During the trial, Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the witness stand, later pleading nolo contendere to a charge of perjury. 2) What were the defenses used? In a criminal trial, unlike a civil trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They had collected a lot of evidence from the crime scene and from Simpson’s home. They also had collected a history of domestic violence between Simpson and Brown while they were married.
One case in particular, that shows to great depth just how effective the criminal legal system can be is the Desmond Campbell Vs Janet Campbell case. After trial, on the 18th of May, 2010 Desmond Campbell was found guilty of pushing his wealthy wife Janet (age 49) to her death on the 24th of March, 2005 off a 50 meter cliff just south of Burning Palms in the Royal National Park in for financial gain. It was noticed that the offence committed by Des carried a maximum forfeiture of a life sentence in Prison, however, the Crown (and Judge) came to the conclusion that this specific case did not meet the description found in The Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999. They felt it differentiated too drastically in terms of seriousness (with Desmond’s conviction sitting in the mid range of seriousness for offences of murder) and in level of culpability in comparison other cases such as R v Coulter (2005) NSWSC 101 , R v Gonzales (2004) NSWSC 822 and R v Walsh (2009) NSWSC 764 which led to life sentences. There was, in fact a mitigating factor put forward by the defence lawyer for Desmond being that his older brother was killed in a motor vehicle accident shortly after he had migrated to australia traumatizing him during his years as an infant years.
Officially referred to as the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, the O. J. Simpson murder case spanned from November, 1994 to October, 1995, charging the former professional football star and actor O. J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and one of his friends. This case was described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history. After more than eight months of trial, Simpson was acquitted of all criminal charges. During the criminal investigation, trace evidence was collected. Included in the physical trace evidence collected are hair and fibers.
Simpson’s murder trial in 1995… Not guilty and cleared of all charges! Many adults agree that the evidence pointed to Simpson, but how is it that he escaped from the legal system? Was it the fantastic lawyers, a fluke of luck, or was he genuinely innocent? In order to answer that question, we must compare this case to other cases similar to this that happened. The death of Caylee Anthony comes to mind.
Simpson was accused of the double murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. O.J was subsequently acquitted of the crimes and walked off a free man. O.J’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran conducted a well-executed plan of defense against the allegations made. There was a strong lack of consistency and there were major flaws in the prosecution case. The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant.
The one thing both these laws have in common is that they both try to control the behavior by imposing sanctions on those who violate the law. In the case of O.J Simpson, he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and found liable for the wrongful deaths of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Under the criminal law, O.J Simpson pleaded 100 % not guilty for these two counts of first degree murder. During all the criminal proceedings there was plenty of evidence that pointed the finger to Simpson. In the end Simpson was acquitted for the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
This is a very expensive practice. Also, the average convicted murderer spends 12 years on dead row. If supporters of the death penalty are positive enough to kill the person for committing the crime, shouldn’t the supporter be confident enough to execute them in a timely manner? Why spend the taxpayer’s money keeping
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
Here are the statics: “Since 1989 when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 328 defendants have been exonerated in the United States after being convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder. The exonerated were 316 men and 12 women; 145 of them were cleared by DNA identification and 183 by other kinds of evidence” (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/May10_04/25.shtml). What went wrong? * Eyewitness Misidentification * Improper Forensic Science * False Confessions * Overzealousness/Public Pressure Eyewitness Misidentification Imagine being a victim so frighten and traumatized after such a hideous unimaginable experience. It can be hard, almost impossible to accurately describe the assailant.
The Criminal Justice System locks up innocent people and yet innocent people are still getting killed. Eyewitness misidentification has proven to be the leading cause for wrongful convictions, according to The Innocence Project. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992, for the purpose of assisting prisoners to be proven innocent through DNA evidence. To date, 300 people in the United States have been exonerated through DNA testing. The Innocence Project's attorneys and Cardozo clinic students have assisted in the majority of these cases.