Sep 24, 2015 · Thirteen years to the date after being acquitted in his criminal trial, Simpson, then 61, was found guilty of robbery and kidnapping and …
The Glove. A bloody glove reportedly discovered at O.J. Simpson's home may be the most famous piece of evidence from the trial, according to a 2014 …
Cochran and his team challenged the police. Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who served on Simpson's defense team, revealed in an interview with PBS in 2005 that he still believed the blood-soaked sock was planted at the scene. He said that the pattern appeared to be consistent with pouring instead of crime-related splattering, and he acknowledged the presence of a chemical which seemed to indicate the blood had come from a tube:
So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock. According to California's ABC 13, no members of law enforcement were ever "formally charged or investigated for planting evidence.".
Orenthal James Simpson or as most people know him as OJ Simpson. He rose to fame through playing for the San Francisco 49ners football team. He was also known for his career as sports commentator. He is most known for the murder trial of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown. 2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent. 2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent. 3.
He was first married to Marguerite L. Whitley in June 24, 1967. In that relationship he had three children, which included Aaren Lashone Simpson who drowned in the family’s pool before her second birthday. That same year they divorced and in 1985 married Nicole Brown.
The role of the jury is to listen to both sides of the case (prosecutor and defense). The jurors have to unanimously decide guilt or innocence. Whatever the outcome, the jurors must feel that their decision is beyond a reasonable doubt. This was particularly difficult to achieve in this case.
An important bloody fingerprint located on the gateway at Nicole Brown’s house was not properly collected and entered into the chain of custody when it was first located. Although it was documented in his notes by Detective Mark Fuhrman, one of the first to arrive on the scene, no further action was taken to secure it.
The LAPD could not counter the idea of “lost blood” because there was no documentation of how much reference blood was taken from Simpson as evidence. The person who drew the blood could only guess he had taken 8 mL; only 6 mL could be accounted for by the LAPD.
Blood samples found inside of Simpson’s Bronco, which was discovered outside Simpson’s home the next day, were equally matched to Simpson and both victims. Such evidence should have resulted in an open and shut case by today’s standards but was not made clear enough to understand at the time.
Additionally, some jurors have since admitted that the verdict was retribution for the acquittal of white police officers in the beating of Rodney King in 1992.
Simpson’s Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized personnel while in the impound yard; Nicole Simpson’s mother’s glasses had a lens go missing while it was in the LAPD facility. A Question of Planted Evidence. Not only were there many claims that the evidence was mishandled in the police lab but there were also claims ...
Reasonable doubt means to have, “A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.” When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, even if a jury thinks a defendant probably committed the crime it is not enough to convict.
What are your thoughts on the O.J. Simpson trial and reasonable doubt?
Johnnie Cochran, OJ Simpson’s lawyer, was able to win an acquittal for his client by making the mid-nineties trial about race, not a double murder. To do so, he manipulated the media, according to Christopher Darden, one of the prosecutors charged with trying Simpson. “Cochran used the media to change the conversation as effectively as Donald Trump ...
Darden dropped a few other intriguing tidbits in is AMA: The eight-month Simpson trial took a physical toll on him: He said he lost 2o lbs, two teeth and had four root canal surgeries before it was over. He thought Cochran’s famous line—”if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”— was “a kids rhyme for idiots.”.
Their strategy was to make the case about the racism of the Los Angeles police department, which they accused of framing Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Cochran turned the trial’s focus on Mark Fuhrman, a detective investigating the case, and, explosively, his use of the n-word (paywall).
Darden , who has maintained a low profile since the trial, didn’t elaborate on his Reddit comment, but he suggests that Cochran, through flamboyant statements and acts, was able to captivate the media , which in turn helped sway the jury.