The OJ Simpson Criminal Trial
The unresolved brutal murders of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson are among the most discussed cases in recent history. Orenthal James (O.J) Simpson was a formal professional National Football League (NFL) and actor, as well as the Ex-husband to the late Nicole Brown (Bienen, & Geis, 2016). O.J Simpson was the main suspect of these murders, and although the court didn’t find him guilty, many people in the court of public opinion believe that he was the murderer. This paper discusses in detail the person of O.J. Simpson, the events that transpired at the time of these murderers, and the opinion of the court regarding this case.
OJ Simpson’s Background and Career Before His Trial
O.J. Simpson was born in 1947 in San Francisco, California. Simpson attended college, where he played American Football at the University of Southern California (Shapiro & Warren, 2016). Upon completion of his college education, Simpson was immediately recruited to the National Football League draft team 1969 (Shapiro & Warren, 2016). Simpson turned out for the San Francisco 49ers as a running back. At one time, Simpson was known to be among the best running backs in the history of the game. Unfortunately, Shapiro and Warren (2016) note that when the name O.J Simpson is mentioned, most people don’t remember the man who once rushed more than 11,000 yards and scored 61 touchdowns. Instead, Simpson is remembered for the murders of his ex-wife and her friend Ronald L. Goldman
Simpson had married Nicole Brown in 1985, and the marriage was rocked with violence with numerous cases of abuse to his wife being reported (Anolik, 2014). For instance, in 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest when a charge of spousal battery was brought against him in court (Anolik, 2014). Nicole Brown would later leave Simpson in 1992 after filling for a divorce. Two years later, on June 12, 1994, she was slashed to death alongside her friend Ronald Goldman at the front yard of her condominium in Brentwood Los Angeles (Anolik, 2014). O.J. Simpson was the main suspect of these murders because of their troubled past.
Why OJ Simpson Was Arraigned and the Charges Brought Against Him
The Night of Murder
At about 6:30 pm, On June 12, 1994, Nicole Simpson was accompanied by her children and others to dinner at the Mezzaluna restaurant (Bienen & Geis, 2016). After taking their dinner and leaving the restaurant, Nicole Simpson’s sister called the restaurant at about 9:15 pm the same evening to report that her mother had forgotten her glasses there. Around the same time between 9:00-9:30 pm, O.J. Simpson and his friend Brian Kaelin dine at the McDonald’s, and the two went back to O.J.’s house after dinner where they arrived at about 9:45 pm (Bienen & Geis, 2016). At 9:50 pm, Ronald Goldman arrives at the Mezzaluna restaurant to pick Nicole’s mother’s glasses, where he is handed an envelope containing the said glasses (Bienen & Geis, 2016). At about 10:15 pm, Nicole’s neighbor, who was watching television at the time, reports that he heard the cries and barks of a dog. Based on this evidence, the prosecution theorized that these cries and barks signal the time at which Nicole and Goldman were murdered (Bienen & Geis, 2016).
At around 10:25 pm, Allan Park reports that he arrived at the O.J.’s estate to pick O.J, who was scheduled to travel to Chicago with an 11.45 pm flight the same night (Pemberton, 2013). In his statement, Brian Kaelin reported that he heard three very loud thumps coming from the guest house outside wall at around 10:40pm. Around the same time, Park reported that between 10:40-10:55 pm, he buzzed on O.J.’s intercom severally without any response coming. Park adds that he saw a shadowy figure at 10:58 pm, which crossed the driveway headed towards O.J.’s home (Pemberton, 2013). He described the figure to be a person who was approximately 6 feet tall and about 200 pounds. Allan Park who was now getting impatient tried to buzz on O.J. gate for one last time and O.J. answered (Pemberton, 2013). O.J. told Park that he had just got out from showering after having overslept earlier. O.J. departs for Chicago at exactly 11:45pm on board an American Airlines flight (Pemberton, 2013). On the same night, the bodies of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson are discovered at 12:10 am outside Nicole Simpson’s townhome glasses (Bienen & Geis, 2016). The two bodies have fresh stab wounds on them.
