Romy Simeu
Pd 7
Mrs. McQuaid
The Murder Trial of O.J Simpson.
The criminal trial of O.J Simpson has had a controversial pull of the American
public. The suspect, Orenthal James “O.J” Simpson, a Hall of Fame running back, was
accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald
Goldman on June 13, 1994. On October 3, 1995, O.J was declared acquitted by not guilty
verdicts of the jury. The double murder acquittal of OJ Simpson showed controversial
imperfections of the American justice system and it displayed injustice and possible
corruption in our courts.
I believe the final verdict was incorrect in the murder case of O.J Simpson. As a
television personality, O.J, the defendant, imposed public importance to the case. O.J was
found liable in the civil case but acquitted in the criminal charges. Race, another
influential factor, affected the verdict as well. Prosecuting lawyers produced some
evidence, such as a pair of gloves - one found at the crime scene and another at O.J’s
apartment - but obviously not enough for he was acquitted. Members of the victims’
families were distraught with disbelief. Racial involvement was found present in the case.
The media was fixated on the racially mixed couple. At the final trial, there were 10
women and two men. With nine African-Americans, one Hispanic, and two Caucasians,
the jury was racially biased. Poll data showed that most whites believed O.J to be guilty
and most blacks to be innocent. Given a jury questionnaire, 5 out of 12 jurors answered
physical force applied on a family member unethical. And with a majority of jurors black,
favor of sympathy was racially for O.J, considering he was African-American.O.J
Simpson simply used his money and social power as a public figure to work the system.
Common sense. He was found innocent because of the incompetence of the prosecution,
and a bias of race on the jury.
“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State, where the said Crimes shall have been committed;
but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the
Congress may by Law have directed.”- Constitution for the United States of America.
Trial by jury is important so there are no unbiased decisions that are unfair to the
defendant. I think this right is important because despite having some negative aspects,
right to a trial by jury is necessary in the structure of a democracy and it has some
positive aspects as well. The positive aspect of having a trial is you have overwhelming
evidence of your innocence or if you have faith your counselor will be able to create a
reasonable doubt of your guilt. The negative aspect of this is a person is at the mercy of
biases that are potentially deeply rooted in people that conceal their true motives or
feelings. Jury can be biased and also sometimes easily influenced. Depending on the
critic, I would agree our courts are becoming corrupted. Some judges are totally
influenced by basic facts and are not fully perceiving the case, the defendant’s view, and
the prosecutors’. But not all are as such. It is the duty of our government to provide for a
trial by jury.