Book Summary 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. On June 13, 1994, Nicole Brown, ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, was found murdered alongside Ronald Goldman (Dershowitz 19). Chapter one of Reasonable Doubts describes how many people jumped to the conclusion that O.J. carried out the murders. Incriminating evidence emerged that more than pointed to Simpson’s guilt (Dershowitz 21). Soon enough, media reports claimed that Simpson would be charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Simpson’s reluctance to be peacefully taken into custody was illustrated by his famous Los Angeles free-way chase that ended in his eventual surrender (Dershowitz 23). Dershowitz chose to join the defense team when offered the opportunity, claiming that the case could greatly educate people, especially his Harvard law students, on... ... middle of paper ... ...secution had scores of federal, state, and local officials at their disposal, including the FBI and the Los Angeles police department. The defense succeeded at instilling reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. A major difference between the defense and prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution utilized witnesses that casted a shadow of doubt upon the whole jury (Dershowitz 97). Dershowitz claimed the prosecution knew they had falsities in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). In all, though many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the faults carried out by the prosecution and ultimately implant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.
The Casey Anthony trial has been arguably the most controversial case since the trial of O.J. Simpson and has been speculated over ever since the verdict had been given in July of 2011. It was decided by a jury of her peers that Anthony was not guilty of murder, for the death of her daughter Caylee. Many believe that Anthony should have been found guilty however, very little Americans actually comprehend the justice system.
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.
It took the jury four hours to determine this fact. Since this case was highly publicized, this case made many Americans question the quality of the criminal justice system since everything was pointing to Simpson however he was considered not guilty. A whole year and twenty days pass before we hear the next thing in this case. A civil trial meets to see if Simpson should be held financially liable for what happened at his house. It took the jury forty-one days to hear all one hundred and one witnesses’ statements and they came to an agreement the Simpson did kill Nicole and Ronald with oppression and malice. After the civil trial meet the verdict became once again widely debated amongst the legal experts and the public
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 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.
The subject of racial issues and inequality has been something that has affected human history and has impacted the world around us. For hundreds of years, racial equality has been an immense problem. Today, racial equality and injustice is being fought in many different aspects. One crucial event in the fight for equality came during the O.J. Simpson murder case. The beating of African-American Rodney King due to the actions of a police officer added to racial turmoil leading up to the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The murder case went on to portray many examples of racial tension going on around the world, some of those examples were used against the prosecution throughout the trial. This worldwide story became the focal point
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
The trial of O.J Simpson, an infamous case that had america glued to their Tv’s. Tensions were high as 11 months passed as the verdict was nearing. The case goes as following, O.J was accused of the murder of his ex wife Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. On June 13, 1994 Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found dead around midnight near the entryway of Nicole’s apartment complex. The crime was heinous for the times and took America by storm. With O.J being a famous main suspect, the media wanted to give as much insight about the trial to the people watching at home and the first amendment gives them that right to gather intel. At first the media was not allowed to share what was happening in the trial. But later on, judge Ito later gave the media permission to cover the trial as long as the media does not disclose the insight of the grand jury. To coincide with this, the media wanted access to the preliminary hearings. Several news organizations requested access to photographs of the crime and transcripts of conferences held in the judge’s office. A lot of this information was sensitive material that was still being decided upon whether to reveal to the jury, but the media still wanted to have
The U.S. criminal justice system is considered to be an adversarial system consisting of two sides, the prosecution and defense. It is believed that both sides enter the trial on equal grounds and present evidence to represent and help support their case. However, throughout the proceedings both the prosecution and defense have two very different ethical roles, responsibilities and duties, which tends to cast doubt on both sides remaining equal.
Two dead bodies and one very guilty man, but no jail time. The OJ Simpson murder trial in 94’ may have been the biggest happening in that year. The bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were found stabbed to death in Nicole’s home in LA. OJ was boarding a flight when the murders went public; he quickly became the first suspect in the case. The trial went on and the jury found him not guilty of the murders, despite overwhelming evidence showing his connection to the murder. In the controversial case of the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, the innocent ruling incorrectly acquitted O.J. Simpson; OJ killed both of them because he possessed a motive, attempted to escape and cover up the crime,
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
OJ Simpson, one of football’s most legendary players, was admired and extolled by many sports-lovers from across the nation. From being selected as the number one player in the 1969 draft to being named NFL’s Player of the Year three times, he led a life of success and fame (CNN.com). Yet behind this renowned MVP, there stood a dark side. In June of 1994, Simpson was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and family friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson pleaded not guilty and eventually won his trial, but his reputation and status were far from recovery. In September of 2007, Simpson was once again arrested, this time on grounds of robbery and kidnapping sports memorabilia. Simpson is a fine example to the age old argument that celebrities should not be given special treatment in the court room because at the end of the day, no matter now powerful they might be, they’ve committed a crime and should pay for their wrongdoing.
Evidence is one of the leading causes of jury bias because of its statistically significant impact on a jury’s final decision. There have been faults in verdicts due to poorly given evidence.“A major criticism of the jury system is that jurors frequently lack the capacity or competence to understand all aspects of the evidence, particularly in longer and more complex trials”(Tinsley, Yvette). If members of the jury are unaware of what the evidence is directly stating, they are more likely to present inaccurate arguments in jury
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.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.