TRIAL OF O.J.

SIMPSON

RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL

A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a group of jurors listen to evidence and render
a decision. During a jury trial, a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of
fact which are then applied by a judge.
It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all
decisions.
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to trial by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
There is no constitutional right to jury trial for petty offenses, but only for serious
offenses.

The right to trial by jury entitles a defendant to have a jury decide and to ascertain facts
relevant to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence.

Size of jury: The U.S. Constitution requires at least six jurors, but does not require more
than six. There is no constitutional right to a jury of 12, but there must e at leas six jurors
to satisfy the right to a jury trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld convictions that
were less than unanimous, but probably would not approve an 8-4 vote for conviction.

The O. J. Simpson murder case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in
American history, in which O. J. Simpson, former American football star, was brought to
trial for the 1994 murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald
Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 after a lengthy trial—the longest jury trial in
California history.

Defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran was able to persuade the jurors that there was
reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence and alleged other misconduct by the Los
Angeles Police Department.

FACTS

At 11:40 PM on June 12, 1994, Brown and Goldman were found fatally stabbed outside
Brown's condominium in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles, California. Evidence found
and collected at the scene led police to suspect that O.J. Simpson was the murderer.
Nicole had been stabbed multiple times through the throat, to the point of near
decapitation. Goldman's body was found with 'teaser' wounds on it, implying that the
murderer taunted him with the knife before actually killing him.

Both the defense and prosecution agreed that the murders took place between 10:15 and
10:40 p.m. They presented a witness who saw a car similar to Simpson's Bronco speeding
away from the area at 10:35 p.m.
The low-speed chase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcyyCi2b2AY

Lawyers convinced the Los Angeles Police Department to allow Simpson to turn himself
in at 11 a.m. on June 17, even though the double murder charge meant no bail and a
possible death penalty verdict if convicted (double homicide is a capital offense in
California).

When he failed to appear, confusion set in. At 2 p.m., Robert Kardashian, a Simpson
friend and one of his defense lawyers, read a letter by Simpson to the media: "First
everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder… Don't feel sorry for me.
I've had a great life." To many, this sounded like a suicide note and the reporters joined
the search for Simpson.

The police tracked calls placed on the cellular telephone from Simpson's van in Orange
County. A sheriff's patrol car saw a white Ford Bronco belonging to Simpson's friend, Al
Cowlings, going south on Interstate 405. When the officer approached the Bronco,
Cowlings, who was driving, yelled that Simpson had a gun to his own head. The officer
backed off but followed the vehicle with Simpson in a low-speed chase at 35 miles per
hour.

Former USC coach John McKay went on air on Radio station KNX and persuaded
Simpson to pull over and turn himself in instead of committing suicide.

The chase ended at 8 P.M. at Simpson's Brentwood home, 50 miles later. He was allowed
to go inside for about an hour. His attorney Robert Shapiro arrived and a few minutes
later, Simpson surrendered himself to authorities.

PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

The criminal process begins either with the filing of a complaint or an arrest. Here, it
began with the arrest of O.J. Simpson after he surrendered himself to authorities after the
car chase.

Booking is an administrative procedure, and it involves making an entry in the police

station indicating the suspect’s name, arrest time, offense, and taking of fingerprints and
photographs.

1. Initial appearance
The first court appearance is called initial appearance and takes place in a municipal or
a lower court. Once the person is arrested, the individual must be brought before a
magistrate. It is here the suspect is informed of their constitutional rights as well as the
nature of charges against them and bail decisions are made.
BAIL

Here, O.J. Simpson was not eligible for bail because the California criminal law does not
allow bail for double murder charges in order to protect the public from this dangerous
suspect. So from this point on, O.J. Simpson was behind bars waiting for his trial until he
was acquitted.

In situations where bail is permitted, it is set to assure the court that the defendant will
appear for later proceedings. The judges set the amount of bail and many defendants end
up waiting in prison for trial because the cannot afford to pay the bail. The poor are at
disadvantage in this respect.

