The OJ Simpson Trial - Essay Example

Simpson “not guilty”. The Evidence The DNA evidence against O.J. Simpson was the most powerful evidence presented against him. The prosecution presented DNA samples on the alleged blood drops and footprints of Simpson that was positive for DNA match. The blood drops was said to be collected at Nicole Brown’s home, in Simpson’s car and his home. Another important evidence was the bloody glove found at Simpson’s home that tested positive for the DNA of Simpson and the victims Brown and Goldman.

Although a surprising amount of DNA evidence was produced by the prosecution, as author John M. Butler believed “DNA evidence is not always understood and can be quite complex to explain to the general public”.1 The defense team took this complexity as an opportunity to debase prosecution’s DNA evidence and attacked on the validity of the collection and the preservation of the evidence. They argued that the evidence was mishandled and violated the “chain of custody” as provided in the Rules of Evidence.

A systematic argument was created by the defense panel in invalidating the evidence, including the possible contamination of the blood drops collected, and the alleged planting of evidence by police officers on the samples found in Simpson’s car, footprints, and the bloody glove that was found in the murder scene by Detective Mark Fuhrman. The handling of the samples openly, created the “reasonable doub”t of possible contamination in the DNA testing. Although the DNA test resulted positive, the doubt of its validity gave more credibility to the jury.

But perhaps, the most positive result that failed to convict Simpson of guilt beyond reasonable doubt was the presentation of the bloody glove as object evidence. The defense team demonstrated their argument by asking Simpson to fit the questioned glove. As demonstrated, the glove was small and could not fit Simpson’s athletic hands, which lead Johnnie Cochran, Simpson’s lawyer to say the infamous line “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Another prosecution weakness was the presentation of Detective Mark Fuhrman as a witness.

The defense team took note of Fuhrman’s history of racism, by attacking his character based on beating up suspects and prior statements recorded using the word “nigger” repeatedly in an interview made by a screenwriter in 1986.2 The prosecution attempted to present character evidence against Simpson that was in general rule, not allowed by the Rules of Evidence. But Judge Ito accepted the character evidence presented by applying the same on the angle of a possible motive by Simpson to allegedly perform the murders.

Arrest records were found indicating that Simpson was charged with domestic violence. A picture of the beaten and bruised ex-wife Brown was presented in court. But the images were not enough to convict Simpson and remove the doubt that the planted evidence has created. THE JURY The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for the right to elect a trial by jury. Unlike other judicial procedure in most part of the world that follows an inquisitorial system (where a judge makes a decision based on witnesses and evidence in an investigative form), a trial by jury is an adversarial process.

Janet Coterril explained that an “adversarial trial process attempt to persuade the jury that one constructed version of reality is more plausible than the other”, giving more focus on “