Criminal trial decided October 3, 1995, in United States

Court Los Angeles County Superior Court Full case name People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson Decided October 3, 1995 ; 24 years ago ( ) Verdict Not Guilty in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a), a felony upon Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being. Not Guilty in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a), a felony upon Ronald Lyle Goldman, a human being. Case history Subsequent action(s) Lawsuit filed by the Brown and Goldman families; Simpson was found responsible for both deaths on February 4, 1997. Court membership Judge(s) sitting Lance Ito

The O. J. Simpson murder case (officially People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson) was a criminal trial held in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Former National Football League (NFL) player, broadcaster and actor O. J. Simpson was tried and acquitted on two counts of murder for the June 12, 1994, slashing deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. At 12:10 a.m. on June 13, 1994, Brown and Goldman were found stabbed to death outside her condominium in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles. Simpson became a person of interest after police found a bloody glove behind his house and was formally charged with the murders on June 17. When he did not turn himself in at the agreed time (having previously been released after perfunctory questioning by police detectives), he became the object of a low-speed pursuit in a white 1993 Ford Bronco SUV owned and driven by his friend Al Cowlings.[1] TV stations interrupted coverage of the 1994 NBA Finals to broadcast the incident. The pursuit was watched live by an estimated 95 million people.[2] The pursuit, arrest, and trial were among the most widely publicized events in American history. The trial—often characterized as the trial of the century because of its international publicity—spanned eleven months, from the jury's swearing-in on November 9, 1994.[3] Opening statements were made on January 24, 1995,[4] and the verdict was announced on October 3, 1995 when Simpson was acquitted on two counts of murder.[5][6] According to USA Today, the case has been described as the "most publicized" criminal trial in history.[7]

Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, also referred to as the "Dream Team", which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[8][9][10] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

Deputy District Attorneys Marcia Clark, William Hodgman and later Christopher Darden thought that they had a strong case against Simpson, but Cochran was able to convince the jury that there was reasonable doubt concerning the validity of the State's DNA evidence, which was a relatively new form of evidence in trials at that time.[11] The reasonable doubt theory included evidence that the blood sample had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians, and there were questionable circumstances that surrounded other court exhibits.[12] Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconduct by the LAPD related to systemic racism and incompetence, in particular actions and comments of Detective Mark Fuhrman.

The trial became historically significant because of the reaction to the verdict.[13] The nation observed the same evidence presented at trial but a division along racial lines emerged in observers opinion of the verdict, which the media dubbed the "racial gap".[14] A poll of Los Angeles County residents showed that most African Americans felt that justice had been served by the "not guilty" verdict, while the majority of whites and Latinos felt it was a racially motivated jury nullification[15][16] by a mostly African-American jury.[17] Polling shows the gap has narrowed since the trial, with over half of polled black respondents in 2015 stating they believed Simpson was guilty.[18]

After the trial, the families of Brown and Goldman filed a lawsuit against Simpson. On February 4, 1997, the jury unanimously found Simpson responsible for both deaths.[19] The families were awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $33.5 million ($53.4 million in 2019 dollars), but have received only a small portion of that monetary figure. In 2000, Simpson left California for Florida, one of the few states where personal assets such as homes and pensions cannot be seized to cover liabilities that were incurred in other states.

Background [ edit ]

Simpson-Brown marriage [ edit ]

Simpson with his daughter Sydney, 1986

Nicole Brown met O. J. Simpson in 1977, when she was 18 and working as a waitress at the Daisy (a Beverly Hills private club).[21][22] Simpson was married but the two began dating. Simpson filed for divorce in March 1979 and married Brown on February 2, 1985.[23][25] Their marriage lasted seven years and produced two children, Sydney (b. 1985) and Justin (b. 1988).[26] Brown filed for divorce on February 25, 1992, citing "irreconcilable differences".

According to Dr. Lenore Walker, the Simpson-Brown marriage was a “textbook example of domestic abuse.”[28][29][30] Brown signed a prenuptial agreement and was then prohibited from working while married.[31] She wrote that she felt conflicted about notifying the police of the abuse because she was financially dependent on him.[28] Nicole described an incident in which Simpson broke her arm during a fight but she lied and told the emergency room staff that she had fallen off her bike to protect Simpson from being arrested.[32] She wrote about Simpson beating her in public, during sex and even in front of family and friends.[33] Of the 62 incidents of abuse, the police were notified eight times and Simpson was arrested once.[34][35][36]

Brown said Simpson was stalking and harassing her after they divorced.[37] This behavior is an intimidation tactic meant to force the victim to return to the abuser.[38] Brown documented an incident where Simpson spied on her having sex with her new boyfriend.[39] Afterwards, Brown said she felt her life was in danger because Simpson had said he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.[40] She also drafted a will for herself as well.[41]

The women's shelter Sojourn received a call from Brown four days prior to her murder.[42][43] She was considering going there because she was afraid of what her stalker ex-husband might do because she was refusing his pleas to reconcile their marriage[44] and had reported a missing set of keys to her house a few weeks ago. They were later found on Simpson when he was arrested.[45]

Frogmen [ edit ]

A few months before the murders, Simpson completed a film pilot for Frogmen, an adventure series similar to The A-Team in which he starred. Simpson played the lead role of "Bullfrog" Burke, who led a group of former U.S. Navy SEALs. He received "a fair amount of" military training – including use of a knife – for Frogmen, and holds a knife to the throat of a woman (playing the role of his daughter) in one scene. A 25-minute tape of the pilot, which did not include the knife scene, was found by investigators and watched on Simpson's television as they searched his house. The defense tried to block its use on these grounds, but Judge Ito allowed the tape to be shown. However, the prosecution never introduced it as evidence during the trial.[46] It was reported that among the skills of the character of "Bullfrog Burke" was night killings[47] and the "silent kill" technique of slashing the throat,[48] and that SEALs regularly wear knit caps like the one found at the scene. The Navy calls these watch caps.[50]

Mezzaluna [ edit ]

On Brown's last evening alive, she attended Sydney's dance recital at Paul Revere Middle School with her family. Simpson also attended. The family then went to eat at the Mezzaluna restaurant, and Simpson was not invited. Goldman was a waiter at Mezzaluna, though he was not assigned to Brown's table. After eating at Mezzaluna, Brown and her children went to Ben & Jerry's before returning home.[51] Karen Lee Crawford, the manager of Mezzaluna, recounted that Brown's mother phoned the restaurant at 9:37 p.m. about a pair of lost eyeglasses. Crawford found them and put them in a white envelope. Goldman left the restaurant at 9:50 p.m., after his shift, to return the glasses by dropping them off at Brown's house.[52][53]

Simpson ate takeout food from McDonald's with Kato Kaelin, a bit-part actor and family friend who had been given the use of a guest house on Simpson's estate. Rumors circulated that Simpson had been on drugs at the time of the murder, and the New York Post's Cindy Adams reported that the pair had actually gone to a local Burger King, where a prominent drug dealer known only as "J. R." had admitted to selling them crystal meth.[54][55]

Murders [ edit ]

At 12:10 am.[56] on June 13, 1994, Brown and Goldman were found murdered outside of Nicole's Bundy Drive condominium in Brentwood, Los Angeles. Both victims had been dead for about two hours prior to the arrival of police. The defense and the prosecution would agree that the murders took place some time between 10:15 and 11:00 pm. Nicole's akita dog with bloodstained paws led neighbors to the body.[57] Steven Schwab testified that while he was walking his dog in the area near Brown's house at around 11:30 pm, he noticed that Brown's Akita dog had bloody paws but was uninjured. Schwab said he took the dog to a neighbor friend, who took the dog for a walk at approximately 12:00 midnight and testified that it tugged on its leash and led him to Brown's house. There he discovered Brown's dead body and flagged down a passing patrol car.

Brown was found face down and barefoot at the bottom of the stairs leading to her front door, which was left open, with no signs of forced entry nor any evidence that anyone had entered the premises.[58] The scene had a large amount of blood, but the bottoms of Brown's feet were clean, leading investigators to conclude she was murdered first and that she was the intended target.[59] She had been stabbed multiple times in the head and neck, but had few defensive wounds on her hands, which implied a short struggle to investigators. The final cut was deep into her neck, severing her carotid artery. Brown did have a large bruise on the center of her upper back so investigators concluded that, after the assailant had killed Goldman, he returned to Brown's body, put his foot on her back (causing the bruise), pulled her head back by the hair and slit her throat.[60][61] Her larynx could be seen through the gaping wound in her neck, and vertebra C3 was incised;[61] her head remained barely attached to the body.[62][63][64]

Goldman lay nearby, close to a tree and the fence. He had been stabbed multiple times in the body and neck but like Brown had relatively few defensive wounds, which also signified a short struggle to investigators.[65] Forensic evidence from the Los Angeles County coroner alleged that Goldman had been attacked and stabbed repeatedly in the neck and chest with one hand while the assailant restrained him with an arm chokehold. Near Goldman were the assailant's blue knit cap and left-hand glove — an extra-large, Aris Isotoner light leather glove and an envelope containing the glasses he was returning.[64] Bloody shoe prints leaving the scene through the back gate were left by the assailant. To the left of some footprints were drops of blood from the assailant, who was apparently bleeding from their left hand. Measuring the distance between the steps showed the assailant walked away rather than ran.[66]

Flight to Chicago [ edit ]

Prosecution exhibit of Map of Rockingham estate and showing trail of blood and position of parked Bronco.

