Please briefly describe Simpson's case and talk about your understanding of the law.

After Simpson became famous, he has always had the reputation of "playboy" and "black outside and white inside". Unlike Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and other famous black stars, Simpson has no interest in sponsoring activities and investment projects in black slums, but is keen to become a golf club for rich whites. All his friends are white except Collins, his childhood friend. At the same time, he is only interested in white sexy girls. In order to "get rid of the black", he even paid a lot of money to hire a voice correction expert to practice repeatedly and get rid of the strong black slum accent. 1977, Simpson fell in love with NicoleBrown, a beautiful blonde white waitress, in a fancy restaurant, and soon divorced her first black wife. After Simpson and Nicole got married on 1985, their relationship began to crack because Nicole suspected that he had a mistress outside. Nicole repeatedly called the police and accused Simpson of punching and kicking her.

1June, 994 12 Late at night, in a luxurious residential area in the west of Los Angeles, a puppy kept barking, which attracted the attention of neighbors. People found two bloody bodies in front of a house. The female victim was later confirmed to be Nicole Brown Simpson, followed by Lang Goldman, a waiter in the restaurant. The two men were covered in blood and their throats were cut by sharp tools and died. The time of death is after ten o'clock in the evening. On the night of the murder, Nicole and her children went to Goldman's restaurant for dinner. After he left, he called to say that he had lost a pair of sunglasses. Goldman found it and told his colleagues to return it to Nick after work. Early in the morning after the incident, four detectives came to the residence of the deceased's ex-husband Simpson, a famous American black football star. Outside the door, they found his white Brango model car stained with blood, and blood was also found in the driveway. Nobody answered the door and the detectives climbed into the wall. One of them, Foreman, found a bloody glove and other evidence in the back garden. The main witness of the case was his friend Kitu, who lived in the guest room at that time. He testified that there was an earthquake-like sound outside the guest room wall. In addition, a driver who was booked by phone to take Simpson to the airport said: At about 10 o'clock, he rang Simpson's doorbell, but no one answered the door. Approaching 1 1 point, he found a tall black man (similar to Simpson) rushing home from the street and ringing the doorbell again. Simpson responded, came out and said that he was asleep, and then went to the airport to go to Chicago by car.

arrest

Early in the morning after the incident, Simpson received a police notice of his ex-wife's death at the Chicago Hotel and rushed back to California early in the morning. After Simpson came back, he was interrogated by the police alone for an hour under the strong opposition of his lawyer. When the police found Simpson injured. He explained that he was too excited to break the mirror after receiving the death of his ex-wife. After several days of investigation, the police decided to list Simpson as the main suspect in the arrest. On June 17, when Simpson's lawyer was going to accompany Simpson back to the police station, he found that Simpson, who had been resting upstairs, disappeared. Then the national audience saw an unforgettable scene on TV: the helicopter team in the sky and the patrol team on the ground were all dispatched, and Simpson's white car was finally found a few hours later. Dozens of police cars are chasing cars on the expressway. Simpson was finally arrested.

