The Burden Of Proof Is The Duty Of A Party

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

During recent studies from several researchers it has been concluded that there is a fault within our criminal justice system. Researchers discovered there is a high wrongful conviction rate within the United States judicial system. After, extensive research, it was found that wrongful convictions are caused by eyewitness error, false confessions, flawed forensic science, an informant, bad lawyering, and government misconduct. Without a doubt, this issue has shocked society, due to the fact we rely on the system for pure justice. Within my findings, it is apparent that victims of wrongful convictions suffer numerous affects when

The unsolved murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman has become one of the most discussed cases in all of history. Orenthal James “O.J.” Simpson, the formal professional football player and the ex-husband of Nicole Brown has always been the main suspect in this case. Although found not guilty by the jury, many still believe he was the killer. In this paper, we will discuss in great detail the events that took place at the time of the murder, as well as why or why not O.J. is guilty. If O.J. isn’t guilty, who could have been the mastermind behind these murders?

What happened after ten o 'clock on the Sunday night of June 12, 1994 will forever be a mystery when speaking about the murder case of Nicole Brown Simpson and her acquaintance Ronald Goldman. This paper will discuss the trial of O.J. Simpson ex football star and a famous media personnel,. Furthermore it will go into detail about the murders, evidence gathered and the final verdict of the jury. Could Simpson have committed the murders due to the fact that if he couldn’t have Nicole, then no one could? Or was this trial all just a case that is revolved around corrupt police trying to frame an innocent black man? Hence the defense created a new slogan for the case, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. What is true and what is a lie? This paper will discuss how and why this case is one of the most popular trials in the 20th century.

It has been reported that millions of crimes is committed in the United States of America which violates and harms the individual rights, properties, and freedoms that are not only guaranteed to American citizens of this country. It has been highlighted that justice is dealt with according to the crimes committed based on the findings and principles of our country, which derived from the Constitution of the United States. While it has been argued justice may not always be fair due to certain rights given to those who may be charged with crime sometimes an error is made. A simple mistake, a missing or broken link in the chain that represents the investigation and trial processes causes an innocent bystander to become caught up in an investigation. More importantly, in many cases can result in a wrongful conviction. This error can rise from many forms like a mistaken eyewitness identification, a false confession, misconduct of the governing authorities, improper forensic investigation, or including staff that neglect to make efforts or unskilled litigation by the defense attorneys. Those whom are affected endure years in prison, deal with lost wages, isolation from friends and family, scrutiny from potential employers, and isolation from their community.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

During the trial and the prosecution of O. J. Simpson, there were many variables in this case that did not add up. Several pieces of evidence were mismanaged during the analyzation of the crime scene

In 1995, O.J. Simpson, one of the most acclaimed National Football League players, was tried on two counts of murder. This is a case that would stay inclusive forever in the eyes of most Americans; and that would change the way America’s legal system operated. During the trial racism evolved around Simpson and multiple inferences led to an especially controversial definitive, later known as the “trial of the century.”

OJ Simpson’s case has become to be known as “the trial of the century,” to this day it has been a topic of discussion to law students and has still been a racial controversy. OJ Simpson is an American football legend, actor, corporate pitchman, and he is extremely wealthy (Linder 1). In 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson, Simpson’s ex-wife, and Ronald Goldman, a waiter and a friend of Nicole’s, were stabbed to death (1). With all eyes on OJ Simpson, the media, current racial controversies, and, most importantly, his wealth were said to have played a part in the finding of his innocence, which was unforeseen by the public, who insisted that he was guilty of the heinous crime.

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.

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

Specifically, in a criminal trial, it is the role of the jury to determine a “guilty” or a “not guilty” verdict which is set in place by the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” meaning that even with the slightest indication of doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty. This standard places the burden of proof with the prosecution to ensure the judge or

In criminal case, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and the accused can only be found guilty if it is shown he/she has committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be more than an imaginary doubt. It should be based on actual valid reason.

The general definition of burden of proof is a duty imposed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact. There is more than one type of burden known to the law, a burden of proof and the burden of adducing evidence. The burden of proof is also known as or referred to the legal burden. Different terminology is sometimes used that emphasizes different characteristics of the burden; the most common alternatives are the “persuasive burden” , the “probative burden” , “the risk of non-persuasion” and the “fixed burden of proof”. Legal burdens are allocated by rules of law and are fixed at the beginning of the case. They do not shift during the course of a trial. The burden of adducing evidence is also known as evidential burden. This refers to the obligation to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue for the court to consider. Unlike a legal burden, an evidential burden is merely an