Simpson was scheduled for a red-eye flight at 11:45 p.m. to Chicago to play golf the following day at a convention with representatives of Hertz rental car Corporation, for whom he was a spokesman.[67] Limousine driver Allan Park was scheduled to pick him up and take him to Los Angeles International Airport, and he arrived early at around 10:25.[69] He drove around Simpson's estate to make sure he could navigate the area with the stretch limousine properly and testified he did not see Simpson's Ford Bronco parked outside. Park testified that he had been looking for and had seen the house number on the curb, and the prosecution presented exhibits to show that the position in which the Bronco was found the next morning was right next to the house number (implying that Park would surely have noticed the Bronco if it had been there at that time).[70]

The limo driver parked opposite the Ashford Street gate, then drove back to the Rockingham gate to check which driveway would have the best access for the limo. Deciding that the Rockingham entrance was too tight, he returned to the Ashford gate and began to buzz the intercom at 10:40, getting no response. He noted the house was dark and nobody appeared to be home as he smoked a cigarette and made several calls to his boss to get Simpson's home phone number. He then testified he saw a "shadowy figure resembling Simpson" emerge from the area where the Bronco was later found to be parked and approached the front entrance before aborting and heading towards the southern walkway. The same person then appeared shortly afterwards from the southern walkway and entered the house through the front door and the lights then came on.

At the same time Park witnessed this "shadowy figure" head towards the south walkway where the bloody glove would later be found, Kato Kaelin had just previously been on the telephone with his friend, Rachel Ferrara. At approximately 10:50, something crashed into his wall, which he described as three "thumps" and which he feared was an earthquake. Kaelin hung up the phone and ventured outside to investigate the noises, but decided not to venture directly down the dark south pathway from which the thumps had originated. Instead, he walked to the front of the property, where he saw Park's limo outside the Ashford gate. Kaelin let Park in the Ashford gate, and Simpson finally came out the front door a few minutes later claiming he had overslept. Both Park and Kaelin would later testify that Simpson seemed agitated that night.[71]

Park noted that on the way to the airport Simpson complained about how hot it was and was sweating and rolled down the window, despite it not being a warm night.[72] Park also testified that he loaded four luggage bags into the car that night, with one of them being a knapsack that Simpson would not let Park touch, insisting he load it himself. James Williams, skycap at LA International Airport, testified that Simpson only checked three bags at LAX that night.[73] and the police determined that the missing luggage was the same knapsack Park had mentioned earlier.[74] Another witness not used at trial, Skip Junis, claimed he saw Simpson at the airport discarding items from a bag into a trash can.[75][76] Detectives Lange and Vannatter believe this is how the murder weapon, shoes and clothes that Simpson wore during the murder were disposed.[77]

Simpson was running late but caught his flight. A passenger on the plane and the pilot testified to not noticing any cuts or wounds on Simpson's hands.[78] A broken glass and bedsheets with blood on them were recovered from Simpson's hotel room, at the O'Hare Plaza Hotel. Peter Phillips, the former manager of the hotel, recalled Simpson asking for a Band-Aid for his finger at the front desk.[79]

Simpson arrest [ edit ]

Simpson's mugshot, June 17, 1994

Soon after discovering the female victim was Nicole Simpson, LAPD commander Keith Bushey ordered detectives Lange, Vannatter, Philips and Fuhrman to notify Simpson of her death and to give him a ride to pick up his children, who had been in Nicole's condo at the time of the murders and were at the police station. They buzzed the intercom at the property for over 30 minutes but received no response. They noted the Bronco was parked on Rockingham at an awkward angle, with its back end out more than the front, and had blood on the door, which they feared meant someone inside might be hurt. Detective Vannatter then instructed Fuhrman to scale the wall and unlock the gate to allow the other three detectives to enter. The detectives would argue they entered without a search warrant because of exigent circumstances – specifically out of fear that someone inside might be injured.[80]

Fuhrman briefly interviewed Kato Kaelin, who told him that the Bronco belonged to Simpson and that earlier that night he had heard thumps on his wall. In a walk around the premises to inspect what may have caused the thumps, Fuhrman discovered a bloody glove; it was later determined to be the matching right hand glove of the one found at the murder scene. This evidence was determined to be probable cause to issue an arrest warrant for Simpson.[citation needed]

Detective Ron Phillips testified that when he called Simpson in Chicago to tell him of his ex-wife's murder, he sounded "very upset" but was oddly unconcerned about the circumstances of her death. Philips noted that Simpson only asked if the children had seen the murder or Brown's body but was not concerned with the assailant(s) having harmed his children either.[81] The police contacted Simpson at his home on Monday, June 13 and took him to Parker Center for questioning. Detective Lange noticed that Simpson had a cut on a finger on his left hand that was consistent with where the killer was bleeding from and asked Simpson how he got it. At first, he claimed he cut his finger accidentally while in Chicago after learning of Nicole's death. Lange then informed Simpson that blood was found inside his Bronco at which point Simpson admitted that he did cut his finger the same day as the murders but did not remember how. He voluntarily gave some of his own blood for comparison with evidence collected at the crime scene and was released.[82][83]

Simpson hired Robert Shapiro on Tuesday, June 14 and he began assembling the Dream Team but noted that an increasingly distraught Simpson had begun treatment for depression. On Wednesday, June 15, preliminary results from DNA testing came back with matches to Simpson but the District Attorney delayed filing charges until all the results had come back. On Thursday June 16, Simpson spent Thursday night at the San Fernando Valley home of friend Robert Kardashian; Shapiro asked several doctors to attend to Simpson's purported fragile mental state.[citation needed]

On Friday, June 17 detectives recommended that Simpson be charged with two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstance of multiple killings after the final DNA results came back.[84] The LAPD notified Shapiro at 8:30 am on Friday that Simpson would have to surrender that day. At 9:30 am Shapiro went to Kardashian's home to tell Simpson that he would have to surrender by 11 am; an hour after the murder charges were filed. Simpson told Shapiro he wanted to surrender himself, to which the police agreed, believing someone as famous as Simpson would not attempt to flee. The police even agreed to delay his surrender until 12pm so Simpson could be seen by a mental health specialist after showing signs of suicidal depression; he updated his will, called his mother and children, and wrote three sealed letters: one to his children, another to his mother, and one to the public.[86]

More than 1,000 reporters waited for Simpson's perp walk at the police station, but he did not arrive as stipulated. The LAPD then notified Shapiro that Simpson would be arrested at Kardashian's home. Kardashian and Shapiro told Simpson this but when the police arrived an hour later, Simpson was gone along with Al Cowlings. The three sealed letters he had written were left behind. At 1:50 pm, Commander Dave Gascon, LAPD's chief spokesman, publicly declared that Simpson was a fugitive; the police issued an all-points bulletin for him and an arrest warrant for Cowlings.[84][88]

At 5 pm, Kardashian and one of his defense lawyers read Simpson's public letter.[84][88] In the letter, Simpson sent greetings to 24 friends and wrote, "First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder." He described the fights with Brown and their decision not to reconcile as normal in a long relationship, and asked the media "as a last wish" not to bother his children. He wrote to then girlfriend Paula Barbieri "I'm sorry ... we're not going to have, our chance ... As I leave, you'll be in my thoughts." It also included "I can't go on" and an apology to the Goldman family. The letter concluded, "Don't feel sorry for me. I have had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person."[84][89][88]

Most interpreted this as a suicide note; Simpson's mother Eunice collapsed after hearing it,[84][90][62][91][92] and reporters joined the search for Simpson. At Kardashian's press conference, Shapiro said that he and Simpson's psychiatrists agreed with the suicide note interpretation. Through television, Shapiro appealed to Simpson to surrender.[93][84]

Bronco chase [ edit ]

News helicopters searched the Los Angeles highway system for Cowlings's white Ford Bronco (Cowlings and Simpson both had white Broncos).[91][88] At 5:51 pm, Simpson reportedly called 9-1-1; the call was traced to the Santa Ana Freeway, near Lake Forest. At around 6:20 pm, a motorist in Orange County notified California Highway Patrol after seeing someone believed to be Simpson riding in the Bronco on the I-5 freeway heading north, driven by Cowlings. The police tracked calls placed from Simpson on his cell phone. At 6:45 pm, police officer Ruth Dixon saw the Bronco head north on Interstate 405. When she caught up to it, Cowlings yelled out that Simpson was in the back seat of the vehicle and had a gun to his own head.[93][84][88] The officer backed off, but followed the vehicle at 35 miles per hour (56 km/h),[1] with up to 20 police cars following her in the chase.[84][95][96]

Zoey Tur[90] of KCBS-TV was the first to find Simpson from a news helicopter, after colleagues heard that the FBI's mobile phone tracking had located him at the El Toro Y. More than nine news helicopters eventually joined the pursuit; Tur compared the fleet to Apocalypse Now, and the high degree of media participation caused camera signals to appear on incorrect television channels.[93][88] The chase was so long that one helicopter ran out of fuel, forcing its station to ask another for a camera feed.[62]

Knowing that Cowlings was listening to KNX-AM, sports announcer Peter Arbogast called Simpson's former USC football coach John McKay and connected him to Simpson. As both men wept Simpson told McKay "OK, Coach, I won’t do anything stupid. I promise" off the air. "There is no doubt in my mind that McKay stopped O.J. from killing himself in the back of that Bronco", Arbogast said.[92] McKay reiterated on radio his pleas to Simpson to turn himself in instead of committing suicide; "My God, we love you, Juice. Just pull over and I'll come out and stand by you all the rest of my life".[91] Walter Payton, Vince Evans,[90] and others from around the country also pleaded with Simpson over radio to surrender.[84]

At Parker Center, officials discussed how to persuade Simpson to surrender peacefully. Detective Tom Lange, who had interviewed Simpson about the murders on June 13, realized that he had Simpson's cell phone number and called him repeatedly. A colleague hooked a tape recorder up to Lange's phone and captured a conversation between Lange and Simpson in which Lange repeatedly pleaded with Simpson to "throw the gun out [of] the window" for the sake of his mother and children. Simpson apologized for not turning himself in earlier that day and responded that he was "the only one who deserved to get hurt" and was "just gonna go with Nicole". He asked Lange to "just let me get to the house" and said "I need [the gun] for me". Cowlings's voice is overheard in the recording (after the Bronco had arrived at Simpson's home surrounded by police) pleading with Simpson to surrender and end the chase peacefully.[98][88]

