The Simpson trial still reverberates in American society, more than two years after a jury acquitted the former football star. The loudest echoes surround the Los Angeles Police Department, which endured withering criticism before, during, and after the legal proceedings. Alas, casual observers would have to be excused for thinking that the LAPD was actually on trial. The defense served notice in opening statements, declaring the evidence ôcontaminated, compromised, and ultimately compromisedö (Los Angeles Times, January 31, 1995, A1). Their closing argument went even further, accusing the police of criminal misconduct in orchestrating a massive frame-up of Simpson (Los Angeles Times, September 29, 1995, A27). Was this the usual hyperbole of a criminal defense lawyer, or did the LAPD really deserve such condemnation? This paper will attempt to answer that question by analyzing the evidence collected by police, how they collected it, and the conduct of the officers, factors upon which the defenseÆs case hinged.
The police compiled a compelling case against Simpson, centered on blood evidence. At the Bundy Avenue murder scene, detectives found a series of bloody, size 12 shoe prints (SimpsonÆs size) leading away from the bodies and out the back (Moldea, 1997, p. 178). An FBI expert testified that a pair of Bruno Magli shoes made the prints, shoes that Simpson owned (Moldea, 1997, p. 219). A bloody left-hand glove not only matched a bloody right-hand glove found at SimpsonÆs house, but both matched a unique pair of gloves that Brown had purchased for Simpson in 1993 (Moldea, 1997, p. 219). DNA tests tied Simpson to blood drops found to the left of those shoe prints (Moldea, 1997, p. 120), consistent with an injury to SimpsonÆs left hand (Moldea, 1997, p. 61). Another blood drop found on the rear gate also matched Simpson (Moldea, 1997, p. 178).
SimpsonÆs house provided another trove of physical evidence. Polic...