Possible Doubt In The O. J. Simpson Trial

After an eight month trial, a not guilty verdict, and a mountain of criminating evidence it is realistic to accept that mistakes were made somewhere in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. When it comes to conviction, American justice is supposed to hold to the following principle, “a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged” (A. 2010). The defense team displayed circumstances of reasonable doubt throughout the trial. Two of the most influential factors contributing to trial were the evidence collection techniques and the credibility of defense witnesses. However, a main factor was the perhaps the jury members themselves and the mountain

Simpson. However, mistakes in collection, outlined by the defense team, further persuaded the reasonable doubt. If evidence was tampered with, collected improperly, or contaminated it provided the defense an argument toward the authenticity of the collection. The forensics team made some technical mistakes, and this suggested possible contamination of the crime scene and cast doubt on the DNA evidence (Price, L, 2016). A strength in the defense team was to point out these collection errors with photo and video evidence. This factor of doubtable evidence was perhaps the downfall of the prosecution’s case. However, prosecutor Marsha Clark stated in an interview, “At the end of the day, the evidence didn't wind up mattering because there was a fundamental large issue standing in the way of seeing the evidence, she said. You had this enormous mistrust of everything LAPD, and everything officer related” (Siemaszko, 2016). Not addressing the mistrust issue was a major weakness in the prosecution, and therefore an easy channel for victory with the defense

However, the defense zoned in on the appropriate emotional and racial buttons of the jurors. The jury members had been witnesses to the array of racial issues displayed in the community and media during 1994 and 1995. Issues such as police brutality and racism were displayed through the media but also on their doorsteps. Perhaps the O.J. verdict was inevitable; “it was, in essence, a grand act of jury nullification. O.J. was no longer a person, but a symbol; a “vessel” for civil rights issues, as activist Danny Bakewell describes in the film. O.J. is black and he is O.J., but he is also a hollow reflection of what we wish to project upon him” (Weinman, 2016). Pointing out the mistakes made by the prosecution, in retrospect, may have had an impact on the outcome of this trial. Nevertheless, without addressing these underlying societal issues, I am not even sure if a flawless prosecution would have received a guilty determination during this particular