Los Angeles streets emptied and drink orders stopped at bars as people watched on television.[84] Every television showed the chase;[92] ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, and local news outlets interrupted regularly scheduled programming to cover the incident, watched by an estimated 95 million viewers nationwide;[93][101] only 90 million had watched that year's Super Bowl.[62] While NBC continued coverage of Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets at Madison Square Garden, the game appeared in a small box in the corner while Tom Brokaw covered the chase.[93] The chase was covered live by ABC anchors Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters on behalf of the network's five news magazines, which achieved some of their highest-ever ratings that week.[101] The chase was broadcast internationally, with Gascon's relatives in France and China seeing him on television.[88]

Thousands of spectators and onlookers packed overpasses along the route of the chase, waiting for the white Bronco. In a festival-like atmosphere, many had signs urging Simpson to flee.[95][88] Spectators shouting "Go, O.J., go"—the famous slogan from Simpson's Hertz commercials[102][103]—and encouraging the actions of a possibly suicidal murder suspect outraged Jim Hill, among those broadcasting pleas to their friend to surrender.[84] Jack Ferreira and Mike Smith were among those watching the chase not knowing why;[92] they felt part of a "common emotional experience", one author wrote, as they "wonder[ed] if O. J. Simpson would commit suicide, escape, be arrested, or engage in some kind of violent confrontation. Whatever might ensue, the shared adventure gave millions of viewers a vested interest, a sense of participation, a feeling of being on the inside of a national drama in the making".

Simpson reportedly demanded that he be allowed to speak to his mother before he would surrender. The chase ended at 8:00 p.m. at his Brentwood estate, 50 miles (80 km) later, where his son, Jason, ran out of the house, "gesturing wildly",[95] and 27 SWAT officers awaited.[62][88] After remaining in the Bronco for about 45 minutes, Simpson exited at 8:50 pm with a framed family photo and went inside for about an hour; a police spokesman stated that he spoke to his mother and drank a glass of orange juice, causing reporters to laugh.[93][84]

Shapiro arrived, and Simpson surrendered to authorities a few minutes later. In the Bronco, police found "$8,000 in cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .357 Magnum, a United States passport, family pictures, and a disguise kit with a fake goatee and mustache". Simpson was booked at Parker Center and taken to Men's Central Jail; Cowlings was booked on suspicion of harboring a fugitive and held on $250,000 bail.[84] As Simpson was driven away, he saw the crowds, many of whom were African Americans, cheering him; Simpson said, "What are all these niggers doing in Brentwood?"[83]

The Bronco chase, the suicide note, and the items found in the Bronco were not presented as evidence in the criminal trial. Marcia Clark conceded that such evidence did imply guilt yet defended her decision, citing the public reaction to the chase and suicide note as proof the trial had been compromised by Simpson's celebrity status. Most of the public, including Simpson's friend Al Michaels,[93] interpreted his actions as an admission of guilt yet thousands of people encouraged him to flee prosecution and were sympathetic to his feelings of guilt.[104]

Preliminary hearing [ edit ]

On June 20, Simpson was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both murders and was held without bail. The following day, a grand jury was called to determine whether to indict him for the two murders but was dismissed on June 23, as a result of excessive media coverage that could have influenced its neutrality. Instead, authorities held a probable cause hearing to determine whether to bring Simpson to trial. California Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruled on July 7 that there was sufficient evidence to bring Simpson to trial for the murders. Bail was set at $10 million. At his second arraignment on July 22, when asked how he pleaded to the murders, Simpson firmly stated: "Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty."

Jill Shively testified to the grand jury that soon after the time of the murders she saw a white Ford Bronco speeding away from Bundy Drive in such a hurry that it almost collided with a Nissan at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente Boulevard,[5] and that she recognized Simpson's voice. She talked to the television show Hard Copy for $5,000, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial.[5][101]

Jose Camacho of Ross Cutlery provided store receipts showing Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (305 mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was recovered and determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds. The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after Camacho sold his story to the National Enquirer for $12,500.[5][101] Tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife, indicating it had never been used.[105]

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson on November 13 at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. A jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled to Grier that he "didn't mean to do it," after which Grier had urged Simpson to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence was inadmissible as hearsay.[5]

At first, Simpson's defense sought to show that one or more hitmen hired by drug dealers had murdered Brown and Goldman – giving Brown a "Colombian necktie" – because they were looking for Brown's friend, Faye Resnick, a known cocaine user who had failed to pay for her drugs.[106][107] She had stayed for several days at Brown's condo until entering rehab four days before the killings. Ito ruled that the drug killer theory was "highly speculative" with no evidence to support it.[108][109] Consequently, Ito barred the jury from hearing it and prohibited Christian Reichardt from testifying about his former girlfriend Resnick's drug problems.[110][111][112][113]

Rosa Lopez, a neighbor's Spanish-speaking housekeeper, stated on August 18 that she saw Simpson's Bronco parked outside his house at the time of the murders, supporting his claim he was home that night. During cross-examination by Clark, Lopez admitted she was not sure what time she saw Simpson's Bronco but the defense still intended to call her. However, a taped July 29 statement by Lopez did not mention seeing the Bronco but did mention another housekeeper was also there that night, Sylvia Guerra. Prosecutors then spoke with Guerra, who said Lopez was lying and claimed the defense offered both housekeepers $5,000 to say they saw the Bronco that night. When Ito warned the defense that Guerra's claim as well as the earlier statement not mentioning the Bronco and the tape where Clark claims "that [Lopez] is clearly being coached on what to say" will be shown to the jury if Lopez testifies, they dropped her from the witness list.[114][115][116][117][118]

Trial [ edit ]

Simpson wanted a speedy trial, and the defense and prosecuting attorneys worked around the clock for several months to prepare their cases. The trial began on January 24, 1995, seven months after the murders, and was televised by closed-circuit TV camera via Court TV, and in part by other cable and network news outlets, for 134 days. Judge Lance Ito presided over the trial in the C.S. Foltz Criminal Courts Building.

Jury [ edit ]

District Attorney Gil Garcetti elected to file charges in downtown Los Angeles, as opposed to Santa Monica, in which jurisdiction the crimes took place.[119] The Los Angeles Superior Court then decided to hold the trial in Downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica due to safety issues[clarification needed] at the Santa Monica Court house. The decision may have impacted the trial's outcome because it resulted in a jury pool that was less educated, had lower incomes, and comprised mostly of African Americans.[120] Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant for Simpson, wrote that more educated jurors with higher incomes are more likely to accept the validity of DNA evidence and the argument that domestic violence is a prelude to murder. Gabriel notes that African Americans, unlike other minorities, are far more likely to be receptive to the claim of racially motivated fraud by the police.[119]

In October 1994, Judge Lance Ito started interviewing 304 prospective jurors, each of whom had to fill out a 75-page questionnaire. On November 3, twelve jurors were seated with twelve alternates. Over the course of the trial, ten were dismissed for a wide variety of reasons. Only four of the original jurors remained on the final panel.[121]

According to media reports, Clark believed women, regardless of race, would sympathize with the domestic violence aspect of the case and connect with Nicole personally. On the other hand, the defense's research suggested that black women would not be sympathetic to Nicole, who was white, because of tensions about interracial marriages. Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40 percent white, 28 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian, the final jury for the trial had ten women and two men, of whom nine were black, two white and one Hispanic.[122][123] The jury was sequestered for 265 days, the most in American history. It broke the previous record with more than a month left to go.[citation needed]

On April 5, 1995, juror Jeanette Harris was dismissed because Judge Ito learned she had failed to disclose an incident of domestic abuse.[124] Afterwards, Harris gave an interview and accused the deputies of racism and claimed the jurors are dividing themselves along racial lines. Ito then met with the jurors, who all denied Harris's allegations of racial tension among themselves. The following day, Ito dismissed the three deputies anyway, which upset the jurors that didn't complain because the dismissal appeared to lend credence to Harris's allegations, which they all denied.[125] On April 21, thirteen of the eighteen jurors refused to come to court until they spoke with Ito about it. Ito then ordered them to court and the 13 protesters responded by wearing all black and refusing to come out to the jury box upon arrival.[126] The media described this incident as a "Jury Revolt" and the protesters wearing all black as resembling a "funeral procession".[127][128][129][130]

Prosecution case [ edit ]

The two lead prosecutors were Deputy District Attorneys Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. Clark was designated as the lead prosecutor and Darden became Clark's co-counsel. Prosecutors Hank Goldberg and William Hodgman, who have successfully prosecuted high-profile cases in the past, assisted Clark and Darden. Two prosecutors who were DNA experts, Rockne Harmon and George "Woody" Clarke, were brought in to present the DNA evidence in the case and were assisted by Prosecutor Lisa Kahn.[131][132][133]

Theory [ edit ]

The prosecution argued that the domestic violence within the Simpson-Brown marriage culminated in her murder.[134] Simpson's history of abusing Nicole resulted in their divorce and him pleading guilty to one count of domestic violence in 1989.[135] On the night of the murders, Simpson attended a dance recital for his daughter and was reportedly angry with Nicole because of a black dress that she wore, which he said was "tight". Simpson's then girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, wanted to attend the recital with Simpson but he did not invite her. After the recital, Simpson returned home to a voicemail from Barbieri ending their relationship. Simpson then drove over to Nicole Brown's home to reconcile their relationship as a result and when Nicole refused, Simpson killed her in a "final act of control." Ron Goldman then came upon the scene and was murdered as well.[136][137][138]

Domestic violence [ edit ]

