People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson

Case name: People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 

Date: October 3rd 1995

Citation: No. BA097211 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct 3, 1995)

Introduction

The case to be discussed was the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. This incident was held on June 13, 1994, outside Nicole’s house in Brentwood, Los Angeles. Its popularity, as well as the amount of coverage it endured, has been declared the O.J. Simpson case. It unravels the potential defenses and twists however due to the complexities, this case has been heavily criticized for determining who the perpetrator was that committed the crime. Ultimately, it has been described as ‘one of the most iconic trials in American History.’[1] The lawyer representing the state is Marcia Clark, with co-prosecutor Christopher Darden, and the lawyers involved in O.J. Simpson’s ‘Dream Team’ are Johnnie Cochran as lead defence attorney, Robert Shapiro as initially leading the defence before Cochran, and the following who played a role in the defence, including F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Carl E. Douglas and Barry Scheck. Even though the substantial effect of the criminal trial resulted in a not guilty decision, a shift of the case was shifted to the civil division regarding damages. However, this case summary will be focusing specifically on the criminal trial related to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and how it reached a verdict.

Facts of the case

The bodies were discovered by two neighbours who heard Nicole’s dog barking, which was said to have started between the hours when the murders occurred and when the bodies were found. A brief overview of the context between Nicole and O.J. Simpson: both parties were divorced, and it was said that even after their divorce and Nicole continued her separate life, he was still in love with her and both attempted to reconcile. There have also been many 911 calls from Nicole about O.J. Simpson’s behaviour in the past, but there has not been a situation where an arrest could be made against O.J. Simpson. During a dinner Nicole attended, she contacted the restaurant where Ronald was also working about a pair of glasses that were left there. Ronald insisted he will return the glasses to her which ultimately ended with his body being discovered along with Nicole’s. Many of O.J. Simpson’s belongings were said to have evidence of the victims’ blood, including his socks, blood on his car and a leather glove that was found on the scene and the recovered pair in O.J.’s residence. On July 22nd, 1994, he pleaded not guilty at trial, and the last court trial was in the Superior Court in Los Angeles in front of Judge Lance Ito.

Legal issues 

There were various legal issues in this case that exacerbated the possibility of O.J. Simpson being convicted as a result. One of the issues was whether the blood and hair samples from O.J. Simpson were deemed admissible and reliable for a safe conviction. The prosecutors have claimed a transparent link to O.J. Simpson with these samples, concluding that this would be a safe and thorough conviction to be obtained. However, the defence has challenged the collection of those samples, claiming O.J. Simpson was a potential victim of evidence tampering due to racial motivation. Thus, it would make the samples inadmissible to be used as evidence to convict him. Under the 4th Amendment of the Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, the Constitution establishes the legality of bringing collected evidence that should be obtained by a warrant. It was ruled by the court that even though it was collected without a warrant, it was justified in the means of the possibility of the evidence being destroyed. Furthermore, the glove found in his possession was admitted as evidence, and the amendment was not violated. 

Ultimately, this will follow the next issue of whether there was police misconduct and racial bias when arresting O.J. Simpson. There was an argument that Detective Mark Fuhrman was involved in engaging in evidence tampering and was racially motivated in the investigation. The prosecution has said all collected evidence was not fabricated; however, the defence claims there was a racist bias from the detective and had falsely arrested O.J. Simpson. In addition, under the California Evidence Code Number 352 of Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence, it has established certain evidence that is deemed admissible to be used in a trial or can be excluded for different reasons. Judge Ito has allowed certain tapes that has illustrated the detective’s racial bias and question his credibility on the balance of probative value and prejudice. If the arrest was done by racial bias, this would affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of The Rights of the Defendant. Moreover, this resulted in allowing the defence to cross-examine witnesses, including the Los Angeles Police Department, under the Fourteenth Amendment, which further influenced the jury’s perception of the case itself.

Arguments 

Plaintiff 

Represented by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, they have been able to make use of the samples to determine that O.J. Simpson was the true culprit in the murders of Nicole and Ronald Goldman. It was said that the blood in his car and Nicole’s residence matched his, and the glove found in his property matched the other pair that was left in the murder scene. Additionally, this is followed by adding the history of numerous distress calls from Nicole herself about O.J. Simpson’s domestic abuse thst continued to happen after their divorce. The history behind the abusive relationship has illustrate a bad character towards him, ultimately making a firm argument of his motive of murdering her.

Defense

The ‘Dream Team’ have coordinated the entire point of racial bias and possible evidence being tampered with to frame O.J. Simpson. Their focus was mainly towards Detective Mark Fuhram, illustrating how his personal racial bias has affected his ability to make decisions. Therefore, accusing O.J. Simpson and convicting him would potentially be encarserating an innocent man by the the reliance of a man who does not express equals of someone of colour. They have also exclaimed that the gloves found in the crime scene and the other matched pair in his estate did not fit him, indicating that he was not the suspect to have killed the victims: ‘if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.’[2] Furthermore, showing the gloves not fitting O.J. Simpson conveys the probability the legal system has flaws that needs to be corrected when convicting someone of colour of a crime.