The Days After
The detectives handling this case arrived at the O.J.’s home at around 5:00 am. The only evidence collected at the crime scene was a dark-grey knitted hat and a bloody glove which are thought to have been left behind by the killer. There was also a bloody footprint that was left in O.J.’s estate driveway glasses (Bienen & Geis, 2016). Detective Ron Phillips informed O.J. Simpson about the murders immediately his flight landed in Chicago. O.J. responded with a question; “who killed her?” glasses (Bienen & Geis, 2016). The LAPD took O.J. Simpson into custody immediately he arrived from Chicago, and he was questioned for nearly three hours before being released.
O.J. Simpson was charged with two murder accounts on June 17, 1994, glasses (Bienen & Geis, 2016). However, instead of turning himself over to the police, O.J. famously failed to surrender, leading to him being declared a fugitive. As a consequence, O.J., who was in his white Ford Bronco, had to be chased by police along the Southern California freeways with this chase being televised (Mydans, 1994). His friend Al Cowlings was the driver while O.J. Simpsons sat on the passenger’s seat. Cowlings later told the police that he failed to stop because O.J, who was at the time suicidal, had been holding a gun to his head, commanding him to continue driving (Mydans, 1994). As the investigations continued, detectives found a suicide note with very alarming contents, where he professed his love for his wife and his innocence (Mydans, 1994). Later that day, Simpson surrendered himself to the LAPD at around 8:50 pm.
The Length of the Trial
According to Bienen and Geis (2016), the O.J. Simpson trial was dubbed as the trial of the century, mainly because of the level of publicity it had received both locally and internationally. The trial of this case began on November 9, 1994, when the Jury’s swearing-in was conducted. On January 24, 1995, the opening statements of the case were made, and on November 9, 1994, the final verdict was announced (Bienen & Geis, 2016). In the verdict, Simpson was acquitted for the two murder counts he had been charged with. As such, the overall length of this trial spanned over eleven months, which was longer than another trial in California history.
The Judge, Prosecutor and Defense Attorney(S) Involved in the Case
The trial was presided over by Judge Lance Ito at the C.S. Foltz Criminal Courts Building (Bienen & Geis, 2016).
There were two leading prosecutors in this case, namely; Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark, who both were Deputy District Attorneys (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). The designated lead prosecutor was Marcia Clark, while Christopher Darden was his co-counsel. Prosecutors William Hodgman and Hank Goldberg, who both have a record of prosecuting high profile cases, also Helped Darden and Clark. Additionally, two more DNA experts’ prosecutors, George “Woody” Clarke and Rockne Harmon were added to the group of prosecutors to present the DNA evidence (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010).
O.J. Simpson was presented by a team of lawyers who were popularly referred to as the dream team due to their wealth of experience and the high status they had been held with (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). This team of lawyers is said to have costs O.J. Simpson an estimated $50,000 per day, an amount which Simpson reportedly paid partially by selling his football selling football memorabilia (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). Johnnie Cochran and Robert Kardashian headed O.J.Simpson legal team, which included other lawyers like Robert Shapiro, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, and Alan Dershowitz (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). Despite the prosecutor presenting strong evidence before the court, this dream team of legal counsels was able to poke holes successfully and raise doubts in regards to how the evidence was handled.
The Jury Selection Process
In October 1994, the lead Judge Lance Ito began the process of interviewing about 304 prospective jurors (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). These Jurors had to fill out a questionnaire, which was 75 pages in length. This process resulted in the selection of twelve jurors on November 3 with another twelve standing by as alternatives (Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). However, Skolnick and Shaw (2010) add that during the trial process, 10 Jurors ended up being dismissed for various reasons. From the original jurors, only four of them remained in the final panel.
The Evidence Introduced In Trial by the Prosecution and Defense
During the trial, the prosecution opted not to pursue the death penalty but instead seek a life sentence. The prosecution’s case revolved around circumstantial evidence to establish that Simpson had physical and motive evidence to establish that he had the opportunity and means to commit the two murders. An average total comprising of 488 pieces of evidence were presented before the Jury, although there were no murder witnesses or murder weapon found (Shapiro & Warren, 2016). The physical evidence presented in court comprised of classic forensic sciences such as shoe print analysis, hair, and fiber(Shapiro & Warren, 2016). Additionally, Shapiro and Warren, 2016) suggested that new forensic sciences comprising of serology and DNA fingerprinting was used.
