Orienthal James Simpson was a well-known celebrity in North America. He was a football player who upon retirement from the National Football League turned to acting. His ex -wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman were found brutally murdered outside Nicole’s residence on June 12, 1994. The police had a thorough scan of the crime scene in search of evidence. Crucial DNA evidence showing that Simpson was involved in the murder was found (Dershowitz, 1997).
OJ Simpson’s trial was named “the trial of the century” because it had become the most publicized case of all time in the U.S. The case received a lot of media attention and California State used over twenty million dollars in the case. During his trial, several controversies that complicated the trial were experienced. The prosecution decision to file the case in downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica where the crime had occurred strongly influenced the racial composition of the jury. If the case had been filed in Santa Monica, most of the Simpson jury would have been Whites as opposed to what happened in downtown where most blacks formed the jury. Several poll data showed that most Blacks believed that Simpson was not guilty and most Whites believed that he was guilty (Dershowitz, 1997).
The selection of Jury got underway in the courtroom of Judge Ito on September 24, 1994. The Judge, 250 potential jury members, Simpson and lawyers for both the defence and the prosecutor were present that day. The attorneys who participated for the defence in the process of jury selection were Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro as well as the jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius who was highly respected. The prosecution was represented by Bill Hodgman, Marcia Clark and Don Vinson who was a jury consultant. Judge Ito highlighted and explained the procedures to the potential members of the jury and warned them that the trial could last for several months (Bugliosi, 1997)..
Judge Ito asked the jurors to complete a questionnaire of 294 questions including questions that were proposed by both the defence and prosecution. They were also to complete a “hardship” questionnaire of one page designed to determine the jurors who could be initially excluded from the process of selection. Most of the potential jurors complained about the lengthy questionnaire that took about four hours for most of the people to complete (Petrocelli, 1998).
Jury selection continued for about two months. Potential jurors who violated Judge Ito’s strict rules regarding exposure to media were excluded from consideration. For instance, one potential juror was excluded because of watching cartoon with her children. Each potential juror, lawyers for both sides and Simpson took a seat at the conference table during the voir dire process; the objective of voir dire process from the perspective of each side was not to get a fair jury but rather to get a prejudiced one on their favour (Petrocelli, 1998). Jurors who gave answers which indicated that they prejudged the case could be challenged for cause; others could be excluded using limited number of peremptory challenges. The attorneys could exercise their peremptory challenges almost for any reason such as appearance, dissatisfaction with answers and body language but not in the basis of sex or race (Petrocelli, 1998).
Almost every challenge by the prosecution of a black juror made Cochran to approach the bench and make a suggestion that the challenge might have been racially motivated. It was clear that the defence wanted black jurors and the prosecution wanted white jurors. The defence poured a lot of effort in the jury selection process. Consultant Dimitrius collected and coordinated a large volume of data on each jury finalist, including their answers to the questionnaires, body languages and responses during the voir dire process and in other data that the defence had managed to collect. All these data was fed in a computer and each jury was then ranked according to their likely sympathy to the defence (Bugliosi, 1997).
The extensive live media coverage of preliminary hearings of Simpson’s trial resulted to complications of the role of criminal jury and also led to sequestration of the jurors which had the effect of social and psychological hardships for them. These jurors made huge personal sacrifices to loyally serve in the sequestered jury but in turn received criticism after they finally rendered the verdict of the case.
As a result of the extensive complications and problems in the criminal trial, the civil jurors were treated differently. They were not sequestered and the publicity of the trial was reduced by Judge Fujisaki’s orders and his silence. However they were conscious about the media because they knew of the criminal juror criticism. Judge Ito warned that any contact to the outside world including appointments and phone calls made by Simpson jurors would be monitored by deputies. Weekends and Wednesdays were set aside for family visits (Petrocelli, 1998).
Although Johnnie Cochran labelled the tactic of the followings of OJ Simpson by the LAPD as the key suspect in the murder of Ronal Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson as a “push to judgement”, he was actually referring to the early investigations that were done regarding the crime. The media however attached a meaning to the label when the jury that was in the trial gave out its decision only four hours after starting deliberations (Petrocelli, 1998).
The public was so astonished that the decision was made so quickly after several months of deliberations and many witnesses within the criminal trial. According to critics, the decision was made at a “break neck speed”. There was an outcry and demand for a reform in the jury system. The verdict was made by twelve juries and in both counts of murder, Mr. Simpson was found not guilty. The public again was shocked by this verdict because the DNA evidence that was presented against Simpson was obvious that he would be convicted. Many critics attributed the reason for the verdict to be the mishandling of evidence by the police (Bugliosi, 1997).
Simpson’s trial demonstrated polarization of racial attitudes regarding issues such as law enforcement which still exist in the US. It is for this reason that the trial will be remembered in the history of US. It created an enormous awareness of issues concerning domestic issues, provided lessons on how to handle a criminal trial and a new type of journalism “immersion” that still flourishes today.
References
Bugliosi, V. (1997). Outrage: The five reasons why O. J. Simpson got away with murder.
New York: Island Books.
Dershowitz, A. M. (1997). Reasonable doubts: The criminal justice system and O. J. Simpson
Petrocelli, D. (1998). Triumph of justice: The final judgment of the Simpson saga. New York:
Crown.