listen to

After the formal trial began, in the opening statement, the prosecution accused Simpson of premeditated murder of his wife, which was motivated by jealousy and possessiveness. After the divorce, Simpson was very jealous that Nick was dating a handsome young man. He always hopes for a second chance, but his hope is fading. On the day of the murder, Nicole was very cold to Simpson at her daughter's dance performance, which made him have a murder. On the other hand, Goldman accidentally broke into the scene and died. Forensic identification shows that the time of death of the victim is between 10 pm and 10 pm. Simpson claimed that he slept alone at home between 9: 40 and 10: 50 that night and could not provide witnesses. During the whole trial, Simpson, on the advice of his lawyer, asked to remain silent according to law and refused to testify in court. However, the prosecution's charge of premeditated murder seems unreasonable, mainly because Simpson had to catch a plane that night and had booked a luxury taxi to take him to the airport. This arrangement actually blocked the back road of his own crime, because he had to drive to the scene in a short time of 1 hour 10 minutes, choose the time to commit the crime, kill two people with a knife, escape from the scene of the murder, hide the bloody weapon, wash away the remaining blood and set off for the airport. A slight mistake in the whole process will delay the plane taking off, and then the taxi driver will become an important witness. In addition, for Simpson, an amateur killer who lacks training and experience, using a gun is the best choice, and there is no need to cut his throat with a sharp knife. This kind of crime not only makes you covered in blood, but also leaves an undeniable "blood certificate" at the scene of the murder, the white wild horse and your home. The defense believes that Nicole may have been killed by a drug trafficking group or mafia, because Nicole has a history of drug abuse. If she fails to pay on time after buying a large amount of drugs, she may be killed by the mafia, and throat cutting is the usual killing method of the underworld. In addition, the relationship between Goldman and Nicole is not normal. He was once seen driving Nicole's white Ferrari luxury sports car worth $654.38 +0.5 million in the street. More suspiciously, during the two years from 1993 to 1995, four employees of the Italian restaurant where Goldman Sachs worked were murdered or mysteriously disappeared. In the American judicial system, it is not easy to convict and sentence the defendant only by indirect evidence. This is because it is usually impossible to accurately infer the defendant's guilt only by individual indirect evidence. A series of indirect evidence must be mutually verified, forming a strict logical system, and excluding all possibilities that the defendant cannot be suspected of committing a crime, so as to accurately confirm the case. In addition, the collection of indirect evidence and the relationship between indirect evidence and the facts of the case should be reasonably coordinated. If there are contradictions or loopholes, it means that indirect evidence is not reliable enough to serve as a conclusive basis for conviction. For example, in the Simpson case, one of the indirect evidences presented by the prosecution was that the defendant's blood was found at the murder scene. However, the credibility of this circumstantial evidence was greatly reduced, because Sheriff Winnat walked at the murder scene with Simpson's blood sample for three hours. In Simpson's case, because the prosecution's evidence is indirect evidence, it is very important for defense lawyers to strictly identify and examine these "circumstantial evidence". Disappointingly, the evidence presented by the prosecution is full of loopholes and it is difficult to justify itself, so that the defense can prove to the jury with sufficient evidence that Simpson may not be the murderer. 1995 10/0.3, morning of American western time10, when the Simpson verdict was about to be announced, the whole country came to a standstill. President Clinton pushed military affairs aside; Former Secretary of State Baker postponed the speech; Trading on wall street is light; Long distance telephone lines are silent. Thousands of policemen are armed to the teeth and are all over the streets of Los Angeles. According to CNN statistics, about 65.438+40 million Americans watched or listened to the final verdict of "Trial of the Century". The jury ruled that Simpson was not guilty.

/kloc-test after 0/3 years

On June 3, 2009, the jury of Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, USA, ruled that Simpson was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges 12. The court is scheduled to pronounce sentence on February 5, 65438. Simpson, 6 1 year-old, may face life imprisonment. Coincidentally, on this day 13 years ago, Simpson accepted the verdict of "killing his wife" and was acquitted in this long judicial trial called "the trial of the century". This case happened on September 3, 2007/kloc-0. Simpson and other six people broke into a hotel room in Las Vegas and stole more than 700 sports souvenirs, most of which were related to Simpson. Simpson was arrested three days later. Later, he claimed that these sports souvenirs were stolen after his wife was killed in 1994. According to the verdict read by the court, Simpson was found guilty of 12 kidnapping and armed robbery, and was immediately transferred to custody, waiting for the final judgment. Co-defendant Clarence Stewart was also found guilty of several counts.

Edit the doubts in this paragraph.

