This case study was so interesting because of the way evidence was presented in each of the trials. The prosecution made so many mistakes in the first trial that could have been avoided to change the outcome. The first mistake they made was bringing Officer Fuhrman into the case. He had a history of racism and was known to be against interracial marriages. Fuhrman declared he had not called any black person a "nigger" in the past ten years. Tapes were brought forward that proved Fuhrman was a liar. Another mistake they made was going in depth about DNA. The depth they went into was not necessary and just confused the jury. The prosecution then brought forward the murder's glove and had O.J. try it on. Of course, he made it look like it did not fit. This was a huge mistake. The first trial also spent too much time focusing on the mistakes the police made, while they should have focused on the murder. In the Civil Trial, the judge did a better job at keeping things on task and allowing certain evidence that would help the trial move along.
I learned from this case that it is so important what evidence is brought forward and who you choose to testify.
I can agree with what you learned from this trial, Megan. You can have all of the evidence in the world (good, clear, and explanatory evidence) however it can all go down the drain when it is used in an unprofessional and inaccurate way.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with what you learned from this trial, Megan. You can have all of the evidence in the world (good, clear, and explanatory evidence) however it can all go down the drain when it is used in an unprofessional and inaccurate way.
ReplyDelete