The Simpson trial
This is an excerpt from the paper...
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 S
. . .
ay her as a rookie (she had worked for LAPD less than 18 months) committing rookie blunders. For example, she earlier had testified that she had initialed evidence envelopes; no such initials were found, creating questions about tampering. She used one swab on three areas, possibly contaminating the evidence. She wiped tweezers with a dirty hand (Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1995, A1). All in all, minor errors, but in the aggregate, they helped the defense paint the LAPD. as incompetent.
Same goes for the lab. One technician admitted that he did not change gloves before switching between samples. Poor lab design created the possibility (however slim) of cross-contamination between samples. Spotty security opened the possibility of tampering (Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1995, A1). Current and former lab employees later admitted that the lab needed improvements. Staffing and funding levels had remained constant while the labÆs workload had tripled in recent years (Los Angeles Times, October 5, 1995, A1).
The defense then turned its sights on the detectives. The racism of Mark Fuhrman provided the motive to frame Simpson; the alleged lies of Vannatter helped undermine his credibility and that of his colleagues. Vannatte
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Times September, DNA Abramson, Philip Vannatter, Bruno Magli, Ford Newton, Times April, Harlan Levy, A1 FungÆs, Judge Ito, Times March, los angeles, angeles times, los angeles times, moldea 1997, 1995 a1, simpsonÆs blood, times a1, angeles times a1, ford newton 1995, ford newton, simpsonÆs house, newton 1995, blood sample, simpsonÆs blood sample, a1 ford newton,
Approximate Word count = 1910
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on The Simpson trial
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
