The State Of California Vs. Orenthal James Simpson

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

He also testified that the tests done on the glove and Bronco were untrustworthy due to sloppy evidence handling. Henry Lee testified that blood swatches collected near the crime scene were left to dry overnight but the evidence showed a damp swatch ended up in Simpson's packaging.

The book that I am going to introduce is Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Got Away With Murder, written by Vincent Bugliosi, and was published on June 17, 1996. We all know that Nichole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death and their bodies were discovered on June 12, 1994 early morning. It was said that after a car chase, O.J. was found with $9,000 I cash, his passport, disguise, and a gun. O.J. Simpson who is her ex-husband was acquitted October 3, 1995, for their deaths in a trial that riveted the nation and divided people along racial differences. In 1997, he was ordered to pay a little over $33 million for their deaths. O.J. Simpson is still serving time in prison for things like kidnapping, robbery, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and numerous other charges. Mr. Bugliosi sums up five reason why the case was lost. Those five can be labeled as the jury, the change in venue or settings, the judge allowing the defense to play the race card, the stupidity of the prosecution throughout the trial, and lastly the summation of what should really have been done. But in honesty when the media started reporting about this case it was already falling apart.

According the law.umkc the day of the murder Simpson’s limo driver, Allan Park, went to pick him up, but when he buzzed through the intercom to let him know he was there, there was no response. Minutes later Park spotted Simpson’s Bronco at an intersection. Simpson then later went into his house through a back gate, then answered the door and supposedly said he was sleeping. Simpson’s blood was found on the driver’s door of the Bronco, and Goldman and Brown’s blood were found on the passenger side. Bloody socks were found in Simpson’s house by his bed. In court Simpson claimed that the bloody gloves were not his, so he had to try them on and they did not fit. However; a receipt was found that Brown purchased those gloves for Simpson years back. The footprints found at the scene were from a pair of Bruno Magil shoes in a size 12. Simpson wears a size 12. He claimed that he did not own a pair of the Bruno Magil shoes, but a photo from 1993 shows him wearing those shoes that match the ones at the murder scene. In Simpson’s book “If I Did It” he pretty much confesses that he did it. One of leading phrases he said was “Then something horribly went wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell you

Simpson, who was once an outstanding football player, is notoriously known for the trial of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman’s murders. As Simpson plead not guilty to these crimes, individuals across the United States turned on their television sets and radios to watch every crucial moment of the trial. Since college, Simpson’s life has always been on camera. Whether it was his football career, family matter, ex-wife’s

They gathered enough evidence to charge him with two counts of first-degree murder. The prosecution, therefore, had to prove that O.J knowingly caused the demise of both Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Simpson’s house guest was recorded saying that he saw O.J Simpson, shortly after the murder, being pulled up in his white Bronco. Moreover, the limo driver stated that he waited for him for fifteen minutes before driving him to the airport. Interestingly, the times given by the witnesses coincided with suspected murder time proving that Simpson actually had planned the crime. His alibi was also precarious. He also had a record of spousal abuse. All evidence was against him and after the police established all crime elements, Simpson was charged

The court used a couple of cases that related to the Riley case. All these cases had the question was this violating the fourth amendment. The cases contained police officers searching a car or house without a warrant. The only way that police can search anything without a warrant is if they feel in danger. An example is the Arizona v. Gant case in 2008. Like Riley his license was suspended. The police placed him under arrest and began to search his car. The car contained cocaine, but the court ruled that this was unconstitutional. Gant was not in any risk to destroy evidence or in harm's way because he was locked away in a police car. This same thing went for the Chimel v. California case.

It is unlikely for Computin to be able to successfully suppress the evidence against him considering any avenue he could take would all be invalidated under the FISA Amendments act, specifically Section 702. One such avenue is claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Under the Fourth Amendment one can expect a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that is both subjective and objective. If Computin expected his laptop to be private and if society would also agree that such privacy is reasonable, he can claim that the court violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. Many cases have seen people try but fail to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legal case of Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress evidence that was obtained without a warrant, citing his Fourth Amendment rights that prevented warrantless searches. Even though this was a physical procedure that is different from the manner in which

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, so it evolves and develops over time. Looking at key court cases from the past, the evolution of the right can be analyzed further, but first let us come back to Chief Justice John Marshall’s words about how third parties in all fundamental fairness can claim the right to "plead the fifth," and use the self-incrimination clause, while keeping in regard the actions of others, and not just themselves. What he said was used in both the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, and in the treason case of Aaron Burr. However, this practice is no longer allowed, because "pleading the fifth" has been reinterpreted to protect only oneself.