The prosecution opened its case by calling LAPD 911 dispatcher Sharon Gilbert and playing a four-minute 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on January 1, 1989, in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her and Simpson himself is even heard in the background yelling at her and possibly hitting her as well. The officer who responded to that call, Detective John Edwards, testified next that when he arrived, a severely beaten Nicole Brown Simpson ran from the bushes where she was hiding and to the detective screaming "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," referring to O.J. Simpson. Pictures of Nicole Brown's face from that night were then shown to the jury to confirm his testimony. That incident led to Simpson's arrest and eventual pleading of no contest to one count of domestic violence for which he received probation for one year.[139] LAPD officer and long time friend of both Simpson and Brown, Ron Shipp, testified on February 1, 1995 that Simpson told him the day after the murders that he did not want to take a polygraph test offered to him by the police because "I've had a lot of dreams about killing her. I really don't know about taking that thing." The prosecution then called Denise Brown, Nicole Brown's sister, to the witness stand. She tearfully testified to many episodes of domestic violence in the 1980s, when she saw Simpson pick up his wife and hurl her against a wall, then physically throw her out of their house during an argument. She also testified that Simpson was agitated with Nicole the night of his daughter's dance recital as well, the same night Nicole was murdered.[140] Although a home videotape taken immediately after the dance recital showed a cheerful Simpson being given a kiss by Denise Brown,[141] Kato Kaelin corroborated Denise Brown's claim that Simpson was "upset" with Nicole because of the black dress she wore, which he said was "tight".[67]

The prosecution planned to present 62 separate incidents of domestic violence, including three previously unknown incidents Brown had documented in several letters she had written and placed in a bank safety deposit box. Judge Ito denied the defense's motion to suppress the incidents of domestic violence, but only allowed witnessed accounts to be presented to the jury because of Simpson's Sixth Amendment rights. The letters Nicole Brown had written and the statements she made to friends and family were rulled inadmissible as hearsay because Brown was dead and unable to be cross-examined. Despite this, the prosecution had witnesses for 44 separate incidents they planned to present to the jury.[142]

However, the prosecution dropped the domestic violence portion of their case on June 20, 1995.[143] Marcia Clark stated it was because they believed the DNA evidence against Simpson was insurmountable, but the media speculated it was because of the comments made by dismissed juror Jeanette Harris. Christopher Darden later confirmed that to be true.[144] Harris was dismissed on April 6 because she failed to disclose that she was a victim of domestic violence from her ex-husband.[145] But afterwards, Harris gave an interview and called the evidence of Simpson's abuse of Nicole "a whole lot of nothing" and also said "that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder". This dismissal of Simpson's abusive behavior from a female juror, who was also a victim of such abuse by her own husband, convinced the prosecution that the jury was not receptive to the domestic violence argument.[146][147] After the verdict, the jurors called the domestic violence portion of the case a "waste of time".[148] Shapiro, Dershowitz, and Uelmen later admitted they believe that race played a factor in the jurors' dismissal of Nicole Brown's abuse by Simpson.[149][150]

The defense retained renowned advocate for victims of domestic abuse, Dr. Lenore E. Walker.[151] Cochran said that she would testify that Simpson doesn't fit the profile of an abuser that would murder his spouse.[152] Dr. Walker's colleagues were appalled by her decision to defend Simpson and accused her of betraying her advocacy for a $250,000 retainer.[153] Dr. Walker was dropped from the witness list for "tactical reasons" after she submitted her report on the case.[154][155] In it, she opines that the statistic from Dershowitz that of the two million incidents of abuse per year, only 2,000 victims are actually murdered by their spouses as being misleading because Brown was already dead.[156][157] The relevant statistic was "of the murdered spouses who were also victims of abuse, what percentage of them were murdered by their current or ex-husband?" When she reported that number was 80.3%, they dropped her from the witness list.[158]

The revelation of Simpson's abuse of Nicole is credited with turning public opinion against him.[159] The public shock at the reason why Dr. Walker was dropped from the defense witness list is credited with transforming public opinion on spousal abuse from a private familial matter to a serious public health issue.[160][161][162]

Timeline [ edit ]

Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, testified on June 14, 1995 that Brown's time of death was estimated as between 10:00pm and 10:30pm.[163][164] Kato Kaelin testified on March 22, 1995 that he last saw Simpson at 9:36pm that evening. Simpson was not seen again until 10:54pm when he answered the door for the limousine driver, Allan Park.[165][166] Simpson had no alibi for approximately one hour and eighteen minutes during which time the murders took place.[167]

Allan Park testified on March 28, 1995 that he arrived at Simpson's home at 10:25pm on the night of the murders and stopped at the Rockingham entrance: Simpson's Bronco was not there.[168] He then drove over to the Ashford entrance and rang the intercom three times, getting no answer, starting at 10:40pm.[169] At approximately 10:50pm he saw a "tall African American shadowy figure resembling Simpson" approach the front door before aborting towards the southern walkway that leads to Kaelin's bungalow.[167]

Park's testimony was significant because it explained the location of the glove found at Simpson's home.[170] The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door was easily understood but the glove was found on the other side of the house. Park said the "shadowy figure" initially approached the front door before heading down the southern walkway which leads to where the glove was found by Fuhrman. The prosecution believed that Simpson had driven his Bronco to and from Brown's home to commit the murders, saw that Park was there and aborted his attempt to enter through the front door and tried to enter through the back instead.[171] He panicked and made the sounds that Kaelin heard when he realized that the security system would not let him enter through the rear entrance.[172] He then discarded the glove, came back and went through the front door.[12]

During cross examination, Park conceded that he could not identify the figure but said he saw that person enter the front door and afterwards Simpson answered and said he was home alone. Park conceded that he did not notice any cuts on Simpson's left hand but added "I shook his right hand, not his left."[167]

DNA evidence and blood trail [ edit ]

Crime scene photo at Nicole Brown's home.

The prosecution presented a total of 108 exhibits, including 61 drops of blood,[173] of DNA evidence allegedly linking Simpson to the murders. With no witnesses to the crime, the prosecution was dependent on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime.[133] The volume of DNA evidence in this case was unique and the prosecution believed they could reconstruct how the crime was committed with enough accuracy to resemble an eyewitness account.[173][174] Marcia Clark stated in her opening statements that there was a "trail of blood from the Bundy Crime scene through Simpson's Ford Bronco to his Bedroom at Rockingham".[175]

Simpson's DNA found on blood drops next to the bloody footprints near the victims at the Bundy Crime Scene. [176] Probability of error was 1-in-9.7 billion. [133]

Probability of error was 1-in-9.7 billion. Simpson's DNA found on a trail of blood drops leading away from the victims, towards and on the back gate at Bundy. [177] Probability of error was 1-in-200. [178]

Probability of error was 1-in-200. Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on the outside of the door and inside Simpson's Bronco. Probability of error was 1-in-21 billion. [179]

Simpson's DNA found on blood drops leading from the area where his Bronco was parked at Simpson's Rockingham home to the front door entrance. [180]

Simpson, Brown and Goldman's DNA on a bloody glove found behind his home. [181]

Simpson and Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom. Probability of error was 1-in-6.8 billion.[182]

Hair and fiber evidence [ edit ]

LAPD criminalist and hair fiber expert Susan Brockbank testified on June 27, 1995 and FBI Special Agent and fiber expert Doug Deedrick testified on June 29, 1995 to the following findings:[183][184]

The fibers from the glove found at Simpson's home microscopically match the one found at the crime scene, proving they were each other's mate. [185] [186]

Both of the victims, the two gloves, and the Blue knit cap worn by the killer had hair consistent with Simpson. [187] The hair in the Blue Knit cap worn by the killer was embedded in the seams, indicating it was there from being worn repeatedly. [188] [189]

The hair in the Blue Knit cap worn by the killer was embedded in the seams, indicating it was there from being worn repeatedly. Dark blue cotton clothing fibers were found on both victims. The video from the Dance recital that Simpson attended earlier that night shows him wearing a similarly colored shirt. Kato Kaelin testified that Simpson was still wearing that shirt when they got home from McDonalds but not anymore when he answered the door for the limousine driver. The police searched his home but the shirt was never found. [12] [190] [191]

Hair consistent with Goldman was found on Brown and clothing fibers consistent with Brown was found on Goldman. This supported the prosecution's theory that the assailant killed Brown first, then Goldman, and afterwards returned to Brown to cut her throat. The hair consistent with Brown that was found on the Rockingham glove was torn which also supports the prosecution claim that the killer grabbed Brown by her hair to cut her throat. [192]

Fibers that were only used in the 1993-1994 model year Ford Bronco, the same car that Simpson owns, were found on both victims, the knit cap and on both gloves. [193] [194] [195] [196]

The glove found at Simpson's home that belonged to the murderer had hair and clothing fibers consistent with Simpson, Brown and Goldman as well as fibers from a 1993-1994 Ford Bronco and Brown's Akita dog.[197][198][199]

Shoe Print Analysis [ edit ]

On June 19, 1995, FBI shoe print expert William J. Bodziak, testified that the bloody shoe prints found at the crime scene and inside Simpson's Bronco were made from a rare and expensive pair of Bruno Magli Italian shoes. He determined the shoes were a size 12, the same size that Simpson wears, and are only sold at Bloomingdales. Only 29 pairs of that size were sold in the U.S. and one of them was sold at the same store that Simpson often buys his shoes from. Bodziak also testified that, despite two sets of footprints at the crime scene, only one attacker was present because they were all made by the same shoes. During cross-examination Bailey suggested the murderer deliberately wore shoes that were the wrong size, which Bodziak dismissed as "ridiculous".[143][200][201][202][203]

Simpson denied ever owning a pair of those "ugly ass shoes" and there was only circumstantial evidence he did.[204] Bloomingdales employee Samuel Poser testified he remembered showing Simpson those shoes but there was no store record of him purchasing them.[205]