2. Preliminary hearing
The date is set for a trial during the preliminary hearing. If probable cause is
established that the defendant committed the crime, then the defendant is “bound over”
for trial, which means the trial date is set and the defendant is notified of the pending
charges. It is a “critical stage” where the defendant has a right to have his lawyer present.

3. Indictment
Charges may be filed against a defendant by an indictment issued by a grand jury. It
informs the defendant of the facts and the elements of the offense for which the
individual is charged. The Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to proceed
through an indictment handed down by a grand jury. This clause has not been applied on
the state level so charges can be filed directly through information filed by the prosecutor
unless the state requires an indictment. Twelve states require indictment by a grand jury
only for felonies while three require indictment by a grand jury only for capital offenses.

In the case of O.J. Simpson, a hastily assembled grand jury was formed to see whether to
indict him for the two murders. But two days later on June 22, the grand jury was
dismissed as a result of the excessive media coverage which might influence the grand
jury’s ability. After a week-long court hearing, a California court superior judge ruled that
there was ample evidence to try Simpson for the murders.

4. Arraignment
The arraignment is a formal hearing before a felony court where the defendant is again
informed of the charges against him and advised of their rights. At this time the defendant
enters a plea, which is the defendant’s response to the charges against him. Possible
please include guilty, not guilty, standing mute, and no contest.

Standing mute means that the defendant is refusing to plead. In this case, the court enters
a not guilty plea on behalf of defendant, thus preserving the constitutional right to trial.
A no contest plea, also referred as nolo contendere, means the defendant accepts
whatever punishment the court would impose on a guilty defendant but refuses to admit
liability. A no contest plea is frequently used by defendants who fear being exposed to
civil liability for their criminal misdeeds that a guilty plea would expose to them.

At his second court appearance, on July 23, Simpson stated, "Absolutely, one hundred
percent, not guilty." Once the defendant pleads not guilty, the next step is the trial itself.

JURY TRIAL

A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a group of jurors listen to evidence and render
a decision. During a jury trial, a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of
fact which are then applied by a judge.
It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all
decisions.

JURY SELECTION

Once the trial date is set, jury selection begins. The jury is selected from the eligible
members of the community, who are selected at random. The legal term for gathering
potential jurors is “venire” which means “make come” (to the courthouse) in Latin.

Prospective jurors are examined by the judge and/or attorneys for prosecution and
defense, to determine whether they have any bias, prejudice, or interest that would
prevent the potential juror from being impartial. This process of questioning the jurors is
referred to as the “voir dire” which means “to speak the truth.” The purpose of voir dire
is to get an impartial jury but in reality, each side seeks to excuse potential jurors who are
biased towards their side. Both the prosecution and the defense may seek to remove
potential jurors they feel may be biased against them.

Many attorneys even go as far as employing jury consultants to help them determine what
type of person is more likely to favor their sides. Jury consultants are very expensive and
the defense team for O. J. Simpson has hired a jury consultant to design a questionnaire
and to help in selecting a jury favorable to Simpson.

FAIR CROSS SECTION REQUIREMENT

A defendant has a right to have the jury selected from a representative cross-section of the
community. He need only show the underrepresentation of a distinct and numerically
significant group in the venire to show his jury trial right was violated.

Although a defendant is not entitled to a jury of any particular composition, due process
requires that the pool of prospective jurors be fairly representative of the community.
Thus, large, distinctive groups or identifiable segments playing major roles in the
community (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, women) may not be excluded from jury service
unless the government proves that the exclusion serves a significant public interest.
Any jury selection procedures which systematically exclude distinctive groups in the
community and thereby render the pool of jurors not reasonably representative are
violative of the rule and thus require the government to show that the selection system
serves a significant public interest.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE BASED ON RACE

Generally, a prosecutor may exercise peremptory challenges for to exclude potential

jurors to maintain an impartial jury.

