Oj Simpson Individual Verdicts

Simpson is guilty and it was not easy to prove in a courtroom, because evidence was tampered with, improperly accumulated, and not all of it was collected. Employees of the crime lab admitted to errors that took place when collecting, and storing evidence from the crime. I also feel that if the juror panel were selected in Santa Monica, where the crime took place, a very different judgment and verdict would be made. Simpson’s jury panel was selected from Downtown Los Angeles. Selecting a jury panel from Downtown Los Angeles led to a significantly different demographic of people selected to be on the panel, than residents of Santa Monica. Selecting a jury panel from Santa Monica would have led to a much different group of individuals, with an advanced level of education. I believe many oversights were made in the case and if it were handled appropriately, O.J. Simpson would’ve been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many Factors led to a poorly situated case for the persecution, and the selected jury

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In the U.S. our system is formulated by various means to construct tweleve fair and unbiased jurors. Whom acording to our text, hypothetically decide cases based on “burden of proof and reasonable doubt.” These individuals listen and take into account the evidence and testimoneys of witnesses appointed by both the prosecution and defense through the duration of the trial. Though many make a preliminary decision based on the opening statements. Once trial has commenced the jury is dissmissed to the deliberation room. Where disscussion about the elements of the case and the defendents specific actions begin, but jurors usually vote as soon as they retire to jury room and the orginal vote wins the majority of the time. Allowing their own

The numerous ups, downs, and controversies surrounding the life of former star football player OJ Simpson have led to a strangely divided collective memory of the man. The term collective memory refers to a shared pool of information held in the memories of a group from aggregated individual recollections. The story of OJ Simpson’s life is both sad and puzzling after overcoming adversity to become one of the best football players of all time and a public figure beloved by many Simpson would go on to put himself in a worse situation than ever before.

A jury is a certain number of men or women, selected by law, grouped together to decide the verdict of a case. (“What is JURY?”) They play an important role in our system of justice. In the United State a jury hears testimony and evidence of the case to determine if that is enough to move forward. Over the years the jury system has evolved immensely and has improved. Roles have become different, some roles in the jury system have been discontinued and others have been added.

As the jury consists of various people, chosen randomly, their verdict is one the public generally displays willingness to accept. This creates a sense of fulfillment and that ‘justice has been served’ within the

Among those sentenced to capital punishment, though, the rate of conviction is far higher than for any other category of criminal conviction. Less than one-tenth of 1% of convictions in our country are death sentences, yet they account for a shockingly high number of exonerations. Approximately 12% of known exonerations of innocent defendants from 1989 through early 2012 were of those on death row. One main reason for this high exoneration rate among capital cases is that far more resources and attention are devoted to death penalty cases, both before and after conviction, than to other criminal prosecutions. Almost all capital convictions are decided by a jury trial, and in the small number of capital cases where defendants plead guilty they

On October 3, 1955 one of America’s most immense juror cases had finally announced a verdict , O.J Simpson was found not guilty in killing his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman - Nicole’s friend. Only to find out years later that O.J. was actually guilty for this crime, when detectives went to O.J.’s estate home they found multiple evidence such as blood all over his white Bronco, hairs of his on Ron’s shirt, and even footprints of Simpson’s shoe size. Was the United States justice system so corrupt and prejudice to the point that they let a guilty man free just because of his social status and money. Simpson displays the main topic in the short story 12 Angry Men which is whether the United States has a prejudice unfair justice system. Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and unjust due to the jurors biased way of thinking, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of

In the courtroom, the jury acts as the last chance that the defendant has to try to secure his or her freedom. Depending on their final verdict, the life of another human being is decided. Any jury, though, can only be as good as the jurors that make up the panel. This fact is very clearly illustrated in Twelve Angry Men, where a couple of bad seeds almost end up making a premature decision based on purely arbitrary reasons that would retuen to haunt them. Clearly, mixed in with those truly cared about whether or not the suspect that was accused actually got a fair trial, there were also those on the other end of the spectrum who honestly could not have cared less.

Juries form an important part of our legal system and are made up of ordinary people from our community. A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury, made up of twelve individuals, makes a decision that then directs the actions of a judge. A jury is randomly chosen from a list of voter registrations and driver licence ID renewals. Once the jury is chosen they participate in both criminal trials and civil trials. In criminal trials the jury hears evidence and makes a decision as to whether the person is guilty or innocent. Civil trials that need juries are usually defamation proceedings. But are twelve heads better than one? During this report, I will critically analyse and evaluate the two conflicting viewpoints contained in the

There are times after an extended and exhausting trial when it is more than easy for jurors to pick a common verdict, hopefully confident in their decision. However, in a criminal case, if one juror out of the twelve were to vote innocent, then the jury must take the extra time to debate and unanimously decide on verdict. In a situation like that, it is easy to understand the temptation to give in to the overwhelming majority, but maintaining integrity and choosing to disagree forces the jury to reevaluate the evidence and their verdict. It only takes one opposing voice to prompt a discussion and only positive change can result from well-rounded and thorough

Major arguments in favour of the jury system are that it is a fundamental right and a safeguard against political and judicial corruption. The jury system has been in existence for many centuries and is generally accepted by the community. However, some believe that the jury is unable to deal with the complex issues of some of the trials today. Others believe that the Jury is still an important cornerstone of our legal system. As a general rule, the jury accepts its responsibility with great dedication to what has to be achieved by the trial. They are often referred to as the ‘lamp of freedom.’ They consist of ordinary women and men and are therefore not prejudiced by past experiences with the operation of the legal system. They are also not bound by the rules of precedent. They provide a fresh view of how the law should be applied to a set of circumstances. They are independent of political pressures and reflect the common sense values of the community. They are, in essence, a cross-section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authority but are being tried by people themselves from within society. A jury is able to assess the situation before it, not in legalistic terms, but according to the current standards of the community. An example of this is the Clare Margaret McDonald case, by which she was found not guilty of killing her abusive husband. The verdict followed jurors asking questions in court about the legal concepts of self-defence and ‘beyond reasonable

In today’s society a defendant is innocent till proven guilty in the court of law. In every jury trial, the lawyers always begin a cases with the process of selecting the jurors. Juries is define as a group of people who are members of the community and are chose to give a verdict in a legal case. Jury duty is mandatory for all United States citizens (White, Black, Male or Female). To fully understand how important the jury selection is for the criminal justice system, we need to first understand the process of jury selection.

Many times, when there is only one suspect found, even if it is not the actual person, prosecution will push the conviction onto people who may be innocent. As a result, a wrongful conviction can threaten the criminal justice system’s authenticity and it can weaken public trust. From 2009 – 2011, there were ten people in Florida who had their capital sentence overturned because they were not found guilty. Therefore, capital punishment can block the chance of being acquitted for a crime one has not committed. There are about 15% of the population of inmates that have been released from their jail time due to innocence. It is reported by the Death Penalty Information Center, that within 1973 – 1999 there were three exonerations each year and between 2000 and 2007, there were five per year, from the capital punishment sentence. The problem is that in the criminal justice system there are bound to be errors and errors were found within prosecutor misconducts as mentioned earlier, ineffective counsel assistance, judge and jury biases as well as unconstitutional jury instruction, which happen quite frequently in the justice system. While many proponents of the death penalty may say that it is better to have a safeguard, there are too many innocent people being mistreated and who are dying for the wrong cause. This is unfair and unconstitutional in