O.J. Simpson Case Analysis

The O.J. Simpson case is a landmark case in several ways. In the American legal system, this should have been an open and shut case because the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed this crime and in the American legal system, the prosecution has the burden of proof to which prove the defendant committed a crime. The evidence collected in the Simpson case was sufficient for prima facie case to be presented to a Grand Jury for indictment. In other words, prima facie, or first look at the evidence was enough to prove that Simpson was involved in the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. From the beginning the Simpson case had many different undertones, such as political in regards to jury selection, which is why the prosecution choose to pursue the case in Los Angeles as oppose to Santa Monica. This became a pivotal decision that would probably affect many future cases where race could be involved.
The list of evidence such as 911 calls to police by the victim Nicole Simpson six months before occurrence of actual crime is in a way, testimony to the fact that Simpson’s behavior was not civilized and that Nicole Simpson was feeling threatened. The “trace evidence” found at the crime scene near the body of the victims, such as bloody shoe prints, which were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, and the blood from the gate, matched genetically with Simpson. Police also noticed a cut on Simpson’s left middle finger that could have dripped blood, proved significant to confirm the presence of Simpson on the crime scene. Police provided important evidence of presence of Simpson at the crime scene by stating that the blood dripped on the crime scene with proof from the scientific controls and tests at various labs foiled any attempt of tampering. Hairs found on Ronald Goldman’s shirt matched with Simpson’s