Both the prosecution and the defense may seek to remove by challenge potential jurors
they feel may be biased against them. Jurors may be dismissed by either 1) for cause, a
valid reason for wanting to dismiss an individual to court’s satisfaction, or 2) a
peremptory challenge. A peremptory challenge is one for which no reason need to be
given.

The prosecution may not use peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors from a jury
solely on account of their race. Further, a criminal defendant may assert that the
prosecutor has unconstitutionally excluded potential jurors based solely on their race even
when the defendant and the jurors are not of the same race.

The Supreme Court has held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude
potential jurors on the basis of race (Batson v. Kentucky 1986) or gender (JEB v.
Alabama 1994).

Rather than try the crime in mostly white Santa Monica, California, where trials for
murders occurring in Brentwood would normally have been held, the prosecution decided
to have the trial in Los Angeles. During the jury selection process, the defense made it
difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential black jurors on the grounds that it is
illegal to dismiss someone from the jury for racially motivated reasons (California courts
barred peremptory challenges to jurors based on race.)

Prosecutor Marcia Clark thought that women, regardless of race, would sympathize with
the domestic violence aspect of the. On the other hand, the defense's research suggested
that women generally were more likely to acquit, that jurors did not respond well to
Clark's style, and that black women would not be as sympathetic to a white woman as
victim. Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original
jury pool of 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian, the final jury for the
trial had 10 women and two men, of which there were nine blacks, two whites, and one
Hispanic.

THE TRIAL
Once the jury is selected and sworn in, the trial begins. The first step in a jury trial is the
making of an opening statement, first by the prosecution, because it has the burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson had committed the murders.

The prosecution elected not to ask for the death penalty and instead sought a life
sentence. Los Angeles County prosecutor Christopher Darden argued that Simpson killed
his ex-wife in a jealous rage.

The defense may choose to reserve its opening statement after the prosecution has
presented its evidence. This is called the prosecution’s case-in-chief. During this phase,
the prosecution must establish each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. Once the prosecution has presented its evidence and called its witnesses, the
defense has an opportunity to present its case-in-chief.

The prosecution resented dozens of expert witnesses, on subjects ranging from DNA
fingerprinting to blood and shoeprint analysis, to place Simpson at the scene of the crime.

The prosecution spent the opening weeks of the trial presenting evidence that Simpson
had a history of physically abusing Nicole. Simpson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued
that only a tiny fraction of women who are abused by their mates are murdered.

Attorneys specializing in DNA evidence, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, were hired by
the defense to discredit the prosecution's DNA evidence, and they argued that Simpson
was the victim of police fraud and what they termed as sloppy internal procedures that
contaminated the DNA evidence.

Simpson's defense team, dubbed the "Dream Team", argued that LAPD detective Mark
Fuhrman had planted the evidence (the glove) at the crime scene.

Prosecution's case

Even with no murder weapon, no good fingerprints, and no witnesses to the murders, the
prosecution was confident that they presented a solid case, supported by DNA evidence.
The DNA evidence has almost always brought a conviction if a match is made and often
it has led to exoneration when there is no match.

According to the prosecution's account of the murders, as Nicole Brown was lying face
down, Simpson pulled her head back using her hair, put his foot on her back, and slit her
throat, severing her carotid artery. They then argued that Simpson left a "trail of blood"
from the condo to his Bronco to his house on Rockingham Drive.

In theory, a DNA test can look at the genes in the tiniest scraps of body tissue, whether a
splash of blood or a strand of hair, and determine with near certainty whether they came
from Mr. Simpson or from someone else. It can dissect a smear of cells found at Mr.
Simpson's Brentwood mansion and indicate if the cells are from Mrs. Simpson or Ronald
L. Goldman, her friend who was killed with her.
DNA evidence

DNA "fingerprinting" is founded on the premise that because each person's genetic
material is unique, it should be possible to determine whether a suspect's DNA matches
that from the scene of a crime. Samples of DNA can be obtained from substances often
found at crime scenes like blood, semen, skin or hair.

