The most controversial court case involved the double killing of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Both were stabbed outside Nicole’s Los Angeles house. The investigation was difficult because of the fact that there were absolutely no eyewitnesses and no weapon was discovered. Nevertheless, investigators did find evidence that Nicole’s former husband was a felon. It wasn’t right away obvious who committed the killings even though Simpson was a suspect until 5 days after the crime.
Attorney Marcia Clark presented the evidence to the jurymen. These were samples of hair found on Goldman’s body after the murder. Forensic geneticists compared the DNA from the evidences to DNA obtained from O. J. There were also bloody prints of shoe that were the same size that O. J. wears. There were also socks with bloodstains found in Simpson’s bedroom. Experts matched DNA from socks to Nicole’s genetic material. Blood was also on O. J. car. After the genetic material was checked, it was found to match blood from casualties.
During the interrogation of former football star, it was noticed he had cut on a finger. A glove discovered near casualties had blood on it. Genetic material samples matched DNA of both Simpsons and Goldman. The same glove with blood was also recovered on Simpson’s estate. Finally, this striking evidence allowed the prosecution to think that Simpson was guilty. The trial began the next January.
The most persuasive attorney at the trial
I believe that Robert Baker may be called the most persuasive attorney at the trial. Simpson’s attorney asked jurymen to ignore contaminated proof and to give the former football player the life back. He accused police of contaminating physical evidence. Earlier, Baker asserted that former detective Fuhrman planted a glove to convict Simpson for the crimes. The LAPD officer was a stroke of luck for the defense’s corrupt-police theory. Baker two times raised the issue of why Fuhrman did not personally testify in the court about his part in this case. Both times, applicant asserted Baker had violated an order preventing him from raising the matter of former detective’s inaccessibility. However, to support own theory about evidences, Baker pointed to the lack of drops of blood and insects on the glove behind the house. He also paid attention to the fact that the blood appeared damp while it definitely should have been dry since it had been there the whole night. Baker’s speech was the most powerful and direct indictment against Fuhrman ever made in a courtroom. Even Simpson’s attorneys in a criminal trial merely hinted at the chance that Fuhrman planted physical evidence. They never actually stated it.
Many court observers argue that Simpson’s attorney Robert Baker’s convincing argument that O.J. had cut finger at home was a main point. Jurymen seemed to agree when Robert Baker asserted six billion-to-1 genetic material odds still symbolized reasonable doubt. Certainly the case was broken into parts when Kato Kaelin asserted he had previously testified hoping that with O.J. in jail, he’d be permitted to stay in main house.
Going through evidences, Baker also asserted the murders took much more time than the plaintiffs said, perhaps even ten minutes, providing Simpson with no time to get home and the airport. Baker said that police paid no attention to the fact to this opportunity and all other facts as they wanted to convict Simpson. Investigators, Baker assumed, tried to hide own narrow attitude by lying about why they left condo and went to Simpson’s home the day after the crime.
Since Baker gave the jury more significant facts to consider in less than 3 hours, jurors made a decision Simpson should be acquitted of charges.
Key witness at the trial
Driver Allan Park was the prosecution’s most useful witnesses. He asserted he came at the Simpson house at 10:25 to pick football star up for his flight. He also said he rang the doorbell many times, but got no answer. Right before eleven, according to Park, some shadow – black, tall, about two hundred pounds, and in dark clothing – walked up the driveway and came into the house. Several minutes later, Simpson appeared, telling driver he had overslept. Limo driver also testified that Simpson had a small black bag (the prosecutors believed the jury would think contained weapon). Park added that he was not permitted to take the black bag. The described bag has never been noticed since. Only airport porter testified at the court he noticed Simpson near rubbish bin.
- During the trial many evidences except testimony were presented to the jury. Blood drops were noticed alongside bloody shoe prints leading far from the corpses of Nicole and Ronald; blood had Simpson’s markers. The remarkable fact was that former football player had a small cut on finger when interviewed by officers.
- The bloody prints of shoe matched a size twelve Bruno Magli shoe, a rare Italian pair. Football star wears size 12.
- Hairs discovered in a cap were comparable to former football player’s hairs; fibers on that cap were also like fibers in the carpeting of Ford Bronco; these blue cotton fibers were discovered on Goldman.
- Dark leather glove, size large, was discovered at the place of a murder. Another glove was behind the house, where Kaelin heard loud sounds in the night. Nicole purchased for her husband 2 pair of such gloves. DNA tests discovered blood on glove. It contained genetic markers of football star and both victims; one long strand of light hair like Ms. Simpson’s hair also was found on the glove.
- A pair of dark socks was found near Simpson’s bed; DNA tests discovered the markers of former football player and Nicole.
- Tiny blood spot noticed at driver’s door handle of Simpson’s car; other blood on console, door, carpeting and wheel; DNA tests showed mixture with markers of football star and victims.
- Killings happened between 10:15 and 10:40 p.m., according to testimony from all witnesses who heard barking from the place of the killings. Nicole’s dog Akita was noticed in blood before 11 p.m.
Probably the one most essential moment in whole trial is the day prosecutors thought they would try the experiment on the gloves. Prosecutors were going to attempt to show that felon’s gloves would fit Simpson. However, they didn’t. And all the strategy began to change after that. And Rubin was called to testify more than all witnesses, 4 times altogether. And during closing arguments in the trial, Cochran said his today famous phrase, “If it does not really fit, you must acquit” (Linder, 2000). Attorney utilized this utterance to convince the jurymen that O.J. could not have murdered two people, as the felon’s gloves did not actually fit him.
Also the closing arguments paid some attention to the time line and the significance of time line. Defense stated, “If you are left with pets starting to bark at 10:40 – and we know for sure that it was a fight that took 5-15 minutes. It is already 55 minutes. And keep in mind, the sounds were heard at 10:40 or 10:45 – O.J. had no opportunity to commit the killings. He is therefore must be acquit” (Linder, 2000).
It should be mentioned that race has always played an imperative role in history of the USA. It has formed and sometimes divided the political and legal systems. The Simpson case will definitely be remembered as a marker case in which race played the key role. After Simpson’s trial, black jurymen found him not guilty. After the civil trial, the majority of white jurymen found him responsible for the crime.
Johnnie Cochran was criticized for talking about the issue of race. Cochran asserted mainly black Simpson jurymen police officers were attempting to set O.J. up because of his skin color. Defense was criticized for “not merely playing race card, but playing this card from bottom of the deck” (Linder, 2000). Cochran answered it was not actually a case about race, but case about reasonable doubt, noting that there are many white human beings who wish to accept verdict. Cochran’s representation created unfriendliness toward the attorney. Thus, Cochran’s summing up for the defense added controversy to the already extremely controversial case.
The reason this case got so much attention was because Simpson was famous and it involved a mixed race couple. Case proved that no matter whether or not you are guilty, you can win by going to court, particularly when the jurymen are biased.
This case also demonstrates the meaning of the police’s treatment of proof and how officers have to conduct any criminal investigation. Because even with the best evidence, it may not be a sufficient amount of facts to persuade jurymen beyond a reasonable doubt that a human being is actually guilty. This trial provided a structure for experts to create new ways to correctly handle evidence and uphold an extremely high level of quality. Thorough regulations for the investigations of killings and crime scene processing have since been evolved by the National Institute for Justice. It comprises the certification programs, which teach officers and crime scene experts in the suitable approaches to care of the proof in the investigation.
Linder, Doug. “The Trial of Orenthal James Simpson.“ 2000. Law2.umkc.edu.Retrieved from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm