The infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial turned out to be a good case in point of what an officer should not do with regards to a criminal case. As the lead investigator looking into the murders of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Simpson, Detective Mark Fuhrman was a great example of ineptitude. There is a deep rooted theory that Det. Fuhrman planted evidence at the crime scene and falsified official police reports and other papers in an attempt to avoid the justice system and get a conviction against Mr. Simpson. Even though Det. Fuhrman never openly confessed to these things, the transcript of his testimony shows this to be the case. When asked during the trial if he did these things, he invoked his 5th amendment rights and refused to answer the questions. The belief is that if he hadn't done such things he would have just said so (Belrad, 2009).

According to the way things should be done, during testimony, the investigating officer should never feel bound to change facts or to make declarations that could harm or obstruct their...

Mark Fuhrman obviously failed to grasp to this most critical of all guidelines. It should be pointed out that by testifying to the fact that the planted evidence was genuine, he was enduring to forge the facts of the case during the trial stage. As substantiation by the concluding verdict of the trial, Detective Fuhrman's input to the case, in an attempt to aid the prosecution, was the single biggest factor in the acquittal of the defendant. Mr. Simpson's innocence or guilt was never in fact tried, completely because of how poorly the investigation was muddled by Fuhrman (Belrad, 2009).
References

Belrad, Bryan. (2009). Mark Fuhrman and the OJ Simpson murder trial: A study in officer testimony. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/846239-mark-fuhrman-and-the-

oj-simpson-murder-trial-a-study-in-officer-testimony

Brennan, Warren O. (2010). Mark Fuhrman and the OJ Simpson murder trial: A study in officer testimony. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1848468-oj