Blood evidence

One of the important evidences presented by the prosecution in court is the results of blood test and DNA test. Criminal experts agree that the results of blood test and DNA test will not lie, but if the blood is polluted, mishandled, hastily collected or deliberately planted, its credibility will be greatly reduced. In Simpson's case, all these defects exist. The test results show that all doubts focus on Simpson. Simpson's blood was found in two places at the murder scene; The hair extracted from the scene is the same as Simpson's hair; The blood gloves found by the police at the scene and Simpson's residence are the same pair, and both gloves have the blood of the victim and the defendant; Simpson and the victim's blood, socks and a white mustang in the bedroom on the second floor were found in the alley in front of Simpson's house. In this way, the prosecution's evidence can be called "a mountain of blood evidence", and Simpson's alleged murder seems to be an unreliable fact. However, the defense camp believes that these "blood syndromes" are full of doubts and defects. First of all, the blood on the socks is strange. National defense experts pointed out that the blood on both sides of this sock is exactly the same. According to common sense, if the socks were worn on the feet at that time, it is absolutely impossible for the blood on the left outer side of the socks to soak into the left inner side first, and then flow to the right inner side through the ankle. Only when the blood permeates directly from the left side of the sock to the right side will the blood on both sides be exactly the same. In other words, the blood was probably smeared. During the trial, the prosecution showed several photos of the scene where the blood socks were found, but the time sequence on the photos was contradictory. There were no blood socks in the scene photos taken at 4: 00 pm on the day of the crime, but there were blood socks in the photos taken at 4: 35 pm. Are there any bloody socks on the carpet? Or was it later moved to the carpet by the police? On this issue, the police's answers are inconsistent and inconsistent. In addition, defense experts found that the blood on socks contained a high concentration of preservative (EDTA), and defense lawyers reminded the jury that on the day of the crime, the police added this preservative after taking Simpson's blood sample. Secondly, according to the field investigation report, the tall and strong Goldman had a bloody battle with the murderer. His personal belongings-a bunch of keys, an envelope, a piece of paper and a pager-are scattered in different places, which shows that the fight is very extensive and intense. Goldman's jeans have the shape of blood flowing downwards, which shows that he did not die in a very short time, but still stood up and fought to the death after being injured. He was stabbed more than 30 times and finally died of jugular vein rupture and massive bleeding in the chest and abdomen. According to this inference, the murderer must be covered in blood. However, why only found blood in the white field immediately? What is even more puzzling is why the murderer left a lot of obvious blood on the driveway of the front gate of the fence and the path from the front gate to the door of his house after getting off the bus. Also, suppose Simpson enters the front door of the house in bloody clothes and shoes and goes to the bedroom on the second floor in bloody socks. Why didn't he find any blood on the doorknob, the light switch and the white carpet of the whole house? Third, according to the blood test report, Simpson's blood was found in two places at the scene. On a path leading from the victim's body to the backyard of the apartment, the police found five drops of the defendant's blood, the same size and complete appearance. However, the defense believes that if Simpson was stabbed in a fight, according to common sense, he should have a lot of bleeding at first, and the blood volume will gradually decrease after a while, so the blood drops will never be uniform in size. In addition, the blood drops should be thrown during the struggle or walking, and fall to the ground in the state of impact. Therefore, the shape of a blood drop cannot be complete. In another place, the police found three bloodstains on the door of the backyard fence of the apartment. However, the prosecution experts found a high concentration of preservative (EDTA) again when they examined these bloodstains. Finally, defense experts accused the criminal laboratory of LAPD of poor equipment, chaotic management, lack of training of inspectors and failure to collect blood on the spot according to normal procedures. Due to improper handling of evidence samples, the test results are doubtful. For example, according to the normal procedure, when collecting blood samples for DNA analysis, we should first dip the blood samples with cotton, air-dry them naturally and put them into the evidence bag. However, before the blood dried, the police inspector put the sample into the evidence bag. On this basis, defense lawyer Xie Ke said rudely: The criminal laboratory of the police station is simply a "polluted cesspit".

