Why O. J. Simpson was Aquitted

We would like to trust the judicial syste

Jury selection today is arguably the most important factor when there is a jury trial. Choosing peers to judge for themselves how justice should be carried out is an enormous responsibility especially for those who do not have experience with legal proceedings in a trial. Definitions of "beyond a reasonable doubt" must be understood and comprehended by an entire jury. For many of us who sway away from doing jury duty are in essence giving our civic responsibility up to someone else. It is then that we can not discredit a system of jury selection or the courts because of our lack of interest to participate in the process of determination of guilt or innocence of a defendant. The peers who try a case in a jury trial should make up a diverse mix of people who share similar backgrounds to the defendant and who are unbiased or prejudiced. It can then be said that the jury is accountable for their community and to the justice system.

The truth was somewhat discovered when the Defense team uncovered the lies that the police had told. The truth uncovered was that the police who were related to the Simpson investigation were not telling the whole truth. Dershowitz also asserts that the police commonly lie because they are able to and because they want to convict people they "know" are to be guilty. By being able to perjure without reprimand is common and a known fact amongst the prosecutors, the defense, and the judges. Why it is acceptable is a controversial question. The police have adopted a system called the "dropsy" testimony in which an officer willingly lies to convict a criminal that he believes to be guilty of crimes he is charged. Dershowitz gives an example when a judge accepts policeman's testimony because it is "his word against that of [a] drug dealer." Furthermore, Dershowitz argues that there is a whole system that perpetuates police perjury or "dropsy" testimony. "Everyone is happy with the result. The cop gets credit for a good drug bust. His supervisor arrest statistics look good. The prosecutor racks up another win. The judge gets to give his little lecture on ' "rectitude" ' without endangering his reelection prospects by actually freeing a guilty criminal. The defense lawyer collects his fee in dirty drug money…The public is thrilled that another drug dealer is off the street." (50-51; ch.3). Why is it so acceptable? Does this act of police "dropsy" testimony endanger the legitimacy of our courts? If planted evidence is to be used to frame an already guilty man it seems that the same technique can be used to convict an innocent man. It is the jury who seeks to decide if there is a reason to doubt testimony. If it is revealed to their satisfaction that there is perjury they have the power to disbelieve everything that this offered to them by the perjured witness: "Judge Ito invited the jurors

The judge's responsibility is to ensure that evidence is submitted properly and relevantly. Unfortunately this process may be more subjective than objective. Therefore, if the judge neglects evidence procedure or has not followed suit in observing legal technicality his case may be overturned in the Court of Appeals. This does not favor the judge's reputation and that could lead to reprimands.

evidence from the prosecution to give a plausible guilty verdict then the Defense will try to prove the innocence of their defendant.

Search and seizure procedures must be followed strictly to avoid contamination of evidence, po

Some topics in this essay:
Vannatter Fuhrman, Los Angeles, Furthermore Dershowitz, Star Witness, Dr Walker, Court Appeals, Judge Ito, Fuhrman Vannatter, OJ Simpson, Simpson Simpson, oj simpson, jury selection, reasonable doubt, domestic violence, dershowitz asserts, officers fuhrman vannatter, officers fuhrman, dropsy testimony, furthermore dershowitz, tampered evidence, court system, police seemingly bigger, character police seemingly, bigger issue simpson, issue simpson murderer,