The defense team used the reasonable doubt theory, and in the opening statement, this evidence was summarized as contaminated, compromised, and corrupted. According to the People Magazine (2019), the defense argued that the presented DNA evidence against O.J. Simpson had been compromised due to the mishandling by criminalist Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung at the evidence collection stage. The prosecution stressed that this comprised of the evidence presented meant that nearly 100% of the killer’s DNA had disappeared from the samples of evidence presented (PEOPLE Magazine, 2019). The defense lawyers also argued that this evidence had also been contaminated by Collin Yamauchi, who the criminalist was handling it at the LAPD crime lab. Additionally, Simpson’s DNA, which was from his reference vial, ended up being transferred to all the exhibits apart from three of them (PEOPLE Magazine, 2019). However, the defense argued that these three remaining exhibits had been planted by the investigating police, which means that they had been corrupted through the action of police fraud. Finally, in their defense, the defense counsel also questioned the prosecution timeline, arguing that these murders had taken place at around 11:00 pm on the said night of the murder (PEOPLE Magazine, 2019).
The Issues the Prosecution and Defense Run Into In Presenting Evidence
While arguing for the defense, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck suggested that the DNA testing results were unreliable mainly due to the sloppiness of the police when it comes to preserving and collecting the evidence at the crime scene (Chakravart et al., 2017). This compromised claim had been supported by the idea that both Mazzola and Fung had admitted to making numerous mistakes when collecting the evidence. For instance, among the mistakes committed included the fact that they didn’t change their gloves when handling different evidence items during packaging or storing the collected evidence in plastic bags (Chakravart et al., 2017). Additionally, instead of using the recommended paper bags and storing the collected evidence in a refrigerated environment, the evidence had been handled unprofessionally since it had been placed on a police van and stayed unrefrigerated for more than seven hours (Chakravart et al., 2017). As such, according to Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck, handling the evidence in this manner would mean that it was contaminated since it allowed bacteria to degrade the DNA from the “real killer(s)” (Chakravart et al., 2017). This development meant that the DNA samples presented in court were more likely to have been cross-contamination while at the LAPD crime lab.
In response to these claims raised by the defendants, the prosecution argued that although criminalist Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung admitted having committed mistakes while handling the evidence in this case, none of these mistakes would have altered the validated of these results. In contrast, all presented evidence samples were easily testable (Chakravart et al., 2017). The prosecution further argued that the majority of the DNA testing had been done at two separate consulting labs but not at the LAPD crime lab, where it is alleged that the contamination supposedly took place (Chakravart et al., 2017). Additionally, the prosecution held that since all the samples from the received consulting labs were testable, the theory presented by the defense counsels Scheck and Neufeld that this evidence had been compromised after being degraded by almost100% didn’t hold any water (Chakravart et al., 2017). Moreover, the prosecution also rejected the idea that this contamination had happened within the LAPD crime lab. To support their position, the prosecution presented the argument that had the police contaminated the evidence form the real killers as suggested by mixing blood from the victims and that of the murder, the resulting mixture would have shown both blood types (Chakravart et al, 2017). Instead, in this case, the evidence from the DNA samples revealed that only Simpson’s DNA had been present. The prosecution adds that the defense had declined to make any challenge on the results presented before the courts by testing this evidence themselves (Chakravart et al., 2017). As such, Marcia Clark, while submitting for the prosecution, called the arguments presented by Scheck and Neufeld, a smokescreen.
To counter the prosecution argument, the defense brought in microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes who elaborated on the contamination claims. Dr. John Gerdes testified that Forensic DNA is unreliable and that the LAD crime lab had displayed substantial glaring problems when it comes to contamination of this evidence (Chakravart et al., 2017). Additionally, Dr. John Gerdes also argued that LAPD’s crime lab had a history of evidence contamination, which means that he wouldn’t consider any of the DNA matches presented before the court to be reliable since their tests had been undertaken by the same lab (Chakravart et al., 2017).
