Research Persuasive Argument on OJ Simpson Case
American football player, actor, and broadcaster OJ Simpson gained national attention in the 1970s. He was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994. The case garnered attention from the media and was dubbed the “Trial of the Century.” On June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson, Simpson’s ex-wife, and Ronald Goldman, a friend of Nicole’s, were fatally stabbed outside Simpson’s Los Angeles home. Simpson was identified as the main suspect, and authorities opened an inquiry. Simpson was accused of two charges of murder on June 17, 1994, and the police filed an arrest warrant. The police continued a slow-moving automobile pursuit through Los Angeles the next day when Simpson refused to surrender, which was shown live on television. Simpson ultimately gave himself up and was arrested. “During the trial, which lasted more than eight months, some 150 witnesses testified, though Simpson did not take the stand.” With millions of viewers tuned in to follow the proceedings, it was one of the most extensively aired trials in history. According to the prosecution, Simpson had a history of abusing his ex-wife at home and murdered her in a fit of fury. They offered DNA proof that purportedly connected Simpson to the crime site.
The defense argued that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to show Simpson’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, in addition to its earlier claims that the DNA evidence had been mishandled and was, therefore, untrustworthy. In addition, they asserted that the authorities had conducted the investigation unprofessionally and that the evidence had been manipulated in some way. The jury reached the verdict of not guilty on October 3, 1995, after deliberating for a total of four hours. Despite the fact that Simpson was cleared of all charges, many people continue to believe that he was responsible for the murders.
Several errors and oversights in the OJ Simpson case in 1994 ultimately led to Simpson’s acquittal. The handling of the evidence was the most serious of these errors. The Los Angeles Police Department handled many items incorrectly, including the bloody glove, a bloody sock, and a bloody footprint. The glove was discovered at the crime site, but it wasn’t until the next day that it was admitted into evidence. The policeman who discovered the glove also didn’t wear gloves when handling it, tainting any possible evidence. In the meantime, the cops discovered the sock in Simpson’s bedroom but didn’t use gloves to handle it either. However, because of the police’s incompetence, the proof showing the sock contained traces of the victim’s blood was tainted. Additionally, the bloody footprint that was left at the scene wasn’t accurately measured and recorded, making it challenging for the prosecution to utilize it as evidence.
Throughout the inquiry, there were multiple complaints of police wrongdoing. This included the primary detective, Mark Fuhrman, who was charged with fabricating his participation in the investigation and planting evidence. This strengthened the defense’s case for improper action by the police. The cops also did not fully explore other possible candidates. For instance, there were claims that a former gang member may have committed the killings, but the police chose not to follow up on this lead. O.J. Simpson was acquitted as a consequence of the police errors, which eventually undercut the prosecution’s case even if the suspect was guilty. The defense exploited the errors to their advantage and raised reasonable doubt, despite the prosecution’s claim that they were insignificant and had no bearing on the case. The prosecution’s argument was supported by circumstantial evidence, which at times is always unreliable. Inconsistencies in the timing of events, contradictions in witness testimony, and a lack of concrete evidence connecting O.J. Simpson to the crime are only a few of the contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The jurors were left with a fair amount of room for doubt as a result of these discrepancies, which caused them to find him not guilty.
The investigation revealed that a significant number of the most important pieces of evidence had been improperly handled, which cast reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury members. The notoriously bloodied glove that was discovered at the crime scene is widely regarded as one of the most egregious examples of improper treatment of evidence. Detective Mark Fuhrman stated that he had discovered the glove and stored it in a paper bag. On the other hand, they discovered that Simpson’s hand did not fit inside the glove once they got to the crime lab. This occurred as a result of the fact that Detective Fuhrman had improperly handled the glove since he had not followed the required evidence protocol. The reason for this was as follows: The collecting of DNA evidence illustrates the improper handling of evidence. Because the LAPD did not collect all of the essential evidence, the DNA evidence that was collected ended up being tainted in certain cases. This was notably true of the evidence obtained from the Bronco, which was Simpson’s car. The LAPD neglected to adequately sterilize the Bronco before collecting the DNA evidence, leading to the contamination of some of the samples. The infamous glove would prove critical in influencing the court’s decision in O.J. Simpson’s acquittal.
