O.J Simpson Case Study

Mug head shot of Simpson after his arrest on June 17, 1994.

The O. J. Simpson murder case (officially called the People v. Simpson) was a criminal trial held in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court from January 29, to October 3, 1995. in which former American football star and actor O. J. Simpson was charged with two counts of murder following the deaths of his ex wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in June 1994. The case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history. Simpson was acquitted after a lengthy trial that lasted over nine months—the longest jury trial in California history.

BRIEF HISTORY

This trial was a farce from beginning to end. It cost OJ and the state of California millions of dollars to prosecute. He was guilty and everyone knew it, the Lawyers, the judge and the jurors. But because he was a big football star at the time, they all decided to let him off scot free. The witness was either unreliable, or the evidence was not allowed to be presented in court. The criminal trial lasted for months and was televised. This trial was or is being used in law schools across the country. If you have enough money it just goes to show justice can be bought, or sold as in this case. It is also evident just how unjust law can be.

A lot of people can’t help but to wonder, if this was not OJ Simpson, the rich and famous celebrity, but some guy from the wrong side of the track, defended not by a half-dozen high priced lawyers, but by a hard pressed public defender would the court be as indulgent/ have a different perspective and verdict?

Why was the O.J Simpson trial so important

What was the main analytical technique discussed in the murder trial?

>Technicians performed toxicology tests, mainly to detect the degeneration of blood and EDTA (Ethylendiaminetetraacetic acid).

>An autopsy was also done on the bodies to determine their exact cause of death and the weapon used.

>Due to the enormous amount of blood evidence, the most important and main test involved in the case were that of genetic fingerprinting.

>The forensic laboratories used Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) and the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).  

>RFLP, the more accurate of the tests, is typically used when there is more blood sample to work with, and is done by processing the DNA to produce autorads, which show the length of polymorphic fragments.  Investigators then examine the autorads to see if any of the fragments match, and, depending on the number of matches, determine the statistical likelihood of the DNA being the same as a suspect’s. 

>PCR, on the other hand, is a faster but less reliable process that is typically used when less blood is available.  It is accomplished by separating and then replicating the available DNA to the desired length.

>Hair and fiber analysis was also done. Hair analysis entails examining hairs under a microscope to determine whether they are human, and then comparing the known hair with a sample. >In O.J. Simpson’s case, investigators also analyzed the racial characteristics of each hair. Fiber analysis is accomplished similarly under a microscope, examining the fiber to determine origin (natural or synthetic), colour, length, diameter and other characteristics. Neither test, however, can individualize evidence, and are usually only ancillary.

What arguments were brought up by the defense and state’s

lawyers?>During closing arguments in the Simpson trial, Cochran uttered the now famous phrase, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He used the phrase as a way to try to persuade the jury that O.J. Simpson could not have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, because the murderer's gloves did not fit him.

>It was brought up that leather gloves shrink in water.

> The defense had to admit that lab test results of various bloodstains were valid and proper, and it quickly became clear that no blood had been "planted" anywhere.

>After glove expert Richard Rubin demonstrated that the bloody gloves could easily fit if latex gloves were not put on first, defense lawyer Robert Baker avoided asking Simpson to try them on.

>Plaintiff lawyers Daniel Petrocelli and Tom Lambert brought in all the pertinent witnesses from the criminal trial and took the jury through the evidence.

>DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks.

>Defence medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.

>The bloody footprints were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.

>The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size. In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes, however then free-lance photographer Harry Scull claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event. >Simpson's defense team claimed the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published

What lessons can we learn from this case?

O.J. Simpson’s case was a perfect example of how improper collection and testing procedures can negatively affect a case. Had investigators been better trained and less sloppy, O.J. Simpson would certainly be put behind bars. However, this was not so, and O.J. walked away a free man with no justice served to those he killed. It can be argued the only positive aspect of his legacy is the reminder to all forensic investigators the consequences that loom when a job is poorly done.

From the data collected, it is most likely that O.J. Simpson committed the murder.  However, Simpson was not found guilty when tried in court, and this acquittal is generally attributed to the many mistakes made in the forensic part of the investigation.  While investigators acted correctly in many instances, such as taking photos and notes, cordoning off the scene, only having the appropriate professionals collect evidence and running the tests they did, too many of the processes were fatally flawed.

Discuss whether you agree or disagree with the jury’s decision.

Not at all. There was a lot of evidence, more than enough actually, to put O.J behind bars.Although a few were unreliable, there were other valid ones. The evidence are:

>African-American hair was found on Goldman's shirt.

>The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.

>A knit cap at the crime scene contained African-American hair. Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-coloured sweat suit that night.

> The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.

>Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.

>By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences between most blacks and most whites in terms of their assessment of Simpson's guilt.