer wanted to frame Simpson because he was black and he disliked blacks an considering the jury was made up of mostly minorities this helped O.JSimpson even more.(2015) The key to winning a case apart from collecting evidence there must be a clear way to paint a picture that the people of the jury can understand whether or not you done the crime one must be convincing. Even though Simpson’s blood was on majority of the evidence collected it was argued that he was framed along with the contamination of evidence even if he had done it his team used all the weaknesses exposed by police involved in the case to paint a picture of innocence to the jury which proves perception of wrongdoing as persuasive to a jury as actual wrongdoing. I am sure with O.J Simpson being acquitted of the charges left a bad taste in the mouth of both police and some people in the legal field. There were too many mistakes made by the people that were tasked with the duty of collecting evidence and also in the department of how the evidence was handled but there are many lessons to be learned in every mistake the obvious one would be to not make the same ones
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
The job of a criminal lawyer is quite difficult. Whether on the defense or the prosecution, you must work diligently and swiftly in order to persuade the jury. Some lawyers play dirty and try to get their client off of the hook even though they are guilty without a doubt. Even though the evidence is all there, the prosecution sometimes just can’t get the one last piece of the puzzle to make the case stick and lock the criminal up. Such is the case Orenthal James Simpson.
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.
The primary thing that persuaded my current viewpoint on race relations was the George Zimmerman trial for the homicide of Trayvon Martin. This was a case that took place when I was relatively young, around the age of ten, so I feel that the event has shaped the way that I view racism today. My mother studied racism for her degree, so I was never particularly ignorant about the topic of race. However, the Trayvon Martin case was the first time in my life that I could remember a blatant and publicized act of racial injustice. Hence, it provided evidence and validation for all the things that I had been taught about race up until this point. However, it further influenced the way I viewed race because it allowed me to see specifically see the
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.
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.
Patty Hearst was a normal 19 year old girl, living in an apartment with her fiance and attending university in Berkeley, California, until one day her life, and the lives of everyone around her changed forever. On the evening of February 4, 1974, some members of the left-wing radical group called the Symbionese Liberation Army barged into Hearst’s home armed with guns, and beat up her fiance before kidnapping Hearst and bringing her to their house where she was kept blindfolded in a closet for 59 days. While locked in the closet, Patty Hearst was verbally and sexually abused and she was denied the use of even a toilet or toothbrush if she didn’t tell them that she agreed with the group’s ideas and beliefs. It is believed that while being locked in the closet like this, Patty was being brainwashed by the SLA and that she may have even developed Stockholm Syndrome, a condition in which a person who was kidnapped starts to empathise with their captor, and even starts defending them. This is how the Symbionese Liberation Army convinced Patty Hearst to join their group. They released an audio tape to the public in which Patty Hearst said she was changing her name to Tania and that she had decided to join the SLA. She then helped the SLA rob a bank and steal an ammunition belt from a sports store. After this, she started travelling around the country with two members of the SLA named John and Emily Harris, to try avoid being captured by the police. During this time, the police found a house where some members of the SLA were hiding out. Attempts to make the SLA members surrender ended up in a massive gunfight, ultimately ending up in the deaths of 6 SLA members. The FBI eventually found and arrested Patty Hearst on September 18, 1975. T...
It was the night of June 12, 1994, a woman and her long time male friend are murdered in cold blood. The victims, Nicole Brown Simpson, her neck cut so savagely it was almost severed from her body and Ronald Goldman, stabbed repeatedly, nearly 30 times. The accused, her ex-husband and football star, Orenthan James Simpson, better known as O.J. Simpson. During the trial, a trial that consisted of 150 witnesses, lasted 133 days and cost in the ball park of 15 million dollars, there were many questions asked and even more questions left unanswered (Douglas).
The one good thing that I believe comes from this case is that it educated America on the mistakes being made by a law enforcement entity. The attitudes portrayed by these officers are terrible and, regretfully, most likely common. What it did was wake us up by showing us how biased criminal investigations can be and that bigotry has no place in the criminal justice system.
Judges make rulings on what evidence may or may not be admitted over the course of a trial and technology impacts the way police collect and process evidence, this is true today as well as during the 1892 trial of Lizzie Borden. The rudimentary practice of evidence collection and processing by police was a critical factor in the acquittal of Lizzie Borden. Fingerprinting had not been introduced into the court system and the absence of an eyewitness left the prosecution with little to work with, this left the prosecution only circumstantial evidence but most if not all of it pointed at the defendant. The Borden home was absent of any signs of forced entry and the traditional signs of a struggle couldn’t be located during the police examination but several gruesome facts indicated Lizzie Borden may have been innocent. Medical evidence as to the method used in the killings pointed toward a “tall man” being the culprit, specifically the nineteen wounds inflicted on Abby Borden were said to have been from a dull edge of an axe.
What went wrong then if so many people thought he was guilty? Well the prosecutors had an extremely strong case, but many people thought they presented their evidence very poorly. They had made a lot of their evidence seem fake, or as if someone was trying to frame O.J., which wasn’t the case. Although they did have some strong evidence it was hard to deny like they had discovered a pair of very rare gloves seemingly identical to O.J. Simpson’s. Although O.J.’s defense was quoted,”If it doesn’t fit you must acquit,” and of course due to the blood shrinking the gloves they couldn’t fit his monstrous hands ("101 PIECES"). In addition they had also found blood spots inside of O.J’s Bronco in which was parked fairly close to the estate (Rice). His defense replied the evidence was unreliable, fake, and planted in order to frame him. Even though this sounds like a weak argument many believed this could be true due to past aggression from police towards Rodney King and the African American community. There was also a lot of key evidence the prosecutors were never able to obtain, such as the murder weapon. They had also spoken to a limo driver that picked up O.J. from Rockingham ("101 PIECES"). At the time O.J. had been seen with more bags then after according to the limo driver and skycap James Williams ("101 PIECES"). He was reported standing by a
According to A Novel Approach to Politics “Questions about the very nature of reality seem to be common in fiction of all sorts.” Especially, The Boondocks, a fictional cartoon, uses satire to describe real events that happen in society. The episode I tuned into was “The Trial of R. Kelly”, which explained how R. Kelly won his trial and the views of the people about his case. In the episode, the people outside the court house showed different cognitive frameworks of how they view R. Kelly situation. In other words, the media made sense of the reality of R. Kelly situation in different ways because of the media wanted to select certain information. In this paper, I will explain how the media exemplified mediated reality and agreement reality in the “The Trial of R. Kelly” episode of The Boondocks.
The Scott Peterson case was one of the most difficult murder cases that have ever been handled by the U.S. courts in the recent memory. Scott Peterson is best known for murdering his eight- month pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, in 2002 in Modesto, California. The FBI was able to collect evidence against Peterson for the case against him. Peterson was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2004 for the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of their fetus son. The Scott Peterson trial was an important trial because it showed the darkness of America through his lies, less humane remarks, and the crime itself.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.