As we as a class look at the OJ trial, I remember something
Mr. Stewart said. He said that a lot of cases are won and lost before the trial
even starts. There are a few errors the prosecution made before the trial even
started that could have changed the outcome of the case. The prosecution first decided not to use the
bronco chase that would have allowed the prosecution to use the disguise, the
fake passport, and the $10,000 as evidence to show guilt. It could be argued
that not many people have these things in a car that they are using to flee if
they are innocent. They also did not use any evidence from which OJ was at the
police station. This had the cut hand and the poor explanation from OJ about
how he got it. The prosecution also tried to have the trial in downtown Los
Angeles instead of Santa Monica, which was the jurisdiction that OJ committed
the crime in. This affected the Jury pool the prosecution had to work with and
ended up greatly benefiting the defense. Only two of the Jurors had a college
education which made the DNA evidence the prosecution used go right over their
head as it is later shown that the jury had no idea how to interpret the DNA
evidence. While it is debatable that the prosecution had a lot of evidence for a
conviction and it was the numerous blunders during the trial that ultimately
led to the not guilty verdict, the mistakes in pre trial by the prosecution
made it an up hill battle for a conviction at the very least.
Definitely. Many people make the argument that the reason OJ was acquitted was because the jury had a favorable outlook on OJ. While this may be a contributing factor, its is VERY minor considering that fact that the prosecution did a very very poor job of explaining evidence obtained from the crime scene, and the unbelievably numerous amount of police mistakes during such a crucial investigation. The trial is about what you can show.
ReplyDeleteI like your point, Jason. However, I wanted to build off it and explain what I feel is the reason why the jury favored O.J.'s innocence. Throughout the trial, the prosecution obviously did a very inadequate job presenting the right evidence in the right light. As the defense capitalized on these mistakes, the defense attorneys were able to deflect the focus of the evidence pointing towards O.J. into explaining why the evidence was invalid. Because all of the evidence was stacked against O.J., the defense knew the only way they could go about this case was invalidate the evidence and discredit the officers who conducted the investigations. They victimized O.J., saying he was accused of being framed, and went to extreme extents that most likely put the jurors mind in a blender, causing them to lose focus that Nicole Brown was the victim. You are right that the trial is about what you show, but the defense only won because they were able to show a lot of things that made the jury think harder about O.J.'s innocence, except for the fact that what was shown by the defense was far fetched and a bit of a reach.
ReplyDelete