As we've learned, OJ had perhaps the most famous trial of the century in the 1990s. He was thought of having murdered two people -- his ex-wife and one of her friends. Simpson was found as not guilty, despite there being fairly strong evidence against him.
Why?
Simpson was wealthy. He had possibly the strongest legal team that he could create, often referred to as the "Dream Team."
This team did everything they could to convince the jurors of his innocence. Two of his attorneys specialized in DNA evidence, and used it to argue for Simpson's innocence.
The defense team also accused the LAPD of racism and other forms of misconduct.
The gloves that were found at the scene also should have been strong evidence against OJ, but once more him and his team maneuvered their way out of it. OJ's hands were swollen due to him not having have taken his arthritis medicine two weeks before. That, in addition to the gloves having shrunk slightly due to the blood, allowed him to pass that test as well.
Overall, OJ won because he had a team of legal geniuses with him.
The fact that OJ would have been immediately convicted had he not been incredibly wealthy strikes a nerve of mine. One of the articles in the bill of rights gives people the right to a fair trial. Does OJ's trial show that money can buy you an unfair trial, or that most people cannot afford a fair trial?
ReplyDeleteOJ Simpson was also not convicted because the African American community wanted revenge against the LAPD for what they did to Rodney King.
ReplyDeleteWell, it was very hard for both sides to agree on a jury because OJ Simpson was so well known. In fact, there was a motion to move the trial to another city, but the judge denied it because he thought the city in which Simpson was tried wouldn't make a different because he was so well known nationwide. Though true surveys showed African Americans and Latinos thought justice was served while many Caucasians thought the contrary, the jury was meant to be impartial. In the end, I would attribute Simpson's acquittal to the brilliant case made by the defense and the prosecution's blunders in how they responded.
ReplyDelete