Although the prosecution could not prove that Simpson owned a pair of those shoes, Bodziak testified that a similar bloody shoeprint print was left on the floor inside Simpson's Bronco. Scheck suggested that Fuhrman broke into the Bronco and left the footprint there; he produced a photo of Fuhrman walking through a puddle of blood. Bodziak admitted that he was not able to confirm that the shoe print in the car definitely came from a Bruno Magli shoe, but dismissed Scheck's claim because none of the shoe prints at the crime scene were made by Fuhrman's shoes, making it unlikely he could have made a bloody shoe print in the Bronco.[206][207]

Defense case [ edit ]

Simpson hired a team of high-profile defense lawyers, initially led by Robert Shapiro, who was previously a civil lawyer known for settling, and then subsequently by Johnnie Cochran, who at that point was known for police brutality and civil rights cases.[208] The team included noted defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Harvard appeals lawyer Alan Dershowitz, his student Robert Blasier, and Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law Gerald Uelmen. Assisting Cochran were Carl E. Douglas and Shawn Holley. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were also hired; they headed the Innocence Project and specialized in DNA evidence. Simpson's defense was said to have cost between US$3 million and $6 million; the media dubbed the group of talented attorneys the Dream Team.[209][210]

Theory [ edit ]

The defense team's reasonable doubt theory was summarized as "compromised, contaminated, corrupted" in opening statements.[211][139] They argued that the DNA evidence against Simpson was "compromised" by the mishandling of criminalists Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola during the collection phase of evidence gathering, and that 100% of the "real killer(s)" DNA had vanished from the evidence samples.[212] The evidence was then "contaminated" in the LAPD crime lab by criminalist Collin Yamauchi, and Simpson's DNA from his reference vial was transferred to all but three exhibits.[213] The remaining three exhibits were planted by the police and thus "corrupted" by police fraud.[214] The defense also questioned the timeline, claiming the murders happened around 11:00pm that night.[215]

Timeline [ edit ]

Dr. Robert Huizenga testified on July 14, 1995[216] that Simpson was not physically capable of carrying out the murders due to chronic arthritis and old football injuries. During cross-examination, the prosecution produced an exercise video that Simpson made a few weeks before the murders titled O.J. Simpson Minimum Maintenance: Fitness for Men, which demonstrated that Simpson was anything but frail.[217] Dr. Huizenga admitted afterwards that Simpson could have committed the murders if he was in "the throes of an adrenaline rush."[218]

Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist, testified on August 10, 1995[219] and claimed the murders happened closer to 11:00pm, which is when Simpson has an alibi.[215][220] He stated that Brown was still conscious and standing when her throat was cut[221] and that Goldman was standing and fighting his assailant for ten minutes with a lacerated jugular vein.[222][223]

After the trial, Baden admitted his claim of Goldman's long struggle was inaccurate[224][225] and that testifying for Simpson was a mistake.[226] Critics claimed that Baden knowingly gave false testimony in order to collect a $100,000 retainer[227][228][229] because the week before he testified, Dr. Gerdes admitted[230] that Goldman's blood was in Simpson's Bronco[231] despite Goldman never having an opportunity within his lifetime to be in the Bronco.[232]

Compromised and contaminated [ edit ]

Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld argued that the results from the DNA testing were not reliable because the police were "sloppy" in collecting and preserving it from the crime scene.[61][233] Fung and Mazzola did admit to making several mistakes during evidence collection which included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items, packaging and storing the evidence items using plastic bags, rather than paper bags as recommended, and storing them in the police van, which was not refrigerated, for up to seven hours after collection.[124][125][126][127][234] This, they argued, would allow bacteria to degrade all of the "real killer(s)" DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab.[235]

The prosecution denied that the mistakes made by Fung and Mazzola changed the validity of the results.[61] They noted that all of the evidence samples were testable and that most of the DNA testing was done at the two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab where contamination supposedly happened. Since all of the samples the consulting labs received were testable, while Scheck and Neufeld's theory predicted that they should have been inconclusive after being "100% degraded", the claim that all the DNA was lost to bacterial degradation was not credible.[236] The prosecution denied that contamination happened in the LAPD crime lab as well because the result would be a mixture of the "real killer(s)" DNA and Simpson's DNA but the results showed that only Simpson's DNA was present.[237] The prosecution also noted the defense declined to challenge any of those results by testing the evidence themselves.[61][233][238] Marcia Clark called Scheck and Neufeld's claims a "smoke screen."[239][240]

The contamination claim was made by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes.[241] He testified on August 2, 1995 that Forensic PCR DNA matching is not reliable[242][243][244][245] and "The LAPD crime lab has a substantial contamination problem. It is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away."[236] Gerdes testified that because of the LAPD's history of contamination, he would not consider any of the PCR DNA matches in this case reliable because the tests were carried out by the LAPD. He also claimed that the consulting labs’ PCR DNA matches were not reliable, as the evidence they tested went "through the LAPD" for packaging and shipping.[236] Gerdes believed only three of the DNA matches to have been valid, which were the same three the defense alleged were planted by the police.[237][246][247][248]

During cross-examination, Dr. Gerdes admitted there was no evidence that cross-contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying to "what might have occurred and not what actually did occur". He accepted that the victims' blood was in the Bronco and Simpson's blood was at the crime scene and neither was due to contamination. He also conceded that nothing happened during "packaging and shipping" that would affect the validity of the results at the two consulting labs. The prosecution implied that Gerdes was not a credible witness: he had no forensic experience and had only testified for criminal defendants in the past and always said the DNA evidence against them was not reliable due to contamination. Clark also implied that it was not a coincidence that the three evidence items he initially said were valid were the same three the defense claimed were planted while the other 58 were all false positives and the 47 substrate controls, which are used to determine if contamination occurred, were all false negatives.[249][250] Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995 and admitted that Gerdes's claim was "highly improbable".[251][252][242][253]

Barry Scheck's eight-day cross-examination of Dennis Fung was lauded in the media.[254] However, Howard Coleman, president of Seattle-based forensic DNA laboratory GeneLex, criticized Scheck's cross-examination as "smoke and mirrors" and stated "Everything we get in the lab is contaminated to some degree. What contamination and degradation will lead you to is an inconclusive result. It doesn't lead you to a false positive."[255]

Police conspiracy allegation [ edit ]

Poster describing reasonable doubt theory proposed by the defense.

The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were planted by the police[256] but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted in a police conspiracy.[257][258][259] They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis,[260] criminalists Dennis Fung,[125] Andrea Mazzola,[127] and Colin Yamauchi,[213] and Detectives Philip Vannatter[261] and Mark Fuhrman,[262] of participating in a plot to frame Simpson. In closing arguments, Cochran called Fuhrman and Vannatter "twins of deception"[263] and told the jury to remember Vannatter as "the man who carried the blood" and Fuhrman as "the man who found the glove."

EDTA [ edit ]

The only physical evidence offered by the defense that the police tried to frame Simpson was the allegation that two of the 108 DNA evidence samples tested in the case contained the preservative Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA. Ironically, it was the prosecution who asked to have the samples tested for the preservative, not the defense.[266] The defense alleged that the drop of blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene, which matched Simpson, and the blood found on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom, which matched Nicole Brown, were planted by the police. In order to support the claim, the defense pointed to the presence of EDTA, a preservative found in the purple-topped collection tubes used for police reference vials, in the samples. On July 24, 1995, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist who had analysed results provided by FBI special agent Roger Martz, testified that the level of EDTA in the evidence samples was higher than that which is normally found in blood: this appeared to support the claim they came from the reference vials.[267][268] During cross-examination, Clark asked Dr. Rieders to read out loud the portion of the EPA article that stated what the normal levels of EDTA in blood are, which he referenced during his testimony.[269] This demonstrated that he misread it and that the levels found in the evidence samples were consistent with those found in blood that was not preserved in a police reference vial.[270] Dr. Rieders then claimed it was a "typo"[271][272] but the prosecution produced a direct copy from the EPA disproving that claim.[273][274] The prosecution also had Dr. Rieders admit that EDTA is also found in food[275] and specifically the ingredients used in McDonald's Big Mac and French fries[269] that Simpson had eaten earlier that night with Kato Kaelin.[274]

FBI special agent Roger Martz was called by the defense on July 25, 1995 to testify that EDTA was present in the evidence samples, yet instead said he did not identify EDTA in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before.[276][277] Initially, he conceded the blood samples "responded like EDTA responded" and "was consistent with the presence of EDTA" but clarified his response after hearing during the lunch break that "everyone is saying that I found EDTA, but I am not saying that". When the defense accused their own witness of changing his demeanor to favor the prosecution, he replied "I cannot be entirely truthful by only giving 'yes' and 'no' answers".[278] Martz stated that it was impossible to ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA, as while the presumptive test for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive. Martz also tested his own unpreserved blood and got the same results for EDTA levels as the evidence samples, which he said conclusively disproved the claim the evidence blood came from the reference vials.[279] He contended that the defense had jumped to conclusions from the presumptive test results, while his tests had in fact shown that "those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood".[280][281]

Back gate [ edit ]

The defense alleged that Simpson's blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene was planted by the police. The blood on the back gate was collected on July 3, 1995, rather than June 13, the day after the murders.[282] The volume of DNA on that blood was significantly higher than the other blood evidence collected on June 13. The volume of DNA was so high that the defense conceded that it could not be explained by contamination in the lab, yet noted that it was unusual for that blood to have more DNA on it than the other samples collected at the crime scene, especially since it had been left exposed to the elements for several weeks and after the crime scene had supposedly been washed over. On March 20, 1995 Detective Vannatter testified that he instructed Fung to collect the blood on the gate on June 13 and Fung admitted he had not done so.[283] The defense suggested the reason why Fung did not collect the blood is because it was not there that day; Scheck showed a blown-up photograph taken of the back gate on June 13 and he admitted he could not see it in the photograph.