The first mistake was the LAPD’s handling of the crime scene. The police failed to secure the crime scene properly and allowed too many people to enter and contaminate the evidence. In addition, they did not properly preserve the evidence and failed to follow standard protocol. Second, the LAPD was overly confident in their case. They believed they had the right man and were quick to jump to conclusions. They did not conduct a thorough investigation to make sure all evidence was properly collected and analyzed. Thirdly, they did not handle the witness interviews properly. The LAPD interviewed witnesses who were unreliable and did not properly investigate their stories. This led to unreliable evidence being presented in court. The mishandling of the DNA evidence was also a critical mistake that led to the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. They failed to properly store and analyze the evidence, which raised questions about its accuracy.
The trial of O.J. Simpson has been the subject of considerable discussion in popular culture and is usually cited as an example of how the influence of the media may shape the outcome of a legal proceeding. In addition to this, it attracted attention to the problems of racism in the criminal justice system. It sparked a nationwide discussion about race’s role in the system. The media placed significant emphasis on the racial aspects of the case, portraying Simpson and the members of his defense team as innocent victims of racism. The defense argued that the police falsely accused Simpson because they were trying to capitalize on the racial tensions in Los Angeles at the time of the incident. Not intending to appeal to the jury’s racial bias, Simpson’s legal team decided to hang a Norman Rockwell poster in Simpson’s home that depicted a black girl being taken to school by federal marshals. The poster was displayed in Simpson’s home. The defense obviously believed that the poster would be construed as favorably depicting African Americans and that this would lend credence to their position. The racial tensions would eventually affect the decision that was made, and the media placed a significant amount of emphasis on the racial components of the case. Even though there were several contradictions and inconsistencies in the case, particularly in Simpson’s defense, the media primarily concentrated on the racist aspects of the case. Skolnick & Shaw (2010) points out that the defendant’s portrayal as a hero in sports and socioeconomic status may have played a bigger role in influencing the case’s outcome. O.J. Simpson was a very influential individual in the Black community, and it was no surprise the community rallied behind him, further labeling the case a racial clash. Soon after, many African Americans came out in support of O.J. Simpson, rallying behind him and asserting that the judicial system had treated him unfairly because of his race. Because of the circumstances, the court had little choice but to decide in his favor, even though the evidence presented did not overwhelmingly support his innocence. The media played an important role in shaping public opinion towards the trial as well, with several outlets reporting the events in a manner intended to raise reasonable doubts about the validity of the prosecution’s case.
The case was highly publicized in the media and was the subject of many debates. The case also brought to light issues of racism in America. During the trial, O.J. Simpson was portrayed as an innocent black man who was being persecuted by a corrupt system. Many African-Americans viewed the trial as an example of how racism had created an unfair and unequal criminal justice system. The case was disastrous since the prosecution team proved in everywhere just how racist they were in the end, undermining themselves and forcing the court to rule in Simpson’s favor. The prosecution team in the case was composed of mostly white men. The defense team was composed mostly of African-Americans, and many argued that this was an example of racism in the justice system. Furthermore, the jury that acquitted Simpson was also composed of mostly African-Americans. This further added to the idea that the jury was biased in favor of Simpson because of his race. The O.J. Simpson trial sparked debate over the issue of racism in the criminal justice system leading to a poor decision that would overlook the evidence against O.J. Simpson, leading to his release and acquittal. The fact that the jury was composed of mostly African-Americans showed that there was a lack of diversity in the jury, which could lead to bias. Furthermore, many argued that the prosecution team was targeting Simpson because of his race. The O.J. Simpson trial was a highly publicized case, and racial tensions surrounded it. Casiano states that “the Simpson trial left a deeply divided public, much along racial lines,” mainly because the prosecution’s case was based on the testimony of African American witnesses, which some jurors may have seen as biased.
