Abstract
In 1995, former USC running back and NFL star, O.J Simpson was tried for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, both were found dead with several knife wounds at Ms. Brown’s residence. A jury in Los Angeles County found Mr.
Simpson not guilty of this crime, and many have been left with unanswered questions as to why.
Many believe that there was a possibility of emotional bias by the jury and that they have already made up their minds prior to the trial that he could not commit such a crime. Others felt that it was incompetency on the part of the prosecution team to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
O.J. Simpson was guilty of these murders. This case was one of the most highly publicized criminal trials in American history. This paper will evaluate how the prosecution team from Los
Angeles County believed they could provide proof beyond reasonable doubt that they can convict him for this crime and how his defense team was able to persuade the jury otherwise. Keywords: proof beyond reasonable doubt

Lessons Learned From the O.J. Simpson Trial
On June 13, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman were found slashed to death outside of her condominium. That same day O.J. Simpson returned to Los Angeles from Chicago, handcuffed and then is subject to three hours of questioning at police headquarters. Two days later, Mr. Simpson hires Robert Shapiro as his attorney to defend him. Then, on June 17, 2013 O.J. Simpson was charged with two counts of murder with special circumstances. Questions remain on who committed this gruesome crime with some pointing the finger to Nicole Simpson’s ex-husband, O.J. Simpson. The trial of O.J. Simpson has been known as the trial of the century because of the media attention it received. In a criminal case, the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Garland, 2011, p.29). The prosecution team was unable to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt to render a guilty verdict in the murder trial. I find that the final summation to be the most important part of a trial for an attorney. This is the point where the defense and the prosecution have their last chance and probably their best opportunity to convince a jury of innocence or guilt. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt and convince a jury to convict Mr. Simpson of murder.
There were basic guidelines of crime scene investigation and crime scene security that were not followed by detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department. The strategy for the defense essentially was, you can’t trust the messenger because the messenger has lied to you, and that means that you really can’t trust the message they’re presenting to you (Arenella, 2002). One of the main arguments of the defense team was the police mismanagement of the case and the lack of the chain of custody pertaining to the evidence. The defense team focused on discrediting the Los Angeles Police Department. The claim was that the police failed to conduct a proper investigation. Johnnie Cochran addressed the court stating that the main detective involved was racist. The defense team was very successful in impeaching the testimony of Detective Mark Furhman. Detective Fuhrman, in response to defense questions, denied being racist or otherwise carrying out his police duties with a racial attitude. The defense was able to present to the jury a number of instances in which Detective Furhman exhibited a racist attitude in his police work (Garland, 2011). The defense went on to argue that detectives tried to frame O.J. Simpson by planting evidence such as the bloody glove at his residence. This lead to the famous words from Johnnie Cochran “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”, when Mr. Simpson tried on the gloves discovered in his home.