The OJ Simpson Case Analysis

The American criminal justice process and system are responsible for shaping the present-day US laws; influential entities include even 19th-century governmental authorities and political leaders. The system, which comprises law enforcement bodies like local police forces, correctional facilities and criminal courts, was primarily created for ensuring American citizens’ safety. It constitutes a structural framework that facilitates the maintenance of law and order in American society (Zedner & Ashworth, 2012; \\"Justice, Western Theories\\", 2018; Baldwin, 1912). 

According to Mueller (1996), the structuring of the US criminal justice system has gone through several modifications after historic events occurred within the criminal law context that uncovered the system’s shortcomings (Mueller, 1996). These events, perhaps, influenced lawmakers to enforce amendments and change the case execution process, for appropriately upholding justice. One such case is that of OJ Simpson, who was tried for killing Nicole Brown (his former wife) and Ron Goldman (who worked as waiter at the Mezzaluna Restaurant); the two were found dead on 13th June, 1994.

The victims’ bodies were discovered just before midnight. According to the prosecutor, the killings probably took place somewhere around 10:15-10:35 P.M., as indicated by the Akita dog’s wailing. Simpson and Kato weren’t accounted for from 9:36 P.M. onwards (when the two went their separate ways upon reaching Rockingham house, on their way back from McDonald\\'s) until 10:55 P.M. (when limo driver, Allan Park, saw Kato on the estate’s grounds and, at the same time, a \\"shadowy figure\\" that looked like Simpson entering the house). In a short while, Simpson left for the airport, to board a Chicago-bound midnight flight (Mueller, 1996). Though Simpson didn’t testify at all at trial, his lawyers claimed their client was, in this period of time when nobody saw him, asleep, packing, and playing chip golf shots. For proving Simpson was guilty, the prosecution presented the following types of evidence.

Firstly, they cited Simpson’s motive, conduct, frame of mind, and appearance. Simpson was incensed that Nicole had left him, reconciled, and then left him again, just a month earlier (Muller, 1996; Thompson, 1996). She had rejected his birthday present for her and not included him in her family circle during the dance performance and subsequent dinner. Further, Simpson’s left index finger was injured, as observed by policepersons at the station on the night of the murder. This cut wasn’t noticed earlier, either by the dance recital attendees or Kato Kaelin.

The next piece of evidence provided was a ski cap and bloodstained, left-handed Aris Isotoner glove discovered at the site of the murder. The other (right-hand) glove, also bloody, was discovered on the outer walkway to the rear of Simpson\\'s house. Fibers taken from the Bronco fabric, ski cap, Goldman’s shirt, and the gloves were identical (Mueller, 1996).
The third proof presented was scientific. Blood samples from the Bronco and glove were DNA tested, with the results matching Goldman, Simpson, and Nicole. The blood sample from a bloodstained sock discovered on the defendant’s bedroom floor was DNA-tested and matched Brown’s DNA. Lastly, blood drops discovered on the Bundy sidewalk and Rockingham house’s hallway and walkway matched the defendant (Mueller, 1996; Fairchild & Cowan, 2010). These scientific proofs were quite incriminating, given the statement that, in only one in 7 billion cases would the alleles be identical in the accused and in the sample found on the crime scene.

A sound counterattack was put forward by the defense. Firstly, it claimed the prosecution’s statement pertaining to Simpson\\'s motive, conduct, frame of mind, and appearance was wrong. Their client was neither furious with the victim nor intended any harm (Brewer, 2004; University, 2018). According to a homemade video of the recital, Simpson appeared to be congenial and smiling when interacting briefly with another performer’s parent. Secondly, the defense team criticized the physical proof’s integrity and interpretation; defense lawyer Cochran mocked at the idea that his client would disguise himself using a ski cap (Hasian, Jr., 2003). The prosecutor all but lost the case when the defense team claimed the glove found on the estate grounds was placed there by Mark Fuhrman, a racially-prejudiced policeman, to frame Simpson. Lastly, the scientific proof provided was also attacked (Thompson, 1996). The defense proved errors in blood sample collection and a potential cross-contamination or mix-up at the lab or the scene of the murder. Simpsons was declared not guilty through a unanimous jury voting.

The case’s actual impact was: the influence of racial impartiality in law enforcement work, and white and non-whites’ different criminal justice experiences (\\"The Jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to Prevent a Multiplicity of Suits\\", 1912; Jones, 2018; Labaton, 2018; University, 2018; Skolnick & Shaw, 2010). This trial raised key ethical concerns regarding race, whistleblowing, media responsibility and economics (Amaya & Lai, 2013; Bowe, 1987; \\"Interviews - Gerald Uelmen The O.j. Verdict FRONTLINE PBS\\", 2018). It prompted a closer inspection of the interests of accused and law enforcers, and of whether or not the system acted in citizens’ best interests. On 27th October, 1995, the Californian Judicial Council voiced its plan to make the following modifications to the jury system: a reduction in civil jurors’ number to eight, increased juror salaries, disallowing cameras within court, and eliminating unanimous rulings in certain criminal cases (Brewer, 2004). Further, it restructured DNA evidence-gathering, testing, and presentation (Fairchild & Cowan, 2010). In response to public outrage after the court’s ruling, the legislature altered its evidence code, ensuring evidence excluded within the Simpson trial was, in subsequent cases, admissible. Lastly, new hearsay exceptions were enacted, in addition to new domestic violence-related rules that deem everything admissible.