The prosecution responded by showing that a different photograph showed that the blood was present on the back gate on June 13 and before the blood had been taken from Simpson's arm.[61][285][286] Officer Robert Riske was the first officer to the crime scene and the one who pointed out the blood on the back gate to Fuhrman, who documented it in his notes that night.[287] Multiple other officers also testified under oath that the blood was present on the back gate the night of the murders. The prosecution also pointed out that the media cameras present proved that Vannatter never returned to the Bundy crime scene (Nicole Brown's home) that evening, where Simpson's blood was allegedly planted.[288]

Bronco [ edit ]

Barry Scheck alleged the police had twice planted the victims' blood inside Simpson's Bronco. An initial collection was made on June 13; the defense accused Vannatter of planting the victims' blood in the Bronco when he returned to Simpson's home later that evening. The prosecution responded that the Bronco had already been impounded by the time Vannatter returned and was not even at Rockingham.[289]

Socks [ edit ]

The defense alleged that the police had planted Brown's blood on the socks found in Simpson's bedroom. The socks were collected on June 13 and had blood from both Simpson and Brown, but her blood on the socks was not identified until August 4.[290] The socks were found by Detective Fuhrman, but the defense suggested Vannatter planted the blood. He had received both blood reference vials from the victims earlier that day from the coroner and booked them immediately into evidence. Vannatter then drove back to Rockingham later that evening to hand deliver the reference vial for Simpson to Fung, which the defense alleged gave him opportunity to plant the blood. Fung testified he could not see blood on the socks he collected from Simpson's bedroom[125] but the prosecution later demonstrated that those blood stains are only visible underneath a microscope.

Detective Vannatter denied planting Nicole Brown's blood on the socks. The video from Willie Ford indicated that the socks had already been collected and stored in the evidence van before Vannatter arrived and footage from the media cameras present appeared to prove that he never went inside the evidence van when he arrived at Rockingham.[291]

Glove [ edit ]

Mark Fuhrman in 2008

The last exhibit allegedly planted was the bloody glove found at Simpson's property by Detective Mark Fuhrman. Unlike the sock and the back gate, the defense provided no physical or eyewitness evidence to support their claim that the prosecution could then refute.[293][294] Jeffrey Toobin published an article in The New Yorker months before the trial began, which cited a source in Simpson's defense team that they intended to accuse Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove with the motive being racism. Robert Shapiro later admitted he was Toobin's source.[295]

Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey suggested that Fuhrman found the glove at the crime scene, picked it up with a stick and placed it in a plastic bag, and then concealed it in his sock when he drove to Simpson's home with Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Philips. Bailey suggested that he then planted the glove in order to frame Simpson, with the motive either being racism or a desire to become the hero in a high-profile case.[296] Scheck also suggested that Fuhrman broke into Simpson's Bronco and used the glove like a paint brush to plant blood onto and inside the Bronco.[297]

The prosecution denied that Fuhrman planted the glove. They noted that several officers had already combed over the crime scene for almost two hours before Fuhrman arrived and none had noticed a second glove at the scene. Detective Lange testified that 14 other officers were there when Fuhrman arrived and all said there was only one glove at the crime scene.[298] Lt. Frank Spangler also testified that he was with Fuhrman for the duration of his time there and stated he would have seen Fuhrman purloin the glove if he had in fact done so. Clark added that Fuhrman did not know whether Simpson had an alibi, if there were any witnesses to the murders, whose blood was on the glove, that the Bronco belonged to Simpson, or whether Kaelin had already searched the area where the glove was found.[299][300][301]

During cross-examination by Bailey,[302] Fuhrman denied that he had used the word "nigger" to describe African Americans in the ten years prior to his testimony.[302] A few months later, the defense discovered audiotapes of Fuhrman repeatedly using the word – 41 times in total, eight years before the murders. The tapes were made between 1985 and 1994 by screenwriter named Laura Hart McKinny, who had interviewed Fuhrman at length for a Hollywood screenplay she was writing on women police officers. The Fuhrman tapes became the cornerstone of the defense's case that Fuhrman's testimony lacked credibility. Clark called the tapes "the biggest red herring there ever was."[262]

After McKinny was forced to hand over the tapes to the defense, Fuhrman says he asked the prosecution for a redirect to explain the context of those tapes but the prosecution and his fellow police officers abandoned him after Ito played the audiotapes in open court for the public to hear.[303] The public reaction to the tapes was explosive and compared to the video of the Rodney King beating from a year prior. Fuhrman says he instantly became a pariah.[304] After the trial, Fuhrman said that he was not a racist and apologized for his previous language, saying he was play-acting when he made the tapes, as he had been asked to be as dramatic as possible and was promised a $10,000 fee if the screenplay was produced.[305] Many of his minority former coworkers expressed support for him.[306]

On September 6, 1995, Fuhrman was called back to the witness stand by the defense, after the prosecution refused to redirect him, to answer more questions. The jury was absent but the exchange was televised. Fuhrman, with his lawyer standing by his side and facing the possibility of being charged with Perjury, was instructed by his attorney to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination to two consecutive questions he was asked. Defense attorney Uelmen asked Fuhrman if it was his intention to plead the Fifth to all questions, and Fuhrman's attorney instructed him to reply "yes". Uelman then briefly spoke with the other members of the defense and said he had just one more question: "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?" Following his attorney's instruction, Fuhrman replied, "I choose to assert my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Cochran responded to Fuhrman's pleading the Fifth by accusing the other officers of being involved in a "cover-up" to protect Fuhrman and asked Judge Ito to suppress all of the evidence that Fuhrman found. Ito denied the request, stating that pleading the fifth does not imply guilt and there was no evidence of fraud. Cochran then asked that the jury be allowed to hear Fuhrman taking the fifth and again Ito denied his request. Ito also criticized the defense's theory of how Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove stating "it would strain logic to believe that".[307]

On June 15, 1995, Christopher Darden surprised Marcia Clark by asking Simpson to try on the gloves found at the crime scene and his home. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try them on because they had been soaked in blood from Simpson, Brown and Goldman,[61] and frozen and unfrozen several times. Instead they presented a witness who testified that Nicole Brown had purchased a pair of those gloves in the same size in 1990 at Bloomingdales for Simpson along with a receipt and a photo during the trial of Simpson earlier wearing the same type of gloves.[308]

The leather gloves appeared too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath. Clark claimed that Simpson was acting when he appeared to be struggling to put on the gloves, yet Cochran replied "I don't think he could act the size of his hands."[12][308] Darden then told Ito of his concerns that Simpson "has arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti-inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the joints and inflammation in his hands."[309][310] Cochran informed Ito the next day that Shawn Chapman contacted the Los Angeles County Jail doctor, who confirmed Simpson was taking his arthritis medication every day and that the jail's medical records verified this.[311] Uelmen came up with, and Cochran repeated, a quip he used in his closing arguments: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".

The prosecution stated they believed the gloves shrank from having been soaked in the blood of the victims.[12] Richard Rubin, former vice president of glove maker Aris Isotoner Inc. which makes the gloves in question, testified on September 12, 1995 that the gloves had indeed shrunk from their original size. He stated "the gloves in the original condition would easily go onto the hand of someone of Mr. Simpson's size." Darden then produced a new pair of the same type of gloves, which fitted Simpson when he tried them on.[312]

After the trial, Cochran revealed that Bailey had goaded Darden into asking Simpson to try on the gloves[313] and that Shapiro had told Simpson in advance how to give the appearance that they did not fit.[314] On September 8, 2012, Darden accused Cochran of tampering with the glove before the trial.[315] Dershowitz, a member of the Simpson defense team, refuted the claim, stating "the defense doesn't get access to evidence except under controlled circumstances."[315]

Summation [ edit ]

In closing arguments, Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson.[5] He questioned why, if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic violence calls against Brown between 1986 and 1988 but did not arrest him; they only arrested him on charges of abuse in January 1989, when photos of Brown's face were entered into the record. Darden noted the police did not arrest Simpson for five days after the 1994 murders.[5]

The prosecution told the jury in closing arguments that Fuhrman was a racist, but said that this should not detract from the factual evidence that showed Simpson's guilt. Clark put emphasis on the physical evidence such as the DNA, the bronco and Simpson's lack of an alibi, while Darden referred to Simpson's relationship with Nicole as a "ticking time bomb" and spoke about how the police had refused to arrest Simpson until Nicole's death despite his physical abuse, stalking and death threats, and Nicole filling a safety deposit box with a will and photographs of previous beatings in case Simpson murdered her.[5] In Cochran's summation to the jury, he was unable to refute any of the prosecution's claims, and instead emphasized that Fuhrman was proved to have repeatedly referred to black people as "niggers" and also to have boasted of beating young black men in his role as a police officer. Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and referred to him as "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare and the personification of evil", and claimed without proof that Fuhrman had single-handedly planted all of the evidence, including the gloves, in an attempt to frame Simpson for the murders based purely on his dislike of interracial couples.[5] In response, Fred Goldman, who was himself Jewish, referred to Cochran himself as "the worst kind of racist ever" and a "sick man" for making such a comparison, while Robert Shapiro, also Jewish, expressed that he was particularly offended by Cochran comparing Fuhrman's claims to the Holocaust, claiming that no comparison would ever be possible.

Verdict [ edit ]

Fears grew that race riots, similar to the riots in 1992, would erupt across Los Angeles and the rest of the country if Simpson were convicted of the murders. As a result, all Los Angeles police officers were put on 12-hour shifts. The police arranged for more than 100 police officers on horseback to surround the Los Angeles County courthouse on the day the verdict was announced, in case of rioting by the crowd. President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide.

