Nicole Brown-Simpson Case Study

The double homicide trial of O.J. Simpson may be over but the speculation of how and why he was found not guilty is still running sky high. Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death outside her Brentwood townhouse on June 12 1994. Former American football star O.J. Simpson was arrested soon after the killings but insisted from the start he was "absolutely, 100% not guilty (BBC News, 1995).”

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

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

Less than four months later, the court selected a “diverse” jury that was made up of eight women and four men, eight of which were African American. The trial officially began on January 24 of 1995 when the opening statements were read (“O.J. Simpson Fast Facts”). Throughout the trial, various articles of evidence were displayed and many testimonies were given, but there is one piece that seems to stand out more than the rest. OJ tried on a pair of leather gloves, consisting of one glove that had been found at Simpson’s estate and another that had been discovered at the scene of the crime, on June 15 and expressed to everyone in the courtroom that the gloves did not fit on his hands; the prosecution finished presenting its evidence a few weeks later. After weeks of back and forth arguments in the court, the defense declared rest on September, just two days after emphasizing, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” in regards to the gloves (“O.J. Simpson Fast Facts”). It was all in the jury’s hands

Voir Dire is the process in which potential jurors for a trial will either be eliminated or kept in the final juror panel for the trial. [1] The process of voir dire has three main steps and they are questioning, challenges for cause, and peremptory challenges. [2]

The O. J. Simpson double murder case, also titled “People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a trial in which James O.J Simpson, a former National Football League player was convicted at the Los Angeles County Superior Court of two murder offenses on June 12, 1994. He was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a restaurant waiter at Mezzaluna. The trial spans for a period of eight months. The opening statements were read on January 23, 1995, whereas the verdict, which left Simpson a free man, was declared on October 3, 1995. “The Trial of The Century,” as it is commonly known, has been described as the most publicized trial in history. However, before Simpson could be arrested and prosecuted, they had to go through an investigation process with the implementation of some techniques used by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as this essay illustrates.

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

The Judge then asked if any panel members had trouble reading, writing, or speaking English. He also asked if anyone was affected by or taking care of someone with a chronic health issue that interfered with their ability to serve on a jury, and two members had family undergoing treatment that they cared for. The doctor previously mentioned was scheduled to be in the Operating room during the trial. After that, he continued to ask if anyone had nonrefundable travel plans, which several people did, and after that he asked if anyone had childcare conflicts. There were three single dads in the room unable to serve for that reason. Lastly, he asked if there was anything that impacted someone’s ability to be an impartial juror that had not been previously discussed. When no one

The next process in the Justice system, a Grand Jury indictment, was interrupted. OJ Simpson hired a top notch team of defense and appellate lawyers to defend him in this case and they were able to get the Grand Jury dismissed from this case due to the massive media coverage. They claimed that the jury was prejudiced toward the defendant because of the readily available information about the case. In lieu of the Grand Jury trial a probable cause hearing was conducted. With that, the judge in this hearing felt that enough evidence did exist for a criminal trial and OJ Simpson was arraigned on July 29th 1994. At his arraignment OJ pleaded not guilty, specifically stating that he was “one hundred percent not guilty”.

The goal is to gather a group of people with varying backgrounds to interpret the evidence. They select from a jury pool, or venire, which is a compiled list of eligible people. These lists are made from drivers license lists or voter registration lists, depending on the state. From these lists, individuals are told the case and interviewed, this process is called voir dire, and are determined if they can serve on the jury. Lawyers and the judge then ask questions to make sure that the potential jurors would be unbiased towards the case. Jurors can be dismissed by a judge if they are too biased for the case. Once all the jurors are selected they are sworn in (“How Courts

Jurors should be exposed to public information to a certain extent. With privacy concerns in peoples mind some citizens refuse to register to vote or do not respond to jury summonses. They begin failing to disclose some personal information under oath especially if they are about sensitive matters. When prospective jurors begin to behave this way, a real concern arises, where the courts in the community may possibly be unrepresented with individuals who are not qualified to serve fairly and impartial. We should focus on what is in the information requested of the prospective jurors and what is the reason of why this information is being used by the courts its purpose. Deciphering what is relevant and not relevant pertaining to the case. Only a small part of the information that is obtained by the courts are useful for determining juror biases or prejudice. In one hand the jurors they have a

Also prior to the trial, a jury of 6 to 12 people must be selected. Each jury member must go through a screening process to ensure that they have no connection to the trial, or any preconceived opinion of it that could keep them from being impartial to either side. A juror can be removed if they have any connection to the trial, and the defense

juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.