Court analysis

Having the perspectives of both sides, it has been very divided as to which side was deemed to be societal and legally correct. African Americans were on the defence side, exclaiming their related experience to inequality and discrimination in the legal system. However, the division was then heightened as the majority of White Americans sided with the Prosecutors. Furthermore, the court was very puzzled about how to approach a safe verdict in this case, as this was broadcast live for everyone to see. 

Decision

After 8 months of witness examination and cross-examination involving the Los Angeles Police Department, the court came to a verdict of O.J. Simpson not guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman under Penal Code 187(a). Despite the amount of forensic evidence against O.J. Simpson, the prosecution did not secure a proper conviction against OJ. The concurring opinion emphasised that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof, and thus could not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, it was mentioned that the credibility of the Los Angeles Police Department was therefore undermined due to racial bias and discrimination and potential police misconduct. Ultimately, this has highlighted the issue of how evidence was handled, with the possibility of evidence being tampered with and framed. The dissenting opinion was the heavy forensic evidence which has shown Simpson’s involvement in the murders. In addition to this, they have criticised the jury for being influenced by emotional arguments. Opinion by author George Anastaplo initially expressed his belief that ‘a conviction was likely.’[3] Since the jury decided this case, there was no written formal passage of obiter dicta by the judge. However, Judge Ito has made several comments on his perspective of the case as being ‘a spectacle, and the dignity of this courtroom must be preserved.’[4]

Significance

The fascinating draw to the end of this case was how it has left an impact towards the legal system and how it has been shaped and physically brought many people to visualise the division of who believed in O.J. Simpson’s innocence and who did not. During the trial and towards the end, there was a survey noting a complete division of African Americans and White Americans who believed O.J. Simpson was guilty. A staggering 63% of White Americans believed he was guilty in contrast to only 22% of African Americans. Compared to the survey reopening after 20 years since the decision was made, it rose with the percentages of 83% of White Americans and 57% of African Americans believing O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.[5] In addition, a survey conducted by YouGov[6] has concluded that many will remember O.J. Simpson for the criminal court trial of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. This highlights the extreme coverage the trial underwent, including being televised.

Conclusion

The continuing interference of the media televising the trial has truly made this criminal case one of the most modern and significant cases to ever be televised in American history. Its arguments of potential evidence tampering and racial bias, and police misconduct have truly challenged the legal system in its achievement of justice to be served. The prosecution has relied heavily on forensic evidence and the history of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown, whilst the defence relied on the possibility that the evidence being presented had been tampered with due to racial bias from the police themselves.  

Bibliography

Cases

• The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson No. BA097211 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct 3, 1995)

Legislation

• California Evidence Code Number 352 of Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence
• California Penal Code 187(a)
• Equal Protection of the Laws, Fourteenth Amendment
• Sixth Amendment of The Rights of the Defendant
• The Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, Fourth Amendment

Journal Article

• Anastaplo G, ‘The O.J. Simpson Case Revisited’ (1997) 28 Loy U Chi LJ
• Rajesh J, “The OJ Simpson Trial: Forensic Evidence and Narrative Construction” (2024) 7 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 2250

Books

• Bugliosi V, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder (W W Norton & Company 1996)
• Toobin J, The Run of His Life: The People v OJ Simpson (Random House 1996)

Websites

• Ross J, ‘Two Decades Later, Black and White Americans Finally Agree on O.J. Simpson’s Guilt’ (The Washington Post, 4 March 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/25/black-and-white-americans-can-now-agree-o-j-was-guilty/ accessed 19 June 2025
• ‘O.J. Simpson Recently Died at the Age of 76. What Will You Most Remember Him For?’ (YouGov, 12 April 2024) https://today.yougov.com/topics/sports/survey-results/daily/2024/04/12/c6d3e/1 accessed 20 June 2025

[1] Jahnavi Rajesh, ‘The OJ Simpson Trial: Forensic Evidence and Narrative Construction’ (2024) 7 Int’l JL Mgmt & Human 2250.

[2] Vincent Bugliosi, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder (W.W. Norton & Co 1996) 211.

[3] George Anastaplo, ‘The O.J. Simpson Case Revisited’ (1997) 28 Loy U Chi LJ 461, 464.

[4] Jeffrey Toobin, The Run of His Life: The People v OJ Simpson (Random House 1996) 45.

[5] Janell Ross, “Two Decades Later, Black and White Americans Finally Agree on O.J. Simpson’s Guilt” The Washington Post (March 4, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/25/black-and-white-americans-can-now-agree-o-j-was-guilty/  accessed June 20, 2025.

[6] YouGov, “O.J. Simpson Recently Died at the Age of 76. What Will You Most Remember Him For?” (Daily Question, April 12, 2024) https://today.yougov.com/topics/sports/survey-results/daily/2024/04/12/c6d3e/1 accessed June 20, 2025.