Thursday, December 10, 2015

Public vs. Jury

In the OJ Simpson case it was clear that the public thought that OJ should have been found guilty, but was not found guilty.  The public was convinced that he was a  murderer based on what they had seen with the car chase and based on how OJ handled the situation after the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.  But inside the courtroom the prosecutors floundered and had a terrible attempt at trying to prove that OJ Simpson was indeed the person that killed Brown and Goldman.  The prosecutors tried to use the glove that they found at the scene as evidence.  They gave the glove to OJ Simpson and let him try it on himself and it did not fit.  Instead of trying to explain why it did not fit the prosecutors instead dropped the idea completely.  The prosecutors also did not bring up the car chase, which I think is the most important evidence proving OJ is guilty.  Due to the terrible efforts by the prosecuting team, the jury had to make the decision based on what was presented in the court and not by outside influence.  The public and the jury had such different perspective on the cases because the public was not in the courtroom during the trial and they were presented evidence that the jurors were not presented leading them to believe that OJ was guilty.

2 comments:

  1. Good insight on this. I agree that it was just incompetence on the prosecution's part. I thought they had it in the bag once they tried to convict him. It was like the barbershop conversation that was brought up during one of the OJ films we watched in Global; "They let a guilty man go free".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, I think that the prosecution was at fault.

    ReplyDelete