In the O.J Simpson there were a lot of things that went wrong. One of them was the issue of the way they collected evidence it was all miss handled & they didn’t collect with professionalism they just did it but didn’t care they way that they did it but based on that all the case was a disaster. One of the first evidence was a bloody fingerprint that was located in the gateway of Nicole Brown’s house one evidence that the detective didn’t collect it. They kept on going with the investigation & the detective when they switch shift were unaware of how the evidence & the case was going. The forensic scientist in the case collecting the evidence didn’t do right his/her job all the evidence was so sloppy.

In 1985, “The Trial of the Century” involving the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Lyle Goldman. O.J. Simpson was accused of being the murderer in these two cases. From January to October, the trial went on and on, and more people thought that he was guilty and that he actually murdered his ex wife and friend, Nicole and Ron. Reporters and lawyers were everywhere. After ten long months of the trial O.J. Simpson was pronounced “not guilty” verdict. Some reporters, family members of Nicole, and at home watchers thought he was only pronounced “not guilty” because the grand jury was all “overwhelmingly” black. And O.J. Simpson was African American as well.

Facts: A motorcycle accident occurred in California where a husband was severely injured and the wife was killed. The plaintiffs in the lower court raised a product liability claim against the tire manufacturer, alleging the cause of the accident resulted from a sudden tire explosion. The suit was filed in California, but the manufacturer defendant did not conduct business in that state. This case hinged on jurisdictional issues.

The physical evidence provided by the prosecution during the trial should have clearly shown that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder. Throughout the trial several pieces of incriminating evidence were shown to the court including; shoes and gloves. To begin, bloody shoeprints were found at the crime scene in front of Nicole Brown Simpson 's house (“List of the Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Double-murder trial.”). These shoe prints were very large in size and they also had a distinct tread pattern to them. The bloody shoe prints identified at the crime scene exactly matched the tread of a size 12 Lorenzo by Bruno Magli shoe that Simpson owned. These shoes were a very rare and expensive Italian-made shoe and were sold at Bloomingdale’s in New York City which O.J. frequented (“List of the Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Double-murder trial.”). The next item of physical evidence shown during the trial was a pair of gloves. A single, cashmere-lined extra large Aris Light leather left glove was discovered outside of Nicole Brown Simpson 's home and the right glove at Simpson 's estate (“The Evidence.”). In 1990, Nicole bought the exact same pair of gloves at Bloomingdales in New York. She purchased a pair of extra large Aris Light gloves and O.J. was frequently spotted wearing them (“The O.J. Simpson Trial: The Incriminating Evidence.”). When O.J. tried on the glove that was found at the

The third account is about the resonance of the devoted audience. Throughout the trial, controversial issues including domestic violence, racial tension and corruption of the Los Angeles Police Dept were widely under debate, causing uproar in the crowd. In prevention of the potential mass racial violence if O.J. Simpson were convicted of murder, enhanced security measures were enforced specifically in the Los Angeles

While many thousands of murder cases go unsolved every year, it is a probable assumption that the general public would most likely only be able to name all they knew on one hand. In no particular order, the top three reoccurring would most likely be: the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (estranged ex-husband Orenthal James Simpson), the 2008 murder of Caylee Anthony (mother Casey Anthony), and the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey (Patsy, John, and Burke Ramsey). As all of these are high-profile cold-cases, all of them have thoroughly investigated not only by local investigators but also through the public eye, yet no charges have been filed against any party. Two of the three cases show blatant similarities one is that two of the three happened within the first six years of life (Caylee Anthony and JonBenet Ramsey), and in these cases the mothers were investigated more than any other possible suspect. One man has reviewed these previous cases in addition to multiple others, Stephen Diamond, who is a clinical and forensic psychologist in Los Angeles is further reviewing the JonBenet murder from the stance of a psychologist, just after the case has been cold for twenty years. Diamond is not writing this article to solve the crime, or even attempt to, but to offer a forensic psychologist’s viewpoint. The main