The Trail of O. J. Simpson

Simpson hired a high-profile defense team led by Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey. Los Angeles County believed it had a solid prosecution case, but Cochran created in the minds of the jury the belief that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (then a relatively new type of evidence in trials), including that the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians. Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconduct by the Los Angeles Police Department. The televising of the lengthy trial riveted national attention on the dramatic case. By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences between most hispanics and most whites in terms of their assessment of Simpson's guilt.

Later, both the Brown and Goldman families sued Simpson for damages in a civil trial. On February 5, 1997, the jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown. In its conclusions, the jury effectively found Simpson liable for the death of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him.

Critics of the verdict contend that the deliberation time was unduly short, and that jurors did not understand the scientific evidence.[26] Prosecutors claimed to have heard a few of the jurors saying things like "Well, lots of people have the same blood type."[citation needed]

Defense attorney Robert Shapiro wrote a book, The Search for Justice, in which he criticizes F. Lee Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Cochran for bringing race into the trial.[16] He didn't believe Simpson was framed by the LAPD for racial reasons, but believed the verdict was correct due to reasonable doubt.[16]

Former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi (who had handled the Manson trial) wrote a book called Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. Bugliosi was very critical of Clark and Darden. He faulted them, for example, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. Bugliosi contended that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco: a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit. The prosecution felt these items of evidence would bring up emotional issues on Simpson's part that could harm their case, despite the fact that the items seemed as though they could be used for fleeing.

Simpson made an incriminating statement to police about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the tape of this statement. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly ...