Simpson's wife-killing case refers to 1994, a criminal case in which American football player O.J. Simpson murdered his wife and another man. The trial of this case was very dramatic at that time. Due to several major mistakes of the police, strong evidence failed, which made Simpson escape the punishment of the law. Case Introduction 1994 The case of O.J. Simpson, a former American football player, killing his wife became the most sensational event in the United States at that time.
At that time, the trial of this case was full of twists and turns In the end, Simpson escaped legal sanctions with "sufficient" evidence and was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree murder of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend with a knife. He was only found responsible for the deaths of two people by civil law. This case has also become the biggest loophole in the presumption of innocence in American history.
Three major mistakes made by the police in handling cases:
1 Ignoring the common sense of field investigation.
The police are suspected of illegal search.
The police officer returned to the scene with a blood sample.
Characteristics of Anglo-American judicial system;
First, fully respect the autonomy of the will and attach great importance to reconciliation.
Second, adhere to strict trial procedures and highlight the seriousness of justice.
Third, adhere to the jury system and highlight the openness and credibility of the judiciary.
Defects in the judicial system of Anglo-American legal system;
(1) The grand jury system has major defects.
(2) Money affects the fairness of legal trial.
(3) Legal technology transcends the justice of law.
(4) The conflict between American legal norms makes the parties often at a loss, and leads to the excessive dependence on lawyers in the whole judicial activities and even the whole judicial system.
(5) The Simpson case reflects that the problem of racial discrimination in the United States is still very serious, and there is still a long way to go for racial equality.
The Simpson case was called "the trial of the century" as soon as it came out. The protagonist is a celebrity, a first-class lawyer group in the United States, and the prosecution also puts on the strongest lineup to fight to the death. The judge's determination must be accepted by both parties. After repeated discussions and agreement by both parties, Japanese judge Ito will be appointed. Ito is famous for his justice. His wife happens to be a policeman of the LAPD who handled the case. He can even be accepted by extremely picky defense lawyers, which shows how good his reputation is.
The second round of jury selection has been going on for nearly two months, which shows its difficulty and prudence. Candidates must first be examined by a judge. For example, a female candidate once had the experience of being abused by her husband. Because Simpson had beaten his ex-wife, his candidacy was immediately cancelled by the judge, lest she involuntarily "avenge herself" when making a judgment. "In addition to the judge's review, candidates have to be reviewed by defense lawyers and prosecutors. Because the final verdict will come from the mouth of these jurors, both sides dare not take it lightly and have veto power, so all doubts have been deleted. This is why more than 300 people were elected in the primary election.
It must be emphasized that the lawyers' groups of both sides only have the veto power, and there is no "absolute access right". In other words, either party can only say which one they don't want, and can't say which one they want to be a juror. It is not easy for any selected juror to be recognized by both parties at the same time. Especially in this case, the defendant was a black sports hero, and the murdered ex-wife was white. It is hard to say that the racial composition of the jury does not affect his judgment at all. In addition, because the defendant divorced a victim, it is generally believed that the gender ratio of the jury may also be an influencing factor. In any case, the jury was finally established in June last year 165438+ 10. Mostly black.
In the United States, States have different regulations on whether to allow TV stations to enter the court. Some states absolutely forbid it. In this case, video recording, audio recording and even taking photos are not allowed in court. Therefore, TV viewers can only hear some brief introductions in news programs. This also provides a special career for a group of painters, because the news media always hire some artists to sketch on the spot in order to make up for the visual understanding of the trial by TV viewers. Laws in some states make it possible to broadcast live TV. However, the opinions of the defense and the prosecution must be considered, and the final decision is made by the judge. California falls into this category. Fortunately, Judge Ito approved the TV broadcast of Simpson's case, which gave us a rare opportunity to understand how the judicial system in this country works. But there is a very strict rule in TV broadcast that jurors cannot be "exposed".
The four elements of the court, the prosecution, the defense, the judge and the jury, are finally complete, but the trial cannot be held yet, because it is up to the judge to decide which evidence can be presented in court first, that is to say, not all the evidence can really be counted as evidence. What can I say? In fact, this problem has been mentioned in my previous letter. Do you remember the story of the young couple who were searched unreasonably by the local security police in the Appalachian Mountains? In that story, I have mentioned the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the "exclusion principle" formulated by the Supreme Court on the basis of this amendment. Once again, I realized that every word of the American Bill of Rights was not written in vain. As long as you can find the right terms, you can use them to protect your freedom and rights.