However, Dr. Gerdes admitted during cross-examination that there had been no evidence to suggest that cross-contamination had taken place, and his testimony was based on what was likely to have occurred but not what occurred. Dr. John Gerdes agreed to the idea that the blood of the victims was in the Bronco while Simpson’s blood appeared on the crime scene, and in both cases, none of this was as a result of contamination (Chakravart et al., 2017). Additionally, Dr. John Gerdes admitted that there was nothing happening at both the shipping and packaging of this evidence to affect the results or validity of the consulting laboratories. As such, the prosecution dismissed Dr. John Gerdes claiming that he cannot be used as a credible witness for this case since he lacked forensics experience, and he hadn’t collected evidence or undertaken any DNA tests (Chakravart et al., 2017). The prosecution also noted that Dr. John Gerdes had also tested more than 23 times on previous occasions. In each of these cases, he had made similar claims that the DNA evidence presented was unreliable because of contamination (Chakravart et al., 2017). As such, Dr. John Gerdes’s evidence was dismissed by the prosecution to be highly improbable.
The Jury Vote and the Verdict
Before the Jury got downvoting, they made the point that their decision wouldn’t be based on domestic violence, race, or Simpson’s stature in society. Instead they stressed the point that their decision would be solely based on the evidence presented before the court (Cotterill, 2007). As such, when all evidence presented before the court was considered, the Jury came to a verdict that O.J. Simpson was not guilty, a decision that took four hours to arrive at. However, although O.J. Simpson ended up being acquitted for both counts of murders, the two victim’s families sued him for their wrongful death (Cotterill, 2007). As a consequence, Cotterill (2007) adds that the civil trial started in October 1996, and in less than four months later, the Jury in the second trial found Simpson responsible for these two deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. As a consequence, the court awarded the two families a sum of $33.5 million for damages that O. J. Simpson was supposed to pay (Cotterill, 2007).
References
Anolik, L. (2014). How O. J. Simpson Killed Popular Culture. Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/style/society/2014/06/oj-simpson-trial-reality-tv-pop-culture
Bienen, L. B., & Geis, G. (2016). Crimes Of The Century: From Leopold and Loeb to O.J. Simpson. Northeastern University Press.
Chakravarti, S., Potter, C., Hemmer, N., Petrzela, N. M., Young, N. J., Soroko, A., & Gottlieb, D. (2017, September 5). The OJ Simpson Verdict, Jury Nullification and Black Lives Matter: The Power to Acquit. Retrieved from https://publicseminar.org/2016/08/the-oj-simpson-verdict-jury-nullification-and-black-lives-matter-the-power-to-acquit/
Cotterill, J. (2007). If it doesnt fit, you must acquit: metaphor and the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 5(2), 141–158. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v5i2.141
Gordon, W. L. (2010). Reflections of a Criminal Defense Lawyer on the Simpson Trial. Journal of Social Issues, 53(3), 417–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02119.x
Heiss, B. (2018, May 3). Was O.J. Simpson’s Blood Planted at the Murder Scene? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eGQwoM5CZs
Mydans, S. (1994, June 18). Simpson Is Charged, Chased, Arrested. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/18/us/the-simpson-case-the-fugitive-simpson-is-charged-chased-arrested.html
Pemberton, P. S. (2013, February 16). Limo driver for O.J. Simpson the night of the killings had a quieter life in Paso after the trial. Retrieved from https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39436707.html
PEOPLE Magazine . (2019). People True Crime Stories the trial of o.j. simpson; S.l.: PEOPLE.
Shapiro, R. L., & Warren, L. (2016). The search for justice: a defense attorneys brief on the O.J. Simpson case. Los Angeles, CA: Graymalkin Media.
Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2010). The O. J. Simpson Criminal Trial Verdict: Racism or Status Shield? Journal of Social Issues, 53(3), 503–516. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02125.x
Sylvestermonroe. (2017, August 30). Black America was cheering for Cochran, not O.J. Retrieved from https://theundefeated.com/features/black-america-was-cheering-for-cochran-not-o-j/
THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Excerpts of Opening Statements by Simpson Prosecutors. (1995, January 25). Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-01-25-mn-24229-story.html