Glove evidence

The second important evidence presented by the prosecution is the black blood gloves that Forman found at the back of Simpson's house. However, this bloody glove is also full of doubts. First of all, according to Foreman's testimony, when he found blood gloves, the blood on their surfaces was wet. National defense experts believe that this is absolutely impossible. The murder took place around 0: 30 in the middle of the night in June of 12, and Furman found gloves at 6: 00 in the morning of 13, which lasted more than 7 hours. The defense demonstrated to the jury with a simulation experiment that the blood on the gloves must have been stained for 7 hours under the weather conditions of sunny to cloudy night and outdoor temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. So, why does foreman insist that it is wet? The explanation provided by the defense is that there is only one possibility, that is, foreman quietly put the gloves stained with wet blood into the police evidence protection bag he carried with him after he came to the scene of the murder. Then, he tried every means to find an opportunity to enter Simpson's house to forge evidence when others were unprepared, so that the blood was still wet despite the long time span. Secondly, suppose Simpson is a murderer. When he fled home from the murder scene covered in blood and hid the murder weapon and bloody clothes without a trace, there was no need to reinvent the wheel and sneak to the back of the guest room alone to hide blood gloves. In addition, Simpson knows his backyard and terrain like the back of his hand. According to common sense, he is unlikely to hit the air conditioner and make an earth-shattering sound, and he will ignore it if he loses his blood gloves. From all aspects, the owner who crashed the air conditioner and lost his gloves is obviously a person who is not familiar with the shape of the land and the road in the house. In addition, if the murderer hurried in the dark and groped for something, why didn't he find other blood and suspicious footprints and traces at the scene of blood gloves? Third, although the police found a left-handed glove and a right-handed glove at the murder scene and Simpson's residence, and the blood of two victims and Simpson was also found on the gloves, there were no cracks and knife marks on the appearance of these two gloves, and Simpson's blood was not found on the gloves. This shows that Simpson's hand wound is probably not directly related to blood gloves and murder. Finally, in order to prove Simpson was the murderer, the prosecution decided to let him try on gloves stained with blood in front of the jury. In court, Simpson first put on ultra-thin rubber gloves to prevent contamination, and then tried to put on bloody gloves. However, in full view, Simpson struggled for a long time but found it difficult to put on gloves. The defense immediately pointed out that the gloves were too small to belong to Simpson. The prosecution invited glove experts to testify, claiming that gloves might shrink after being stained with blood. But defense experts believe that this is an advanced leather glove that has been pre-shrunk and will not shrink after being stained with blood. The prosecution and the defense argued endlessly, but in the opinion of some jurors, this blood glove was a little too small.

