Blood was also found on a pair of socks located in Simpson’s closet (“O.J. Simpson Civil Trial”). Following several tests, the results showed that DNA matching Simpson and Nicole’s. The prosecution deemed this a direction link to Simpson and the victims. However, the defense once again believed the socks were placed by the police. They stressed the point that the blood was soaked through the sock from one side to another. This could not have happened if Simpson was wearing the sock. However, these socks were also sent to the lab and tested for EDTA and once again, the results came back negative (Augenstein).
OJ Simpson was a very achieved person player until he made one big mistake. The trial of OJ Simpson was a long stressful process to prove a star innocent or guilty of murder. This took Place in the state of California on October 3, 1995. OJ was tried for a murder crime of his ex-wife and another man. In the end OJ turned out to be not guilty of this crime. Justice was not served because in the trial OJ Simpson did not get a punishment for his said to be crime.
Legal history A system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties, this is the definition of law. Although the definition of law is evident and perceptible,the portrayal and act of law varies. Throughout the justice system there are many inconsistencies such as the type of law, there is common,criminal,civil, and administrative. Throughout these systems of law there are also criminal proceedings. In these criminal proceedings, some will find that the verdict is just.
O.J Simpson, or also known as, “The Juice”, is beyond guilty for the crimes he was accused of, even though he was found not guilty. Many people think he is innocent then again many people think he is guilty. Whenever someone hears his name, the heinous crime he was accused for comes to mind. Yes O.J was a father and a beloved human before all the commotion went about, but does that mean people should automatically not suspect him due to his “wonderful appearance.”
Once someone steps in the court room to oversee a trial of this caliber (or any caliber) they must not and will not let the media dictate their perspective of events. Scott Peterson’s jury saw the burden of proof provided by the prosecution and were left with no doubt in their minds by their own deductions he was guilty. The Casey Anthony jury on the other hand took all of the evidence into consideration, but they still were not completely convinced she was capable of the charges being filed against her, leaving them no other decision but to provide a not guilty
The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; thus, justice was not served for the real victim, Caylee. Although Casey Anthony won in a court of law, she lost in the court of public opinion; thus, being punished by society just as OJ was. References Anthony v State of Florida Case No. 5D11-237 (FL Dist. 5 Ct.
The O.J. Simpson trial was a trial that was seen across the nation. Therefore, everyone was watching this trial to see what would happen and as we know evidence plays a major part in getting the correct verdict in a trial. Now some of the physical evidence that was found was some hair evidence on a cap as well as on Ron Goldman shirts. There were some cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco that O.J. was riding in on a glove at his Rockingham residence as well as at the Bundy residence. Furthermore, there was blood dropped by the killer at Bundy and it was noted that it was the same type as Simpson and he had fresh cuts on his left hand a day after the murder. There is also the fact that there was blood found in the Bronco, foyer,
OJ Simpson is Indeed Innocent “If it doesn’t fit, you have to acquit,” this quote said by one of OJ Simpson’s attorneys, Johnny Cochran, is widely known for its impact on the controversial case of OJ Simpson. From 1994-1995 OJ Simpson was known as one of the most controversial cases in the USA due to the verdict that OJ was innocent of the murders of his ex wife and one of her friends. On June 12, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman met an untimely demise, and the only suspect the police ever reviewed was OJ Simpson. OJ was later caught in a low speed chase in a white Ford Bronco before being taken into custody and put on trial. In the sensationally controversial court case involving OJ Simpson as a suspect for murder, The innocent ruling
Additionally, the media got into the investigation by asking questions about the events before the murder. The National Enquirer, for instance, took a different angle to investigate the case; however, by doing this, the media almost made it impossible for proper investigations to be held by the criminal justice system. Ogletree Jr. maintains that the press failed terribly by trying to assume what the lawyers or witnesses thought at different times of the trial, which was a fail (Ogletree). Consequently, there should be a level of protection from the media. Public figures should not have their cases aired or followed to prevent tampering of evidence or misconceptions.
After three days of Jackson on trial, the jury has decided that the defendant, Mr. Andrew Jackson was not guilty of crimes against humanity. The vote was very close though, Andrew won by a hair, with the votes being 5 versus 3. The jury found that even though the prosecution proved Jackson was a bad man, he did not commit the crimes against humanity. I decisively voted for the defendant’s side. I could’ve been the deciding factor on if Jackson is hanged or if he’s spared.
OJ Simpson was an idolized NFL player, actor, and broadcaster. He was loved by all and defied all racial barriers during the 1900s. People didn’t see him for the color of his skin, they saw him as an American hero. This was until June 12, 1994 when Nicole Simpson, OJ Simpson’s ex wife, as well as Ronald Goldman were found murdered. This was the beginning of the end of most Americans respect and adoration for OJ Simpson. OJ became the prime suspect of their murders.
Both sides have their positive sides regarding the concept of justice. Before the trial ensued, an ideological conflict already existed. This explains that the trial does not serve to resolve a human problem, but mediate and cultivate a new belief system that reaches an overarching
With millions of criminal convictions a year, more than two million people may end up behind bars(Gross). According to Samuel Gross reporter for The Washington Post, writes that also “even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic [wrongful conviction] errors”(Gross). Citizens who are wrongfully convicted are incarcerated for a crime he or she did not commit. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges are responsible for the verdict that puts innocents into prison. To be able to get exonerated many wait over a decade just to get there case looked at, not many are able to have the opportunity of getting out.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).