The only testimony the jury reviewed was that of limo driver Park.[69] At 10:07 a.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 1995, Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder. The jury arrived at the verdict by 3:00 p.m. on October 2, after four hours of deliberation, but Ito postponed the announcement. After the verdict was read, juror number nine, 44-year-old Lionel Cryer, gave Simpson a black power raised fist salute.[317] The New York Times reported that Cryer was a former member of the revolutionary nationalist Black Panther Party that prosecutors had "inexplicably left on the panel".[318]

An estimated 100 million people worldwide watched or listened to the verdict announcement. Long-distance telephone call volume declined by 58%, and trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange decreased by 41%. Water usage decreased as people avoided using bathrooms. So much work stopped that the verdict cost an estimated $480 million in lost productivity. The U.S. Supreme Court received a message on the verdict during oral arguments, with the justices quietly passing the note to each other while listening to the attorney's presentation. Congressmen canceled press conferences, with one telling reporters, "Not only would you not be here, but I wouldn't be here, either."[319]

Reaction to the verdict [ edit ]

After the verdict in favor of Simpson, most blacks surveyed said they believed justice had been served, with most claiming that Simpson had been framed and some even suggesting that Mark Fuhrman was the actual killer. Most whites (75%) disagreed with the verdict and believed that it was racially motivated.[122] Discussion of the racial elements of the case continued long after the trial's end. An NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. In 2016, FiveThirtyEight reported that most black people now think Simpson committed the murders.[320] According to a 2016 poll, 83% of white Americans and 57% of black Americans believe that Simpson committed the murders.[321]

Shapiro admitted the defense played the race card, from the bottom of the deck.[322] On Sunday, February 12, 1995, a long motorcade traveled to Brentwood and the jurors, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and Judge Ito made a two-hour inspection of the crime scene. It was followed by a three-hour tour of Simpson's estate. Simpson was under guard by several officers but did not wear handcuffs; he waited outside the crime scene in and around an unmarked police car and was permitted to enter his house. Simpson's defense team had switched out his photos of whites for blacks, including switching a picture of a nude Paula Barbieri (Simpson's girlfriend at the time, who was white) for a Norman Rockwell painting from Cochran's office. Prosecutors had requested that Ito restrict the tour to only the crime scene for this exact reason, but Ito refused, and came under heavy criticism for allowing the defense to control the trial.

Critics of the jury's not-guilty verdict contended that the deliberation time was unduly short relative to the length of the trial. Some said that the jurors, most of whom did not have any college education, did not understand the forensic evidence.[323] In post-trial interviews, several jurors said that they believed Simpson probably did commit the murders,[324] but that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Three jurors together wrote and published a book called Madam Foreman, in which they described how their perception of police errors, not race, led to their verdict. They said that they considered Darden to be a token black assigned to the case by the prosecutor's office.[302] In Ezra Edelman's 2016 documentary O.J.: Made in America, juror number six, Carrie Bess, voiced her own personal dislike for Nicole for apparently "allowing" herself to be abused,[326] and said she believed "90% of the jury" actually decided to acquit Simpson as payback for the Rodney King incident, not because they believed in his innocence, and when asked if she believed the decision was correct, Bess merely shrugged indifferently, but later admitted that she regretted her decision after Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas.[327] Juror number nine, Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther Party and who notably gave Simpson a black fist salute after the verdict, said that in retrospect, however, he would render a guilty verdict.[328]

Books [ edit ]

In 1996, Cochran wrote and published a book about the trial. It was titled Journey to Justice, and described his involvement in the case. That same year, Shapiro also published a book about the trial called The Search for Justice. He criticized Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Cochran for bringing race into the trial. In contrast to Cochran's book, Shapiro said that he does not believe that Simpson was framed by the LAPD, but considered the verdict correct due to reasonable doubt.[302] In a subsequent interview with Barbara Walters, Shapiro, who is Jewish, claimed that he was particularly offended by Cochran for comparing Fuhrman's words to the Holocaust, and vowed that he would never again work with Bailey or Cochran, but would still maintain a working relationship with Scheck.

Clark published a book about the case titled Without a Doubt (1998). Her book recounts the trial proceedings, from jury selection to final summation. She concluded that nothing could have saved her case, given the defense's strategy of highlighting racial issues related to Simpson and the LAPD, and the predominance of blacks on the jury. In Clark's opinion, the prosecution's factual evidence, particularly the DNA, should have easily convicted Simpson. That it did not, she says, attests to a judicial system compromised by issues of race and celebrity.

Darden published a book about the case called In Contempt (1998).[332] In it he criticizes Ito as a "starstruck" judge who allowed the trial to turn into a media circus and the defense to control the court room while he collected hourglasses from fans and invited celebrities into his chambers. He also describes his frustration with a "dysfunctional and uneducated jury" that dismissed Simpson's history of domestic violence as irrelevant and inability to comprehend the DNA evidence in the case. Darden also describes his initial contact with Fuhrman and his suspicions that he is a racist and his feelings that the prosecution had been "kidnapped by a racist cop" whom they were unable to divorce themselves from. It also details the candid factors behind Darden's controversial decision for Simpson to try on the infamous glove and the impact it had on the trial's outcome.

In 1996, former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book titled Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder. Bugliosi was very critical of Clark and Darden, faulting them, among other reasons, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. He contended that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also noted that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco. The prosecution said that they 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.[5] He also criticized them for not wanting the jury to see or hear Simpson denying guilt, when there would not be a trial had Simpson not entered a not guilty plea. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's domestic abuse and presented evidence contrary to the defense's assertion that Simpson was a leader in the black community. Bugliosi also criticized the prosecution for trying the murder in Los Angeles, rather than Santa Monica, and described the prosecution's closing statements as inadequate.[334] During the jury selection process, the defense made it difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential black jurors, on the grounds that it is illegal to dismiss someone from the jury for racially motivated reasons. (California courts barred peremptory challenges to jurors based on race in People v. Wheeler,[335] years before the U.S. Supreme Court would do so in Batson v. Kentucky.)[336]

Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee published Blood Evidence: How DNA Is Revolutionizing The Way We Solve Crimes (2003). He devotes the last two chapters to explaining the arguments of Scheck and Neufeld against the DNA evidence in the Simpson case. Lee notes that Scheck and Neufeld were skeptics of DNA evidence and only recently before the trial, in 1992, accepted its validity and founded the Innocence Project.[337] Lee writes that neither of the defense's forensic DNA experts, Dr. Henry Lee or Dr. Edward Blake, considered Scheck and Neufeld's reasonable doubt theory about the blood evidence plausible. In hindsight, Dr. Lee opines that Scheck and Neufeld's claim that "the blood evidence is only as good as the people collecting it" was an obfuscation tactic to conflate the validity of the evidence with the integrity of the LAPD and then attack the latter because both Scheck and Neufeld knew that the defense's forensic DNA experts reached the same conclusion as the prosecution: the mistakes made during evidence collection did not render the results unreliable.[338] Lee opines that the jury did not understand the significance and precision of the DNA evidence. He bases this on comments from jurors after the trial, some of which included claims that the blood at the crime scene that matched Simpson had "degraded" and could possibly have been from Simpson's children or from one of the officials who collected the evidence. He attributes this misinterpretation to Scheck and Neufeld's deliberate obfuscation and deception about the reliability of the results. After the trial, the jurors faced harsh criticism for doubting the DNA evidence while Scheck and Neufeld received praise. Lee believes that the scathing criticism the jurors faced for doubting the DNA evidence based on the arguments Scheck and Neufeld made might have been the reason why they were the only two DNA experts from the criminal trial to decline to return for the subsequent civil trial to make those claims again.[339]

Media coverage [ edit ]

When the trial began, all of the networks were getting these hate-mail letters because people's soap operas were being interrupted for the Simpson trial. But then what happened was the people who liked soap operas got addicted to the Simpson trial. And they got really upset when the Simpson trial was over, and people would come up to me on the street and say, 'God, I loved your show.' Marcia Clark, 2010[62]

The murders and trial – "the biggest story I have ever seen", said a producer of NBC's Today – received extensive media coverage from the very beginning; at least one instant book was proposed two hours after the bodies were found, and scheduled to publish only a few weeks later.[101] The case was a seminal event in the history of reality television.[62] The Los Angeles Times covered the case on its front page for more than 300 days after the murders. The nightly news broadcasts from the Big Three television networks gave more air time to the case than to the Bosnian War and the Oklahoma City bombing combined. The media outlets served an enthusiastic audience; one company put the loss of national productivity from employees following the case instead of working at $40 billion. The Tonight Show with Jay Leno aired many skits on the trial, and the Dancing Itos – a troupe of dancers dressed as the judge – was a popular recurring segment.[341] According to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, the acquittal was "the most dramatic courtroom verdict in the history of Western civilization".[342]

Participants in the case received much media coverage. Limo driver Park said the media offered him $100,000 but refused, as he would be removed as a witness.[69] Fans approached Clark at restaurants and malls, and when she got a new hairstyle during the trial, the prosecutor received a standing ovation on the courthouse steps; People approved of the change, but advised her to wear "more fitted suits and tailored skirts". While Cochran, Bailey and Dershowitz were already well-known, others like Kaelin became celebrities, and Resnick and Simpson's girlfriend Paula Barbieri appeared in Playboy. Those involved in the trial followed their own media coverage; when Larry King appeared in the courtroom after a meeting with Ito, both Simpson and Clark praised King's talk show. Interest in the case was worldwide; Russian president Boris Yeltsin's first question to President Clinton when they met in 1995 was, "Do you think O.J. did it?"[62]

The issue of whether to allow any video cameras into the courtroom was among the first issues Judge Ito had to decide, ultimately ruling that live camera coverage was warranted.[343] Ito was later criticized for this decision by other legal professionals. Dershowitz said that he believed that Ito, along with others related to the case such as Clark, Fuhrman and Kaelin, was influenced to some degree by the media presence and related publicity. The trial was covered in 2,237 news segments from 1994 through 1997. Ito was also criticized for allowing the trial to become a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings.[344]

Among the reporters who covered the trial daily from the courtroom, and a media area that was dubbed "Camp O.J.",[345] were Steve Futterman of CBS News, Linda Deutsch and Michael Fleeman of the Associated Press, Dan Whitcomb of Reuters, Janet Gilmore of the Los Angeles Daily News, Andrea Ford of the Los Angeles Times, Michelle Caruso of the New York Daily News, Dan Abrams of Court TV, Harvey Levin of KCBS and David Margolick of The New York Times. Writers Dominick Dunne, Joe McGinniss and Joseph Bosco also had full-time seats in the courtroom.