Field police officer

In the Simpson trial, the most suspicious person in the defense camp was the prosecution's "star" witness, officer foreman. On the night of the murder, the police officer was not bad. In that case, why did he go to all the trouble to get to the scene at midnight? Why did you volunteer to lead a team to Simpson's house? What is even more puzzling is why he happened to find important evidence such as the blood on the white wild horse, the blood gloves at the back of the guest room and the blood socks in the bedroom on the second floor. Is he a well-connected super detective or a police scum with a lot of bad records? In this context, Foreman naturally became the focus of defense lawyers' investigation and cross-examination. To this end, the defense has set up a free hotline, hoping that people from all walks of life can provide clues. As a result, the defense learned that the police officer had made many extremely bad racist remarks. For example, according to an eyewitness named katherine bell, during the period from 1985 to 1986, Foreman threatened that if he found a black man and a white woman in the same car on the street, he would sound the siren and order to stop. If there is no reason to stop, he will make it up. He even boasted: I want to see all the "niggers" gather in a pile, burn them or blow them up with bombs. Another witness reported that Forman worshipped Hitler and he collected a large number of SS medals. However, Forman himself firmly denied the accusation of burning "niggers". Therefore, the defense camp asked Judge Ito for an order to allow lawyers to cross-examine Foreman and ask him if he used the insulting word "nigger" in the past 10 years. The defense tried to use this as a breakthrough to completely discredit foreman's witness qualification. After Simpson's case, people from all walks of life criticized the defense's litigation strategy of playing the "race card" and sharply criticized it. It is worth mentioning that on the controversial issue of "race card", laymen who are "watching the fun" accuse defense lawyers one after another, while experts who are "watching the doorway" accuse the presiding judge. Some people may wonder whether foreman said the word "nigger" in the past 10 years and whether Simpson was suspected of murder. According to common sense, even if Foreman lied to the "nigger", it can't directly prove that his testimony in the major case of the century is fabricated and forged; Even if the police officer made some racist remarks, it can't prove that he deliberately framed the defendant. This is Simpson's case of the century. Why did you accidentally become the case of officer foreman? During the trial, why did Judge Ito allow the defense to use this defense strategy of playing the "race card" and "reversing the general direction of struggle" regardless of the opposition of the prosecution? Believe it or not, in the American judicial system, despite the controversy, the defense's "race card" strategy and Judge Ito's ruling are completely legal. Influenced by the tradition of "character evidence" in English common law, the evidence laws and precedents in the United States and California stipulate that if the character of a witness in court is proved to be defective, part of his testimony in court will have no legal effect. Therefore, in the court trial, the lawyers of both the prosecution and the defense will make a big fuss about the personal character of the witness. In addition, after being sworn in by the court, if a witness deliberately lies in part of his testimony, then the jury can regard other testimonies of this witness as lies. After the judge gave the green light, defense lawyer Lee Bailey came over and asked Furman, "Have you used the word' nigger' in the past 10 years?" Foreman replied, "As far as I can remember, I have never used it." Leave a little room for lying. But can the lawyer be lenient and immediately grasp the ambiguity in the answer and ask, "Do you mean that if you call a nigger, you forget?" This rhetorical question is simply capped! Foreman had to play dumb: "I'm not sure I can answer your question like this." The lawyer pressed: "In other words, I want you to admit that you may have called a black nigger at some point since 1985 or 1986, or you may have forgotten yourself?" Foreman had to bite the bullet and answer, "No, it's impossible." The lawyer struck while the iron was hot: "Would you like to take the oath?" The police officer had to answer, "That's what I mean." The lawyer asked from another angle, "If a witness testifies in court and says that you use the word' nigger' to describe a black man, is that person lying?" Foreman was forced to admit, "Yes, they are lying." In this way, the defense lawyer used puzzling logic and superb questioning skills to force officer foreman to the point of no return. There are such coincidences in the world. Shortly after the end of this cross-examination, the defense learned from the tip-off phone that a female playwright had interviewed Foreman many times during the recent 10 period in order to collect information about the life of the police in solving crimes, and recorded the interview recording of 14 hours. After listening to the recording, the defense lawyer found that in the recorded conversation, whenever black people were mentioned, Officer Foreman used the insulting address "nigger" as many as 4 1 time. In addition, in an interview on July 28th, 1994, Foreman boasted: "I am a key witness of the great case of the century. If I don't help the prosecution hold on, they will lose this big lawsuit. Blood gloves decide everything. If there are no gloves, goodbye and stop playing. " He also claimed: "You just don't fucking understand. Policemen don't need rules in their work. It's all about feeling. Fuck the rules, then we will lie enough. " In the recorded conversation, Foreman also openly boasted about the experience of framing innocent people. He said, "I detained people who don't belong to this area. If I have to give a reason, I will say