The characteristics of certain segments of DNA vary from person to person and form a
detectable "genetic fingerprint" that is so statistically uncommon as to be virtually
unique. DNA evidence has been used in thousands of homicide, rape and paternity cases
-- often with little challenge from defense attorneys.

Prosecutors, hoping to crush juror doubts under a mountain of evidence, contend the
results of multiple DNA tests on numerous items prove that Simpson cut himself during
the killings, trailed his blood at the crime scene and inadvertently smeared his victims'
blood inside the Bronco.

The blood samples sent for analysis to Cellmark Diagnostics of Germantown, Maryland.
Cellmark laboratory director Robin Cotton testified that the DNA tests showed O.J.
Samples from bloody footprints leading away from the bodies and from the back gate of
the condominium were tested for DNA matches. Matches were found between Simpson's
blood and blood samples taken from the crime scene, in both the footprints and the gate
samples.

Simpson's genetic markers were identical to those found in a blood drop found a few feet
from the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman, who were slain June
12 outside her town house. There was only a 1-in-170 million chance that anyone other
than O.J. Simpson could have been the source of the blood, she told jurors.

Similarly, she testified that Nicole Simpson's DNA matches the blood recovered from a
sock police found in O.J. Simpson's bedroom on the day after the murders. Chances were
fewer than one in 6.8 billion that anyone other than Nicole Simpson could have been the
source of the blood, Cotton estimated.

During their cross-examination of Cotton, Simpson's lawyers did not challenge the
underlying reliability of DNA testing methods, but attacked the way that evidence was
gathered and processed, the way the blood samples were collected and preserved, as well
as the weight that should be given to any of the test results. They also suggested that
police officers planted the assorted swatches of blood as part of a broad conspiracy to
frame Mr. Simpson.

For example, police criminalists have acknowledged under cross-examination that blood
samples collected from Mr. Simpson's home were contaminated when they were left to
deteriorate in a sun-baked van and mislabeled. Putting wet swabs in plastic bags and then
putting them in a hot truck for seven hours would degrade the DNA.

It was also found that a trainee carried the vial of Simpson's blood around in his lab coat
pocket for nearly a day before handing it over as an exhibit. When the samples from the
crime scene — the glove, the blood drops — were all put on the table by LAPD
criminalist Collin Yamauchi, he wasn't sure he changed his gloves when he touched each
different sample and did DNA testing, that could result in cross-contamination.

What should have been the prosecution's strong point became their weak link amid
accusations that bungling police technicians handled the blood samples with such a
degree of incompetence as to render the delivery of accurate and reliable DNA results
almost impossible.

However, proponents of DNA testing say that whether or not blood samples have been
"contaminated" and unfit for testing is a specious issue. For one thing, they say, false
positive results in the laboratory are extraordinarily rare events. In one study, out of more
than 25,000 court cases that have been completed using forensic DNA, not one false
positive was found.

Glove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16KaoVmVTPE
(1:00- )

The DNA tests matched Mr. Simpson's blood to a series of stains running from his Ford
Bronco to the front door of his home in the Brentwood section. The tests also show that
blood stains found on a pair of socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, smears on a leather
glove recovered behind his home and spatters in his Ford Bronco match those of the two
victims.

On May 16, Gary Sims, a California Department of Justice criminologist, testified that a
glove found at Simpson's house tested positive for a match of Goldman's blood.

One dark leather glove was found at the crime scene, with its match found at Simpson’s
house. Nicole Brown had bought Simpson this pair of glove in 1990. Both gloves,
according to the prosecution, contained DNA evidence from Simpson, Brown and
Goldman, with the glove at Simpson's house also containing a long strand of blonde hair
similar to Brown's.

