Oj Simpson Individual Verdicts

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

As the jury consists of various people, chosen randomly, their verdict is one the public generally displays willingness to accept. This creates a sense of fulfillment and that ‘justice has been served’ within the

Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

The numerous ups, downs, and controversies surrounding the life of former star football player OJ Simpson have led to a strangely divided collective memory of the man. The term collective memory refers to a shared pool of information held in the memories of a group from aggregated individual recollections. The story of OJ Simpson’s life is both sad and puzzling after overcoming adversity to become one of the best football players of all time and a public figure beloved by many Simpson would go on to put himself in a worse situation than ever before.

In the U.S. our system is formulated by various means to construct tweleve fair and unbiased jurors. Whom acording to our text, hypothetically decide cases based on “burden of proof and reasonable doubt.” These individuals listen and take into account the evidence and testimoneys of witnesses appointed by both the prosecution and defense through the duration of the trial. Though many make a preliminary decision based on the opening statements. Once trial has commenced the jury is dissmissed to the deliberation room. Where disscussion about the elements of the case and the defendents specific actions begin, but jurors usually vote as soon as they retire to jury room and the orginal vote wins the majority of the time. Allowing their own

Simpson is guilty and it was not easy to prove in a courtroom, because evidence was tampered with, improperly accumulated, and not all of it was collected. Employees of the crime lab admitted to errors that took place when collecting, and storing evidence from the crime. I also feel that if the juror panel were selected in Santa Monica, where the crime took place, a very different judgment and verdict would be made. Simpson’s jury panel was selected from Downtown Los Angeles. Selecting a jury panel from Downtown Los Angeles led to a significantly different demographic of people selected to be on the panel, than residents of Santa Monica. Selecting a jury panel from Santa Monica would have led to a much different group of individuals, with an advanced level of education. I believe many oversights were made in the case and if it were handled appropriately, O.J. Simpson would’ve been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many Factors led to a poorly situated case for the persecution, and the selected jury

On October 3, 1955 one of America’s most immense juror cases had finally announced a verdict , O.J Simpson was found not guilty in killing his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman - Nicole’s friend. Only to find out years later that O.J. was actually guilty for this crime, when detectives went to O.J.’s estate home they found multiple evidence such as blood all over his white Bronco, hairs of his on Ron’s shirt, and even footprints of Simpson’s shoe size. Was the United States justice system so corrupt and prejudice to the point that they let a guilty man free just because of his social status and money. Simpson displays the main topic in the short story 12 Angry Men which is whether the United States has a prejudice unfair justice system. Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and unjust due to the jurors biased way of thinking, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of

A jury is a certain number of men or women, selected by law, grouped together to decide the verdict of a case. (“What is JURY?”) They play an important role in our system of justice. In the United State a jury hears testimony and evidence of the case to determine if that is enough to move forward. Over the years the jury system has evolved immensely and has improved. Roles have become different, some roles in the jury system have been discontinued and others have been added.

In the courtroom, the jury acts as the last chance that the defendant has to try to secure his or her freedom. Depending on their final verdict, the life of another human being is decided. Any jury, though, can only be as good as the jurors that make up the panel. This fact is very clearly illustrated in Twelve Angry Men, where a couple of bad seeds almost end up making a premature decision based on purely arbitrary reasons that would retuen to haunt them. Clearly, mixed in with those truly cared about whether or not the suspect that was accused actually got a fair trial, there were also those on the other end of the spectrum who honestly could not have cared less.

It is difficult to believe that O.J. Simpson was once a respected and celebrated professional football player, sports commentator, and actor. However, his image was irrevocably shattered on June 17, 1994 when Simpson was involved in a car chase that lasted about an hour on California's I-405 (O.J. Simpson leads L.A. police on a high-speed chase, 2013). Dubbed the "Crime of the Century," O.J. Simpson's trial was a media circus and was sensationalized for a number of reasons including Simpson's status as a celebrity, the mishandling of evidence, and the issue of race.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Major arguments in favour of the jury system are that it is a fundamental right and a safeguard against political and judicial corruption. The jury system has been in existence for many centuries and is generally accepted by the community. However, some believe that the jury is unable to deal with the complex issues of some of the trials today. Others believe that the Jury is still an important cornerstone of our legal system. As a general rule, the jury accepts its responsibility with great dedication to what has to be achieved by the trial. They are often referred to as the ‘lamp of freedom.’ They consist of ordinary women and men and are therefore not prejudiced by past experiences with the operation of the legal system. They are also not bound by the rules of precedent. They provide a fresh view of how the law should be applied to a set of circumstances. They are independent of political pressures and reflect the common sense values of the community. They are, in essence, a cross-section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authority but are being tried by people themselves from within society. A jury is able to assess the situation before it, not in legalistic terms, but according to the current standards of the community. An example of this is the Clare Margaret McDonald case, by which she was found not guilty of killing her abusive husband. The verdict followed jurors asking questions in court about the legal concepts of self-defence and ‘beyond reasonable

There are times after an extended and exhausting trial when it is more than easy for jurors to pick a common verdict, hopefully confident in their decision. However, in a criminal case, if one juror out of the twelve were to vote innocent, then the jury must take the extra time to debate and unanimously decide on verdict. In a situation like that, it is easy to understand the temptation to give in to the overwhelming majority, but maintaining integrity and choosing to disagree forces the jury to reevaluate the evidence and their verdict. It only takes one opposing voice to prompt a discussion and only positive change can result from well-rounded and thorough

In today’s society a defendant is innocent till proven guilty in the court of law. In every jury trial, the lawyers always begin a cases with the process of selecting the jurors. Juries is define as a group of people who are members of the community and are chose to give a verdict in a legal case. Jury duty is mandatory for all United States citizens (White, Black, Male or Female). To fully understand how important the jury selection is for the criminal justice system, we need to first understand the process of jury selection.