that this person is suspected of theft. " "Our police are not easy to handle. Even if we kill someone, we know what to say. " The discovery of foreman's tapes was a turning point in the great trial of the century. The prosecution argued that the recording of the conversation is only the material of literary creation, and it is inevitable to brag and exaggerate, and it cannot be used as legal evidence at all. However, Judge Ito ruled that the jury could hear part of the recording. During the cross-examination in court, ullman, the defense lawyer, was full of expression and heavy artillery. "Is your testimony in the preliminary hearing completely true?" "Did you forge the police investigation report?" "Did you plant and falsify evidence in this case?" Faced with these unavoidable legal questions, Foreman actually replied: "I hope to maintain my Fifth Amendment privilege." In other words, he refused to answer the reasonable questions raised by the defense policy about presenting evidence in court by virtue of the suspect's right to silence stipulated by the Supreme Court in the famous 1966 Miranda case. Cochrane, a defense lawyer, pointed out in his concluding remarks that Foreman was "a racist who supported the policy of genocide, a perjury guy, America's worst nightmare and the incarnation of the devil". In the American judicial system, the credibility of evidence is one of the key factors to win the lawsuit. As the detection organ of criminal cases, the police have the most evidence at the first time. Therefore, American law clearly stipulates that police must testify in court on legal issues such as searching and examining evidence, which is an important link in court trial and procedural justice. Police are different from ordinary witnesses, and the special status of law enforcers determines the necessity for them to question defense lawyers. Even in ordinary traffic violation fines, the police involved are still obliged to appear in court on time and swear the Bible. There is a proverb in western judicial circles: "The police are public servants of the court". Therefore, Foreman's request to remain silent and refuse to answer the defendant's question is absolutely absurd, which is actually equivalent to admitting in disguise that he is suspected of forging evidence and framing the defendant without being pressured. Legally speaking, Foreman's testimony has lost its legal effect. The prosecution will almost certainly fail. After Simpson's case ended, the Los Angeles District Attorney ruthlessly filed a lawsuit against Officer Foreman. Results He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for perjury and executed outside prison. In this way, Simpson, the murder suspect, was acquitted, while officer foreman, the law enforcer, became a felony. I really don't know if this is the pride or shame of American justice. Maybe both! There is a famous evidence rule in American law: "There can only be one bug in noodles". This is an image metaphor: when anyone finds a bug in his noodle bowl, he will never look for the second one again, but will only throw out the whole bowl of noodles. Similarly, even if LAPD obtained a lot of evidence to prove Simpson's guilt, as long as one of them (socks) was illegally obtained, all the evidence would not be accepted by the court. Therefore, although Clark, the female prosecutor of the prosecution, made a generous speech in her concluding speech, which touched a large audience, she did not touch the jury. After nearly 40 hours of discussion, they unanimously ruled that the defendant was not guilty. When it comes to Simpson's case, both blacks and whites admit that if Simpson is a poor man who can't afford a first-class lawyer, he must go to jail. This is called "money makes the mare go", and it is the same truth at all times and in all countries. However, on reflection, this statement seems a bit unreasonable. The reason is that, in terms of money, the famous boxing champion Tai Sen is much richer than Simpson, who has retired from sports for many years. However, after Tai Sen was prosecuted for alleged rape in 1997, although he hired a group of famous lawyers to appear in court at astronomical prices, he still could not get rid of the fate of being convicted and spent several years firmly in prison. So, why did Tai Sen fall into the trap of justice, but Simpson escaped? One explanation is that the jury in Tai Sen case is mostly white, while the jury in Simpson case is mostly black. Black people are particularly close to each other, so they will naturally favor black stars. However, this statement is not completely convincing. Because of the 12 jurors in the Simpson case, although nine are black, eight of them are women. Some experts who study juries believe that this composition is particularly unfavorable to Simpson. According to the statistics and investigation of American scholars on the sociological topic "What kind of black men do black women hate most", there are two kinds of black men who make black women angry most: one is to marry a white girl as a wife immediately after becoming famous and rich, and the other is to easily punch and kick his daughter-in-law. Simpson happened to take both these bad things away.

Three major mistakes made by the editing police in handling this paragraph.

The major case of this century was tried by Lance Ito, a Japanese-American judge whose parents were imprisoned in a concentration camp in Japan during World War II. This judge is knowledgeable and well-informed, and has always been known for his mastery of the law, rigor and impartiality. There are black lawyers in both camps, Japanese judges preside over the trial, and most of the jury members are black. Once the defendant is convicted, there is no reason for black people to want to make trouble. During the nine-month trial, there were boring blood test evidence that ordinary people could not understand, and there were unexpected progress. The whole trial process of the case is extremely dramatic.

Ignore the common sense of field investigation