By Luke Langlois

On June 12th, 1994, sometime after 10 p.m., two people were murdered in cold blood at a condominium in the prestigious Brentwood of Los Angeles: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald “Ron” Goldman. Today, for those who were not alive during the case or are unaware of the case, I would like to bring attention to what is known as the “trial of the century.” On that night, nobody knows quite what happened. But, what we do know is that a distressed family pet alerted a neighbor passing by. The neighbor reported the bodies, and the investigation began.

Meanwhile, Ms. Brown’s ex-husband and former NFL star, nicknamed “The Juice,” Orenthal James Simpson, was on an American Airlines flight to a convention in Chicago that had departed at 11:45 p.m. When O.J. arrived in Chicago and settled at the O’Hare Plaza Hotel, the police gave him a call. This was supposedly the moment when O.J. learned that his ex-wife had been murdered. Simpson boarded the next flight to Los Angeles and found his home under a full-blown investigation by the police. O.J. was then questioned by the police. This questioning was the first of many blunders by investigators. Diving into the specifics is unnecessary. All you need to know is that this questioning was so profoundly unhelpful that the prosecution did not even bring it into evidence in an almost year-long trial. Shortly thereafter, based on evidence found at the crime scene and O.J.’s house, the police felt as if they had enough to arrest O.J.

Like most alleged murderers, O.J. did not want to be arrested. He ran (just like he used to in the NFL). He got into a Ford Bronco and started driving down the freeway. Another driver recognized O.J.’s car and notified the police. The police and the media were soon pursuing O.J. They chose not to open fire at O.J. for a couple of reasons. First off, O.J was a football star. And, ninety-five million people were watching this chase unfold. There were also crowds of people surrounding the freeway on structures like bridges, cheering for O.J. Needless to say, the police were given the order to hold their fire to avoid chaos. Little did they know, chaos was going to unfold anyways. Second of all, O.J. threatened to take his own life if the police did not allow him to visit his home before being arrested. The police granted him this request. He was then arrested and jailed without a chance of bail (meaning he could not pay a fee to return to his home during the trial).

The prosecutors went into this case with a “slam dunk” attitude. A celebrity had seemingly just thrown himself on a silver platter. O.J.’s blood was at the crime scene. Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood was found on a pair of O.J.’s socks. Two matching blood-sodden gloves were found at two separate locations. One was found at the scene of the murder, and the other was found outside O.J.’s home. Bloody shoe prints from shoes that matched O.J.’s foot size were found at the scene of the crime. There was blood in his Bronco. The list certainly goes on. What went wrong? Given all of this forensic evidence, how was O.J. acquitted? Well…

• DNA Evidence? – Many have observed that, in 1995, the concept of DNA was not as widely understood by the general public as it is now. Even if it was wiggling its way into the education system, the jurors may have never seen or heard about the concept of DNA, having been educated years before 1995. The prosecution may have failed to properly convince the jury that the DNA evidence pointed to near certainty that O.J. was the killer. The defense, on the other hand, brought up what some jurors referred to as the most credible witness of the trial: Henry Lee, Forensic Scientist. Henry Lee refuted much of the DNA evidence that the prosecution brought into play. He was able to cast some doubt on what could once have been seen as certain evidence. Dr. Lee went through many of the pieces of forensic evidence, such as the bloody sock, and offered alternative possibilities. He established the idea that something was not right with the collected evidence. Reasonable doubt is all that is needed. By the time the jury had to make a decision, the jurors may have flat-out forgotten or given little regard to the intricacies of the DNA evidence.
• The Glove – In a highly confident move, prosecutor Christopher Darden asked that O.J. try on the gloves that were found at the scene of the crime; allegedly, these gloves were the gloves of the killer. In a dramatic event that has since been integrated into our pop culture, O.J. grabbed the gloves and tried to put them on. O.J. turned to the jury and began to wriggle his hand into the ill-fitting glove while harshly tugging on the edges in an attempt to get them around his hand. After the theatrics, it was evident that the gloves were not going to fit O.J.’s hands. This was a triumphant moment for the defense–and a grim realization for the prosecution. The jury remembered this point in the trial. Instead of remembering some small detail in a timeline that perhaps incriminates O.J., they recalled the time where O.J. Simpson, the charming NFL star, stood directly in front of them and failed to fit into the killer’s gloves.

• The “Corrupt Police” Theory – Given all of the forensic evidence against O.J., the defense had to find a way to create an alternate theory, rather than try to refute the irrefutable. Johnnie Cochran and his team of seasoned attorneys came up with the idea that it was the police who wanted O.J. behind bars. The lead investigative officer, Mark Fuhrman, was put on the witness stand by the prosecution to give a rundown of the investigation and the night of the arrest. The defense saw this as an opportunity to lay the foundation for their theory. O.J.’s leading attorney, Johnnie Cochran, was well known for defending clients that were victims of racially based police brutality. Mr. Cochran told fellow attorney, Francis Lee Bailey, to use the cross-examination to show the jury and the people of Los Angeles (the entire trial was televised) that this case was about more than O.J. This case was now about the systemic racism that allegedly plagued the L.A.P.D. Mr. Bailey asked Fuhrman if he had ever used the n-word to describe anyone. Fuhrman was adamant that he had never and will never use the slur. Later in the trial, an aspiring screenwriter came out and said that she had recorded evidence of Fuhrman using the aforementioned slur over forty times. The defense called Fuhrman back up to the stand for further questioning after they gained access to the tape. Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment right, meaning he refused to answer any question he was asked due to his right to avoid self-incrimination. During this examination, the defense asked the officer both if he had ever falsified a police report and if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the case. Individuals cannot pick and choose what they want to answer when they assert their Fifth Amendment privilege; he had no choice but to refuse to answer these questions. Fuhrman’s testimony about the evidence of the crime no longer had a sliver of credibility. The defense now had the opportunity to go through each piece of evidence and establish that it could have been tampered with, manufactured, or falsified. In addition, Fuhrman’s perjury gave merit to the idea that the L.A.P.D. had a dire issue with racism and corruption. Every single point made by the defense after Fuhrman’s testimony was underscored by these ideas.

The People v. O.J. Simpson case lends itself perfectly as a case that can be used to teach someone about the principles of the American legal system. People who have been charged need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, it was a slam dunk case to the prosecution. They had evidence that the defense could not possibly counter. But, after Fuhrman’s testimony, every piece of evidence that was once incriminating became an unknown. There was doubt to every piece of evidence. Did Fuhrman smear the gloves in the victim’s blood and plant a glove at O.J.’s home? Did a well-trained officer break into O.J.’s car and splatter some of the blood sample that he lent to the police? Why did the gloves not fit? It was a convoluted, labyrinthine, perplexing, tangled mess of a case with too many unanswered possibilities. This is why “The Juice” is loose.  

References:

Editor: Holden Hartle