O.J. Simpson Murder Trial
The O.J Simpson murder case served as a good lesson for the police in terms of handling evidence. The defense side of the case revealed that the police officers had acquired circumstantial evidence. The lack of a search warrant made the evidence questionable, and the police officers involved in collecting it made numerous mistakes in handling it.
The O.J Simpson murder trial is one of the most popular cases in the United States because it involved the trial of a popular actor and . Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and a waiter, and the prosecution used some unorthodox methods to implicate him. The verdict of the jury was that Simpson was not guilty because, despite the vast amount of evidence implicating him, there was reasonable doubt. According to the Constitution of the United States, a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty with no reasonable doubt (Siegel & Worall, 2013). This paper looks at the O.J Simpson murder trial with a close focus on the legality of the police procedure in the trial. O.J Simpsons case was a lesson for the police officers (Linder, 2015).
During the O.J Simpson murder trial, the defense won the case through highlighting many loopholes that were associated with the handling of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Under the Fourth Amendment, Simpson had the right against illegal search and seizure; hence, the evidence collected by the police was illegal (Siegel & Worall, 2013). According to the defense, the detectives involved in the collection of evidence did not have a legal warrant to proceed with their investigation. The police officers obtained a warrant several hours after visiting O.J Simpsons premises, and this was illegal. According to the defense side of the case, the warrant that was obtained by the detectives only covered the investigation on the residence. The argument meant that the search warrant did not cover the search on his car, yet the police collected evidence from the car (Abdollah, 2014). The police officers were not justified to search Simpsons car. The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that the warrant covered the residence, including a legal search in the garage and any other building that was on the premises. The assumption was that any car in the garage was covered for a search by the warrant.
The police officers should have acquired a search warrant for the residence, as well as the vehicle before undertaking any searches. The officers may also have used the concept of evidence in plain sight as a basis for searching the vehicle. For instance, if there was clear evidence of blood in the car, the police officers had the right to search the car without requiring any legal certification (THE SIMPSON CASE,2015). The prosecution may also have searched the car under the concept of collecting evidence that can easily be transformed. For instance, if there was blood in the car, it could have easily been wiped out before the police officers could get a search warrant (Siegel & Worall, 2013). Mr. Simpsons rights were also violated by the police officers climbing over his wall to collect evidence without a warrant.
The exclusionary rule would have been applied on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution was collected illegally (Lessons learned from evidence gathering mistakes in Simpson case, 2015). It is apparent that the prosecution did not deny the fact that the evidence was collected six hours before the police officers could acquire a search warrant. It is also apparent that the police officers did not deny that they climbed the wall to get to Simpsons residence; thus violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment (Siegel & Worall, 2013). This means that the evidence should not have been acceptable at the court.
The police officers involved in the collection of evidence at Simpsons residence violated the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. For instance, they collected the evidence without a search warrant. They also violated his privacy by climbing over the wall to access his residence. They should have gotten a search warrant for the car. In contrast, it was appropriate for the police to collect the evidence before it could be manipulated by the suspect.