Casual Argument- Peanut

O.J. Simpson’s trial began right after the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. In 1994, the couple was murdered on the street in front of Brown Simpson’s Los Angeles house. The case’s primary suspect, Brown Simpson’s ex-husband O.J. Simpson, was quickly named. Simpson was abusive in the past to Brown Simpson, and his jealousy of her connections with other men was well-documented (Moore, 1996). Simpson’s automobile was smeared in blood and was seen in the murder scene’s vicinity on the night of the killings. Moreover, Simpson’s genetic material was discovered at the location. The O.J. Simpson trial was a turning point in U.S. history. This event highlighted the wide gaps in our society based on ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender. There were concerns about the media’s coverage of criminal cases and the criminal justice system.

The most muscular cause-and-effect sequence in the Immediate Cause argument is that Simpson’s abuse of Nicole led to her murder. This is supported by several pieces of evidence, including the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman shocked the nation. Simpson, a former football star and celebrity, was accused of brutally killing his ex-wife and her friend. The trial that followed was a media circus, with everyone from the judge to the lawyers to the jury members being put under a microscope (Moore, 1996). Simpson provided the investigating officers with various comments that directly contradicted one another. After first asserting that he was unaware of the cause of a severe cut on his right hand, he eventually stated that he had sustained the injury when reaching inside his Bronco on the night the murders occurred. After being notified of Nicole’s death, Simpson also told the authorities that he had shattered a glass in his hotel room in Chicago, which may have contributed to the cut he received. Because Simpson’s conversation with law enforcement was so fruitless, neither party elected to use it as evidence during the proceeding. However, over time, the police were able to compile sufficient evidence to apply for and be granted a warrant for Simpson’s arrest.

The prosecution’s case against Simpson centered on his reasons for committing the killings and the opportunities he had to do so. They produced witnesses who testified on Simpson’s history of domestic violence and his jealous attitude. They also provided evidence indicating that Simpson used the mobile phone in his vehicle to make a call when he claimed to be practicing his golf swing in his backyard (Moore, 1996). In addition, the prosecution presented DNA evidence that connected Simpson to the location of the killing. DNA from blood collected at the murder’s site and on a pair of socks located in Simpson’s bedroom matched what was found on the socks. The DNA specialists for the prosecution testified that the likelihood of the blood originating from anybody other than Simpson was exceedingly remote. The main thrust of the defense’s argument was to throw doubt on the reliability of the witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution. They insinuated that the evidence against Simpson had been tampered with or that the police had manufactured it. They also brought witnesses who testified that Simpson was a loving parent, not the violent spouse the prosecution had portrayed him as. These witnesses testified in response to the prosecution’s claims that Simpson was an abusive husband.

Some possible rebuttals to the causal analysis of the Simpson trial might include the following; The decision of the prosecution to try the case in city center Los Angeles rather than in Santa Monica, where the crime took place, was not a political one made to avoid riots if the case was decided in favor of the defendant by a jury that was primarily composed of white people. Instead, it was only an attempt to cut down on time prosecutors had to spend traveling and provide more room for the anticipated swarm of reporters (Linder, 2008). The prosecution’s choice not to pursue the death penalty did not cause them to lose the benefit of not having a jury that was “death-qualified.” Numerous studies show that such a jury would be more likely to convict the defendant.

The jury consultants advised the prosecution to use their peremptory challenges to exclude black and female potential jurors. The prosecution decided to ignore this advice. The prosecution’s decision was not a mistake. The jury consultants’ recommendation was based on the assumption that a black and female jury would be more likely to convict Simpson. However, the prosecution’s decision was based on believing that the more racially diverse jury in downtown Los Angeles would be more likely to convict. The prosecution’s assumption was correct. The jury in the Simpson trial was predominantly black and female (Linder, 2008). It is possible to make the case that the prosecution didn’t make a mistake when they let Simpson put on the glove used in the murder. Although Simpson did seem to have difficulty donning the gloves, this might be because the gloves may have shrunk due to the blood on them. In addition, photographs revealed Simpson wearing gloves that were too large for him, which would have explained why the gloves were so uncomfortable. In the grand scheme of things, it does not seem that the choice to have Simpson try on the gloves was a significant error committed by the prosecution.

Ultimately, the jury decided not to convict O.J. Simpson, and many think their decision was affected by race. The defense took advantage of the racial tensions that were prevalent in Los Angeles at the time of the incident, and they alleged that the police had framed Simpson because he was a black man (Linder, 2008). It was not an effort on the part of the defense to play to the race of the jury when they chose to hang a Norman Rockwell poster in Simpson’s house that represented a black girl being carried to school by federal marshals. The defense likely felt that the print would be perceived as a clear picture of African Americans and that this would aid their case.


Linder, D. (2008). The Trial of Orenthal James Simpson. Available at SSRN 1305244.

Moore, A. G. (1996). The OJ Simpson Trial-Triumph of Justice or Debacle. . Louis ULJ, 41, 9.

This entry was posted in Causal, peanut, Portfolio Peanut. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s