The O.J.

Simpson Trial

The O.J. Simpson trial was a criminal trial of former college and professional football star
O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown
Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in Los Angeles. Simpson was arrested and charged
with the two murders on June 17; he pleaded not guilty and hired a team of prominent
lawyers to handle his defence.

Simpson was formally arraigned on July 22, 1994, entering a plea of not guilty and
underwent the first of two trials. The criminal trial began on January 24, 1995 and involved
the criminal charges against O.J Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman. Belief in Simpson’s innocence or guilt was divided largely along racial lines, with
a majority of African Americans in support of Simpson and most white Americans believing
in his guilt. The trial lasted nearly nine months and on 2nd October 1995 the jury finally began
deliberating and reached a verdict in less than four hours. On 3rd October Simpson was found
not guilty of the murders.

Although Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, his civil trial began in October 1996
with the families of the victims suing him for wrongful death. In less than four months the
jury found him responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and
awarded their families $33.5 million in damages.
Daniel M’Naghten

Daniel M’Naghten was born in Glasgow, Scotland, around 1814. After the death of his
mother, M’Naghten became a journeyman at the family workshop. After a 3-year career as an
actor, he returned to Glasgow in 1835 and set up his own woodturning workshop. By the time
he was 30 years old, M’Naghten was plagued by intrusive paranoid thoughts about police and
church officials.

On the afternoon of January 20, 1843, M’Naghten shot Edward Drummond, private secretary
to British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, in mistake for Peel. Drummond seemed to have
escaped serious injury and was able to receive medical attention however, due to
complications he died after 5 days. M’Naghten, making no effort to escape, was immediately
arrested. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

At trial, evidence was given of the shooting of Drummond and witnesses were called on the
behalf of the defendant, M’Naghten, to attest to the fact he was not in a sound state of mind at
the time of committing the act. Although both sides agreed that M’Naghten suffered from
delusions of persecution, the prosecution argued that he was only insane on the subject of
politics, and, unless he was proved to be generally incapable of knowing “right from wrong,”
was legally responsible for his crime.

M’Naghten’s lawyers argued that his behaviour was due to him suffering from delusions
specifically monomania which is an insane fixation upon a particular issue, subject or person.
The effect of his delusions had eradicated his ability to tell right from wrong. His lawyers
also said that the law should recognize partial insanity as a defence to murder. The soundness
of his mind in other aspects of his life was irrelevant; if he had been acting under the force of
his delusions at the time of the killing, then he must be considered insane.

The jury found that M’Naghten should be considered insane due to monomania and was
therefore not guilty of murder—that is, not guilty by reason of insanity.

It is due to this specific case that the four M’Naghten Rules arose. First, the defendant must
establish an underlying medical condition (“disease of the mind”), and second, prove that this
condition has caused an impact on their mental processes and understanding (“defect of
reason”). If the court is satisfied with both of these, that leaves 2 further hurdles to clear to
succeed with an insanity plea: Either the defendant did not understand what they were doing
at the time of the criminal act (“nature and quality of the act”), or, if they were aware of what
they were physically doing, they did not realize that the act was prohibited (“doing what was
wrong”).