Prosecutor Darden decided to have Simpson try on the glove. The leather glove seemed
too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the rubber gloves he wore
underneath. Simpson had not taken his arthritis medicine for a day and it caused swelling
in the joints and inflammation in his hands. The prosecution also stated their belief that
the glove shrank from having been soaked in blood and later testing. The glove had been
soaked in blood from Simpson, Brown and Goldman, and frozen and unfrozen several
times to preserve the evidence.
Prosecutors contended that Simpson's blood found at the crime scene was the result of
blood dripping from cuts on the middle finger of Simpson's left hand. Police had noted
his wounds on June 13. They asserted these were suffered during the fatal attack on
Ronald Goldman. However, the defense noted that none of the gloves found had any cuts.
They also alleged that LAPD Officer Fuhrman had planted the glove at Simpson's house
and that the analysis finding that the hair could be Brown's could not be reliable.

Even if the defense lawyers could not have convinced the jury of a conspiracy in planting
the gloves, they may still have succeeded in planting so many doubts about the reliability
of the scientific evidence that the jurors may ultimately throw up their hands in confusion
and disregard the DNA.

Mark Fuhrman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZnwTOzdznY

The final prong of the Simpson defense required no theorizing, only a deep distrust of the
Los Angeles Police Department. Simpson's lawyers argued that the blood drops found at
the death scene, inside the Ford Bronco and at his Brentwood estate were planted as part
of a police conspiracy to frame him for the murders.

Defense attorney Neufeld reminded jurors through a series of hypothetical questions that
the blood found inside Simpson's Bronco could have been planted by Mark Fuhrman, a
detective on the case. The defense explanation for a bloody glove found on Simpson's
property is that Fuhrman is an emotionally unstable racist who found the glove at the
crime scene, hid it in his sock, took it to Simpson's estate, smeared it inside the Bronco,
and claimed to "find" it on Simpson's property.

Police officer Fuhrman testified to finding blood marks on the driveway of Simpson's
home, as well as a black leather glove on the locations that had blood of both murder
victims on it as well as Simpson's. Fuhrman denied on the stand that he was racist or had
used the word "nigger" to describe black people in the 10 years prior to his testimony. But
a few months later, the defense played audiotapes of Fuhrman repeatedly using the
n-word – 41 times, in total. The Fuhrman tapes became one of the cornerstones of the
defense's case that Fuhrman's testimony lacked credibility.

Closing arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4

Each side has the opportunity to sum up its case. Here, the prosecution goes last since it
has the burden of proof.

Defense attorney Cochran's jury summation compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler, "a
genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare and the personification of evil."
Cochran repeated a quip, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" often misquoted as "If the
glove don't fit, you must acquit."

In closing arguments, Prosecutor Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might
have wanted to frame Simpson. He questioned why, if the Los Angeles Police
Department was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic
violence calls without arresting him before eventually citing him for abuse in 1989, and
why they then waited five days to arrest him for the 1994 murders.

Verdict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryU7Ze7Yx0c
(1:40-)

After the closing arguments, the judge will give the jury instructions on the applicable
law. Here the elements of murder are premeditation and deliberation with intent to kill.
The instruction on the burden of proof for criminal trial is to prove that O.J. Simpson
killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman with premeditation and deliberation beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Once the jury has received its instructions, it retires to the jury room to deliberate. It
remains there until a verdict is reached. In most jurisdictions, criminal verdicts must be
unanimous despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that unanimity is not constitutionally
required. In these jurisdictions, failure to achieve a unanimous verdict is a hung jury
where the defendant may be retried without violating the prohibition against double
jeopardy because the case never reached a conclusion.

At 10 a.m. on October 3, 1995, after only four hours of deliberation the previous day, the
jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty and O.J. Simpson went home after 473
days in custody. If a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, the defendant is set free. The
constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy prevents the state from prosecuting the
defendant again for the same act.

