Premium Essay

Trial of O.J.Simpson

In:

Submitted By wanajones
Words 2126
Pages 9
Courtroom TV Paper: OJ Simpson Trial
Team C: Dwana Harris, Ian Mcguire, Ryan Raeffer, Andrew Cantrell, Renel Philippe, Aaron Pena
CJA/224
October 7, 2013
Lou Wittmer

Introduction The double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson is surely one that will live in infamy. From the controversial “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” phrase coined by his superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran to the jaw-dropping verdict of not guilty this case has made its mark in history. In 1994 Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found stabbed to death. With no other obvious suspects, Brown-Simpson’s husband Orenthal James Simpson became the object of law enforcement’s suspicion and was charged with the murders. The case was brought to trial and with seemingly solid physical evidence the prosecution went into attack mode painting a picture that was supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty of premeditated murder. However, having a “Dream Team” defense, as it was called proved to be far more beneficial to Simpson that anyone I this nation would have ever thought. The defense lawyers used mechanisms such as racial profiling and police corruption to mangle the prosecution’s case and discredit every piece of information that was once presumed viable. The trial deliberations grabbed the attention of almost every American and for the duration people stayed glued to the television awaiting the verdict.
What was the crime the defendant was alleged to have committed? What are the elements of that crime? Orenthal James (O. J.) Simpson, the defendant, was allegedly convicted on two counts of murder charges of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman. There were several elements regarding these crimes. “By definition, a crime has two basic elements: The guilty mind and the guilty act.” (Crawford, 2012). In the criminal

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Rhetorical Terms/Devices

...Rhetorical Terms/Devices Figurative language is the generic term for any artful deviation from the ordinary mode of speaking or writing. It is what makes up a writer’s style – how he or she uses language. The general thinking is that we are more likely to be persuaded by rhetoric that is interesting, even artful, rather than mundane. When John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” (an example of anastrophe), it was more interesting – and more persuasive – than the simpler, “Don’t be selfish.” Indeed, politicians and pundits use these devices to achieve their desired effect on the reader or listener nearly every time they speak. The stylistic elements in a piece of writing work to produce a desired effect related to the text’s (and author’s) purpose, and thus reveals the rhetorical situation. In classical rhetoric, figures of speech are divided into two main groups: Schemes — Deviation from the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words (transference of order). Tropes — Deviation from the ordinary and principal meaning of a word (transference of meaning). *Important Note: Words marked with an asterisk* are words for which it would be impossible for you to write 3 examples for your weekly vocabulary assignment. In those cases, please write only the definition, in your own words, and the rhetorical uses/effect of that device, or do what you are instructed to do under those words. Please mark these words that deviate...

Words: 7172 - Pages: 29