The O.J. Simpson Case
The O.J. Simpson Case
O.J Simpson also known as Orienthal James Simpson was a renowned footballer. O.J was an athlete, an actor, a father and a husband to Marguerite who he later divorced and married Nicole Brown. The O.J Simpson case also known as the People of the state of California V. Orienthal James Simpson case was a criminal trial that took place in Los Angeles, California (Bugliosi, 1997). This was one of the most publicized trials in the American history. In this trial, O.J Simpson was tried on two counts of murder of his ex wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman.
In June 12th on Sunday night, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were found brutally murdered outside Browns Bundy drive in Brent wood in Los Angeles. Simpson was accused of their murder even though there was no tangible evidence on him. There were assumptions that Simpson killed them because the he had had an intimate relationship with his ex wife Nicole for the past weeks and he wanted to work out their relationship (Hunt, 1999). He later found out that she was going out with Ron Goldman and that is the reason why he killed them yet there was no evidence on this assumptions. Even after being accused, O.J Simpson was never convicted of this murder due to lack of evidence against him. He was acquitted after 8 months of trial but was forced to pay the Goldman family $33.5 million for damages and for the death of Ronald Goldman.
The first step in a jury trial is the jury selection. This is a process where jurors are vetted and questioned in order to determine their ability to integrity. Jurors are the most important people in a criminal trial because they decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged against them. The potential selected jurors are supposed to be made up of representatives of the local people. The voir dire process follows whereby the attorney’s and judges question the jurors to make sure that they are fair in their judgments and are unbiased. After the questioning, only 12 people are accepted as jurors for the trial and they take an oath to give verdicts upon the evidence presented in court only. Alternate jurors may be selected if the judge and the attorney’s believe that the jurors are qualified and competent to decide the factual matters in the case intelligently (Steven, 1989).
The second step is the opening of statements. The first discussion comes in two statements, one from the prosecutor and the other from the defense. The prosecutor presents facts of the case on the states view while the defense gives the jury its own analysis of the facts. The prosecutor and lawyers obligation is to give an opening statement on what is anticipated of the evidence. They also give a frame of the case, the point of contention and the issues of the case that should be decided
This step is followed by presentation of evidence and testimonies of the witnesses. . Later, the attorney presents evidence either in form of a written document or an object and the sworn in witnesses are then allowed to give their evidence in the courtroom. After full evidence has been provided in a courtroom, the lawyers from both sides give their arguments and conclusions are made (Godfrey, 1997). The judge gives the jury instructions and the law that should be applied in the case at hand. The case is then rested after all the evidence from both sides has been heard.
Closing arguments and jury instructions follow after evidence has been presented in the courtroom. The attorney summarizes the evidence presented and leaves it to the jury to find the verdict. Before the jurors start their discussion, the judge reads the instructions of the law to the jury and reminds them of the law that governs the case.
Jury deliberation and verdict is the last step in jury trial. A foreperson is selected to foresee that the discussion is carried out in a free and orderly manner. All jurors are given equal opportunities to express and support their opinions. Deliberations are done on all issues and voted upon prior to decisions being made on the case. In addition, when a verdict is arrived at, the jurors sign the verdict forms and notify the bailiff. The verdict is finally read by the clerk and the judge dismisses the jury. Conversely, the case maybe dismissed if the jury fails to reach a common verdict or they may start the trial all over again.
Jury sequestration is when a jury is isolated into a private location in order to avoid intentional or accidental tainting of evidence. This is done in order to avoid the public and other interested parties in the case from interfering and influencing the jury’s verdict. The jury is kept away from their homes, workplace, family, and the media throughout the trial. Through sequestering the jury, it is hard for them to be easily swayed away by the public, media and other interested parties information and thus they give their verdict basing on the information they have learnt during the trial only. Sequestration is most commonly used in criminal cases than in civil cases.
The main reason for jury sequestration is to protect the jury from outside influence. Other reasons are to minimize pressure from non-jurors, to promote fairness perception as there is an assurance of no outside interference and lastly to give the jury safety from threats, harassment and violence (Wagner, 1989).
Jury nullification is whereby the jury believes that a case is unjust but they still go ahead to acquit the defendant who violated the law. In simple words, jury nullification means that the jury is very sure that the defendant is guilty but just decides to nullify the guilt verdict (Felman, 2002). The jury can nullify the guilt verdict basing on race, color, religion, they feel bad or pity the defendant and also due to other bias reasons. Some jurors can nullify the guilt verdict based on personal feelings of the defendant. The racial based jury nullification is the most reported especially in the United States. An example of a case nullified by the jury is the case of the State of California versus O.J. Simpson. The jury had evidence but still went ahead to acquit Simpson of the murder charges by nullifying his guilt verdict.
Jury trials are mostly used to give verdicts on given criminal cases in many states. They only use the evidence presented in court to come to a conclusion and give a verdict at the end. The fate of the accused person in a jury trial is always in the hands of 12 people and they are supposed to remain impartial as they examine the evidence to give their verdict. The work of the jury before giving a verdict is to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant based on the information that is presented in the court during the trial and not to influence the trials before they start or in the process.
References
Bugliosi, V. (1997). Outrage: 5 Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder. Seattle: Island Books.
Hunt, D., M. (1999). O. J. Simpson facts and fictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Felman, S. (2002). The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wagner, W. (1989). Art of Advocacy: Jury Selection. California: Times mirror Books.
Steven, B. (1989). Trial by Jury. New York: American Lawyers Books.
Godfrey, D. L. (1997). We the Jury. New York: Prometheus Books.