In post-trial interviews with the jurors, a few said that they believed Simpson probably
committed the murders, but that the prosecution bungled the case. Critics of the verdict
contend that the deliberation time was unduly short (only 4 hours), and that jurors did not
understand the scientific evidence. Prosecutors claimed to have heard a few of the jurors
saying things like "Well, lots of people have the same blood type."

However, acquittal for reasonable doubt, that the prosecution did not prove the O.J.
Simpson killed Brown and Goldman beyond a reasonable doubt, seemed to be the best
legal explanation for the result.

RIGHT TO IMPEACH JURY VERDICT

The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial and mentally competent jury does not
invalidate rules which precludes admission of juror testimony, affidavits or other
statements regarding improper juror behavior for the purpose of attacking the validity of
the jury’s verdict.

In a jury trial, the jury decides and ascertains facts relevant to the ultimate guilt or
innocence. It prevents distrust towards judges with low professional quality and political
bias.

The O.J. Simpson jury trial ignited a national debate over race and fame, and how both of
them corrupt the U.S. legal system. Chief prosecutor of the Simpson trial, Gill Garcetti
said: "Don't look at this case as being how most cases are handled. Juries do the right
thing - nearly all the time."

The O.J. Simpson trial presented a limitation in the fairness of the jury system when a
prevailing social factor such as racism affected the jury decision. Some polls concluded
that many blacks, while having their doubts as to Simpson's innocence, were nonetheless
more inclined to be suspicious of the credibility and fairness of the police and the courts,
and thus less likely to question the outcome.

RECENT FINDING OF KNIFE

Police learned in February 2016 that an ex-Los Angeles traffic officer received the item
from a construction worker who found it "back in the 90s," possibly when the estate was
being demolished, Los Angeles police Capt. Andy Neiman
said. The home was razed in 1998.

Neiman said he didn't know why the ex-officer waited so long to turn it over to police.
The officer possibly held onto it in the mistaken belief that the case was closed, Neiman
said.

USC law professor and criminal defense attorney Michael Brennan explains the situation
surrounding the finding of the knife:

When is a criminal case officially closed?

It closes when somebody is arrested and convicted of the crime that’s been committed. In
this case, that hasn’t happened. [Simpson] was charged and acquitted, so the case is still
open. They just haven’t prosecuted and convicted anyone for those two homicides. It is
not certain that the LAPD has spent a tremendous amount of time trying to find another
suspect.

What could happen next if no DNA evidence is found on the knife?

Then it’s just another knife. If there is some forensic evidence that ties the knife to the
victims, either victim, then the knife has some historical consequence but it wouldn’t
have a legal consequence.

What could happen next if O.J. Simpson’s DNA is found on the knife?

He can’t be tried for the same crime twice [because of the double jeopardy clause].
Federal authorities in federal court could pursue charges of violation of the victim’s
federal civil rights. There is also the issue of the statute of limitations. Having said that,
that piece of evidence alone might not be enough to cause federal prosecutors to file such
charges even if they could.

What is double jeopardy and why is it necessary?

We’ve always had the concept of double jeopardy in our legal system. The prosecution
has one chance to charge and prosecute someone for a crime. If you are found not guilty,
then the state or the federal government cannot charge you again. It prevents people from
being harassed with criminal charges that they’ve been acquitted of in the past. If you fail
to convict them, you can’t try it again.

Is that absolute, or are there any loopholes?

It’s absolute in terms of the state. The state cannot charge you with that same crime again.
There are no loopholes. The only exception would be if you are acquitted in state court of
a crime, there is the possibility of federal prosecutors prosecuting you in federal court for
violation of a victim’s civil rights. That seldom happens, but it is a possibility.

If the knife had been turned in earlier, Brennan says any forensic evidence found on it
would have been stronger. But more than 20 years after the crime, this knife is likely not
a smoking gun.