Finally, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was responsible for the murders. Simpson’s guilt could not be established beyond a shadow of a doubt because the prosecution could not present a compelling and sufficient case in terms of physical evidence. The defense was successful in creating reasonable doubt about the validity of the prosecution’s case by raising the issue of racism within the LAPD and calling the DNA evidence into question.
Nonetheless, various inconsistencies in the justice system and the racism in various involved departments raise the legitimacy of a counterargument that O.J. Simpson was indeed guilty and not targeted by the justice system. Various previous behaviors and inconsistencies in the suspect’s stories implicated him and proved that O.J. Simpson was guilty of the murders. Simpson was quite abusive in how he treated Nicole, which implicated that the abuse might have later led to Nicole’s murder. Simpson’s behaviors which would constitute domestic violence, were highly blamed for having caused him to kill his ex-wife and her friend. The severe cut on his right hand, which had happened recently in consistency with the murders, raised many questions. Simpson could not justify the probable cause of the injury and later claimed that he injured himself while reaching out for his Bronco on the night when the murders occurred. This pure coincidence left his defense out in the open and raised questions about the legitimacy of his claim. Witnesses also testified against Simpson and claimed he had a long history of domestic violence, proving he was unstable and more than capable of committing such heinous murders. The case brought attention to racism in the judicial system and violence against women. Moreover, Simpson was found guilty of using his cell phone at a time when he lied to the jury that he was practicing his golf swings in his backyard. The DNA evidence, although mishandled carelessly, also implicated Simpson to a degree with the murders.
When O.J. Simpson was taken into custody in the driveway, the police found sufficient evidence against him to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was complicit in the murder of his ex-wife. James intended to elude capture in another nation by means of a friend’s vehicle, which was stocked with a loaded gun, $8,750 in cash, a fake mustache and beard, and a passport. James’s objective was to depart the country using his friend’s vehicle. If the judge decided that James was innocent, he would not need to try to run or change his identity. He was responsible for cooperating with the law enforcement agents conducting the inquiry, which would have allowed the evidence to determine whether or not he was guilty.
The murder case involving O.J. Simpson was one of the trials that received the greatest coverage from the media in the 20th century. Because of the high-profile nature of the case’s players, the fact that it had racial overtones, and the unusual amount of media attention it received, the case sparked great public interest. The media significantly impacted the outcome of the trial in a significant way. From the very outset of the trial, the media had a significant role in the proceedings. Even before the trial began, Simpson had already been tried and found guilty in the public’s mind, thanks to the media. The media was quick to pick up on the story, and the nonstop onslaught of negative publicity gradually pushed public opinion in the direction of finding the defendant guilty. This was made even worse by the inflammatory and sensationalized reporting that was par for the course during this time period.
Even though the majority of the evidence against Simpson was circumstantial, in the end, it was not enough to bring charges against him. The murder scene contained blood that matched that of Simpson, and shoe prints that were recovered in the blood also matched those of Simpson’s shoes. In addition to finding a bloody glove on Simpson’s property, investigators discovered blood droplets that linked back to his home from the location where the murder took place. In addition to this, the prosecution produced evidence indicating Simpson had a history of committing acts of domestic abuse against Nicole. The fact that Simpson’s blood was found at the scene of the crime is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence establishing that he is responsible for the murders. The blood Simpson was found on the victims’ clothing, and the glove containing his blood was found in Simpson’s home. According to this evidence, Simpson was present in the area where the murders were taking place at the time they were being committed.
In addition, Simpson’s behavior in the days following the murders is indicative of his guilt. Initially, he told the police he would turn himself in, but he later attempted to depart the state. When he was subsequently apprehended, he was found to be in possession of a false beard, which was presumably used to conceal his identity. Simpson’s history of domestic violence against Nicole is also suggestive of his involvement in the murders. After their separation, his history of physical and verbal violence had only gotten worse. His violent conduct toward Nicole suggests he is capable of murdering her and her buddy.