Newsweek and Time. Time darkened the image, leading to controversy. Simpson on the cover ofanddarkened the image, leading to controversy.

On June 27, 1994, Time published a cover story, "An American Tragedy", with a photo of Simpson on the cover.[346][347] The image was darker than a typical magazine image, and the Time photo was darker than the original, as shown on a Newsweek cover released at the same time. Time became the subject of a media scandal.[348] Commentators found that its staff had used photo manipulation to darken the photo, and speculated it was to make Simpson appear more menacing. After the publication of the photo drew widespread criticism of racist editorializing and yellow journalism, Time publicly apologized.[349][346][350]

Charles Ogletree, a former criminal defense attorney and current professor at Harvard Law School, said in a 2005 interview for PBS' Frontline that the best investigative reporting around the events and facts of the murder, and the evidence of the trial, was by the National Enquirer.[351]

Aftermath [ edit ]

Despite Simpson's acquittal of the two murder charges, Police Chief Willie Williams indicated that he had no plans to reopen the investigation, saying of the acquittals, "It doesn't mean there's another murderer."[352] As of April 2001, Los Angeles Police Department homicide Detective Vic Pietrantoni was assigned to the Simpson-Goldman case.[353]

In the February 1998 issue of Esquire, Simpson was quoted as saying, "Let's say I committed this crime ...even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?"[354]

In April 1998, Simpson did an interview with talk show host Ruby Wax. In an apparent joke, Simpson showed up at her hotel room claiming to have a surprise for her, and suddenly waved a banana about his head, as if it were a knife, and pretended to stab Wax with it. The footage soon made its way onto US television networks, causing outrage.[citation needed]

Civil trial [ edit ]

In 1996, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, the parents of Ron Goldman, filed a suit against Simpson for wrongful death, while Brown's estate, represented by her father Lou Brown,[355] brought suit against Simpson in a "survivor suit.. The trial took place over four months in Santa Monica and, by judge's order, was not televised.[344][356] The Goldman family was represented by Daniel Petrocelli, with Simpson represented by Bob Baker.[356] Attorneys for both sides were given high marks by observing lawyers.[356] Simpson's defense in the trial was estimated to cost $1 million and was paid for by an insurance policy on his company, Orenthal Enterprises.[355]

Fuhrman was not called to testify, and Simpson was subpoenaed to testify on his own behalf.[7][122] A photo published in the National Enquirer in 1993 of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was presented at the civil trial. Simpson denied owning those shoes and said the photo was doctored like his mugshot on the cover of Time magazine, but E.J. Flammer, the photographer who produced the originals, disproved that claim. Other pre-1994 photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were discovered as well.[357][358][359][359]

The jury in the trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin (Brown's only children), $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate.[7] The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, thereby finding Simpson "responsible" for the respective murders.[360] In 2008, a Los Angeles superior court approved the plaintiffs' renewal application on the court judgment against Simpson.[361]

Four years after the trial, at an auction to pay some of the money in the compensation order, Bob Enyart, a conservative Christian radio host, paid $16,000 for some of Simpson's memorabilia, including his Hall of Fame induction certificate, two jerseys, and two trophies he was given for charity work. Enyart took the items outside the courthouse where the auction was held, burned the certificate and jerseys, and smashed the trophies with a sledgehammer.[362][363]

If I Did It [ edit ]

In November 2006, ReganBooks announced a book ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves based on interviews with Simpson titled If I Did It, an account which the publisher said was a hypothetical confession. The book's release was planned to coincide with a Fox special featuring Simpson. "This is a historic case, and I consider this his confession," publisher Judith Regan told the Associated Press.[364] On November 20, News Corporation, parent company of ReganBooks and Fox, canceled both the book and the TV interview due to a high level of public criticism. CEO Rupert Murdoch, speaking at a press conference, stated: "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project."[365]

Later, the Goldman family was awarded rights to the book to satisfy part of the judgment against Simpson. The title of the book was changed to If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. On the front cover of the book, the title was stylized with the word "If" to appear much smaller than those of "I Did It", and placed inside the "I", so unless looked at very closely, the title of the book reads "I Did It: Confessions of the Killer".[366] The Goldmans came under criticism for allowing the book to be released, particularly by the Brown family.

On March 11, 2018, Fox broadcast Simpson's previously unaired interview with Regan, which was part of the book deal in a special titled O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession?[367] In the decade-old interview, which was supposed to air with the release of the book by ReganBooks, Simpson gave a very detailed hypothesis on how the murders would have been committed if he had been involved, initially using phrases like "I would" and "I'd think", but later moving to using first person phrasing with sentences like "I remember I grabbed the knife", "I don't remember except I'm standing there", "I don't recall", and "I must have", and involving a supposed accomplice named "Charlie". Due to the change in phrasing, these comments were interpreted by many as being a form of confession, which stirred strong reactions in print media and the internet.[368][369]

Later developments [ edit ]

As a result of a 2007 incident in Las Vegas, Nevada regarding an attempt to steal materials Simpson claimed were stolen from him, Simpson was convicted in 2008 of multiple felonies including use of a deadly weapon to commit kidnapping, burglary and armed robbery, and sentenced to a minimum nine years to a maximum 33 years in prison. His attempts to appeal the sentence were unsuccessful and he was detained at Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada.[370] During his 2013 parole hearing, Simpson was granted parole on all counts except weapons-related and the two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. After a July 20, 2017 Nevada parole board hearing voting unanimously 4–0, Simpson was granted parole after a minimum nine-year sentence on the remaining counts for the Vegas robbery with Sunday, October 1, 2017 to be his release date from prison on parole. According to Nevada law, if he continues his good behavior, Simpson will have his 33-year sentence reduced by 50% to make September 29, 2022 the end of his sentence.[371] Upon release, Simpson intends to reside near his family in Miami, Florida, where he moved in 2000. Florida is one of the few U.S. states that protects one's home and pensions from seizures for such debts as those awarded following the civil trial. Goldman's father and sister, Fred and Kim, did not appear before the board, but stated that they had received about 1% of the $33.5 million that Simpson owes from the wrongful death suit.[372][373][374][375][376][377][378]

Simpson has participated in two high-profile interviews regarding the case – one in 1996 with Ross Becker, which outlines Simpson's side of the story, as well as a guided tour of his estate, where evidence used in the trial was found. The second took place in 2004, on the tenth anniversary of the murders, with Katie Couric for NBC speaking to Simpson. He had worked for that network as a sports commentator.[379]

In May 2008, Mike Gilbert, a former agent and friend of Simpson, released his book How I Helped O.J. Get Away with Murder,[380] which details Simpson confessing to the killings to Gilbert.[381] Gilbert states that Simpson had smoked marijuana and taken a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of the murders. Simpson said, "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive." This, Gilbert said, confirmed his belief that Simpson had confessed.[382][383]

In March 2016, the LAPD announced a knife had been found in 1998 buried at Simpson's estate, when the buildings were razed. A construction worker had given the knife to a police officer, who, believing the case had been closed, did not submit it as evidence at the time. Forensic tests demonstrated that the knife was not related to the murder.[384]

The presence of Kardashian on Simpson's legal team, combined with the press coverage of the trial, was the catalyst for the ongoing popularity of the Kardashian family.[385] While Kardashian's ex-wife Kris Jenner was already married to former Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner at the time of the trial, Kardashian's family was mostly out of the public eye before the trial, only becoming famous due to the trial.[386]

Other theories [ edit ]

The murders continue to be the subject of research and speculation.[387] For example, Detective William Dear conducted a lengthy investigation. His evidence and conclusions, among those of other experts (e.g., Dr. Henry Lee) who have reviewed the crime, trial, and evidence, were addressed in the BBC documentary O.J.: The True Untold Story (2000). The documentary, produced by Malcolm Brinkworth, claims that the police and prosecution had contaminated or planted evidence pointing to Simpson as the killer, and ignored exculpatory evidence. Furthermore, it asserts that the state too hastily eliminated other possible suspects, including Simpson's elder son Jason, and individuals linked to the illegal drug trade, in which Brown, Goldman and Resnick allegedly participated.[389][example's importance?]

Alternative theories of the murders, supposedly shared by Simpson, have suggested they were related to the Los Angeles drug trade,[390] and that Michael Nigg, a friend and co-worker of Goldman, was murdered as well. Simpson himself has stated in numerous interviews that he believes the two had been killed over their involvement in drug dealing in the area, and that other murders at the time were carried out for the same reason. Brown, Simpson believed, had been planning to open a restaurant using proceeds from cocaine sales. Mezzaluna was reportedly a nexus for drug trafficking in Brentwood.[390]

Brett Cantor, part-owner of the Dragonfly nightclub in Hollywood, was found stabbed to death in his nearby home on July 30, 1993;[391] no suspects have ever been identified.[392] The case gained renewed attention a year later when Simpson's defense team successfully petitioned the court trying him for the murders of Brown and Goldman for access to the case file, on the grounds that the way in which all three were stabbed suggested the same killer.[393] Since Goldman had worked for Cantor as a waiter, and Nicole was a regular at Dragonfly, some books about the case have raised the possibility that the three killings may also have resulted from involvement in drug trafficking.[390][394][395]

Michael Nigg, an aspiring actor and waiter at a Los Angeles restaurant, was shot and killed during an attempted robbery on 