Furthermore, some substantial evidence showed that Simpson was found entering his house a minute after the crime had just occurred, raising questions if his whereabouts during the murders. The park reported the case at exactly 10.25 pm, but Simpson was not found in his house at that time. Moreover, when he was called about the murders, O.J. Simpson showed no remorse nor any concern for what had just happened. More incriminating is that he was not surprised at all, and this showed he had already known what had occurred. When a search warrant was issued, Simpson had first fled from his house, leaving an incriminating note that was later labeled as a suicide letter. Although the latter did not directly claim he murdered the two victims, it showed that he had done great wrong and wanted to end his life.
The testimony of a number of witnesses lends credence to the theory that Simpson was responsible for the murder. Kato Kaelin testified that on the night of the murders, he heard loud thumps coming from Simpson’s property. These thumps were heard coming from Simpson’s property. The chauffeur of a limousine named Allan Park testified that he saw a man who matched Simpson’s description enter the property around the time that the murders were taking place. The fact that no other suspect has a convincingly explicable motive for the murder lends credence to the idea that Simpson was the one who carried it out. Simpson and Nicole had a tense relationship, and there is a possibility that Simpson’s history of domestic violence was sufficient reason for the homicide. No one else could have a plausible explanation for why the victims were killed.
In conclusion, the outcome of the case continues to be hotly debated. Many people believe that Simpson was guilty and that he was able to escape conviction due to a combination of his fame, wealth, and poor police work. This belief was reinforced by the civil trial, which found Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ronald and awarded the families of the victims millions of dollars in damages. Others, however, point out that the prosecution’s case was not as strong as it could have been. They point to the mishandling of evidence by the police, the mishandling of the jury selection process, and the lack of physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime. They believe that the jury made the right decision in acquitting Simpson due to reasonable doubt. No matter which side of the debate one falls on, it is clear that the O.J. Simpson murder trial was a major event in American history. It sparked a great deal of discussion about race, celebrity, and justice in the United States. The trial also had an impact on the American legal system, with changes being made to jury selection processes and evidence-handling procedures to ensure that such a situation would not occur again.
Bugliosu, V. (no date) .Outrage: Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. WashingtonPost.com https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/outrage.html
Casiano, L. (2021, April 20). OJ Simpson trial: A look back at the racially charged high-profile case. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/us/oj-simpson-trial-racially-charged-case
Cowan, G. Fairchild, H. (1997). The O. J. Simpson trial: Research and theory on the dynamics of ethnicity -Introduction to the issue. Journal of Social Issues. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Halford-Fairchild-2/publication/286862573_The_O_J_Simpson_trial_Research_and_theory_on_the_dynamics_of_ethnicity_-_Introduction_to_the_issue/links/62e725cc4246456b55ff00cc/The-O-J-Simpson-trial-Research-and-theory-on-the-dynamics-of-ethnicity-Introduction-to-the-issue.pdf
Moore, A. G. (1996). The OJ Simpson Trial-Triumph of Justice or Debacle. . Louis ULJ, 41, 9. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonchron.html
Pak, E. (2021, June 7). O.J. Simpson Murder Case: A Timeline of the “Trial of the Century.” Biography. https://www.biography.com/news/oj-simpson-trial-timeline
Pak, E. (2022). O.J. Simpson Murder Case: A Timeline of the ‘Trial of the Century’. https://www.biography.com/news/oj-simpson-trial-timeline
I find it hard to follow the train of thought here, Peanut. You introduce material you claim you’re going to explain, then abandon the point before providing the explanation:
This first half of this paragraph is a collection of conflicting details without a point of view. Everything here RELATES TO race, but readers have no clue what the author is arguing:
You’ve amassed a great deal of material here, peanut, without consistently arguing a specific point of view. It’s fair work, but can’t be called persuasive since it doesn’t seek to persuade a reader of much in particular.
Your last two References lead to the same page.