This process is called pre-trial hearing. At the beginning of the pretrial hearing, the defendant must also answer the judge's question whether to plead guilty or not. If you plead guilty, you can generally make some limited bargaining in advance within the scope permitted by law. In front of the TV, we saw Simpson listlessly answer that he pleaded not guilty. So, the hearing began. Simpson's defense lawyer pointed out at the beginning that a large amount of evidence found by the police at Simpson's home on the night of the murder could not be provided to the jury as legal evidence in court. Their evidence is Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment: "Everyone has the right to protect the safety of person, residence, documents and property from unreasonable search and arrest; This right shall not be infringed; An arrest warrant shall not be issued unless there is a valid reason, an oath or oath is attached, and the place to be searched, the person to be arrested or the article to be seized are specified. "
When the police received the report and inspected the scene, they quickly went to Simpson's home. At that time, he had left home for Chicago, and the police found some evidence in his home, and then they got a search warrant based on the evidence. This is really unconventional. In the United States, generally speaking, the police can't get a search warrant without a very clear reason (speculation, reasoning and suspicion are not reasons at all). In many cases, the police are at a loss because of this. Then, what should the police do if they break into the house without a search warrant and successfully obtain evidence as they wish? In the case of irrefutable evidence, can criminals be punished, and can police violations be ignored in the face of the fact that they have successfully solved the case? This will never work in America. As I mentioned in my last letter, the core of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the American government from depriving people of their freedom and rights. If "success or failure is a hero", it will not encourage the police to violate the constitution. If the police make excuses to do evil, what power can the people have to keep them out? It is unconstitutional for the police to search and arrest without a search warrant. Even if they get huge evidence, it will only be a result. The evidence will be invalid and the criminal will be sent back to China.
Therefore, before the trial, the judge must first decide whether it is legal for the police to enter Simpson's home for the first time on the night of the murder. If it is illegal, then all the evidence found in his home can't appear in court. This is the principle of exclusion. That is to say, theoretically, after the "illegal evidence" is "excluded", the only juror in the case who has the right to decide whether Simpson is guilty or not will not know what they found in Simpson's house, so that what they found will not exist, and the mountain of hard evidence will be shattered into pieces in an instant. Do you think this is incredible? Although I already knew about this constitutional amendment and the "exclusion principle" at that time, I still feel very fresh, because this is a criminal case of murder after all. In my imagination, I am really afraid of insufficient evidence for major murders. How can there be such a thing in the world, and let it be invalidated when evidence is caught? This is obviously unacceptable to the families of the victims. During the whole trial of the case, it was the parents of Goldman, the murdered young man I mentioned earlier, who made the American public feel uneasy. The old Goldman Sachs, who appeared in front of the TV, was a broken-hearted and dignified father, trying to endure grief and seek justice. He is tall and thin, and his wife, the victim's stepmother, leans beside him, looking very weak and helpless. She seems to be trying to restrain herself. Their mutual support in the face of the great loss of losing a child touched almost everyone.
After the defense lawyer suggested that it was illegal for the police to collect evidence and the evidence should not be presented in court, Goldman Sachs' father made a short speech and accused the jury of presenting all the evidence. Everyone deeply understands and sympathizes with the anger of the victims' families, but everyone thinks there is no way. If the judge decides that the police are illegally obtaining evidence, then the evidence will only be invalid. Americans only recognize the constitution, because it is the guarantee of the freedom of the whole people. They are used to paying the price for it. What's more, Simpson's jury has been isolated since he was sworn in. In general, if the impact is not too great, jurors can generally go home. However, if the case causes a sensation, the pervasive media coverage will greatly interfere with the jury. Generally speaking, when selecting jurors, it is best to select people who know nothing about the case, so that all the information they get, that is, the evidence that is allowed to appear in court, will not be affected by newspaper speculation and illegal evidence at the trial. This is also a particularly difficult place for Simpson to select a jury, because before selecting and isolating a jury, evidence and public opinion are flying all over the sky. You can hardly find a person who says that he hasn't read many related reports. However, the selected jurors will be told that only the evidence presented in court will count. As for the evidence released after their isolation, if it is declared illegal by the judge, the jurors will never know it. Therefore, since the jury was sworn in, the information they can know is far less than that of ordinary people, or even far less than that of the defendant. What they are allowed to know is limited to what the judge can let them hear and see. Even if something happens in court, as long as the judge thinks it needs further understanding before making a decision, he will ask the jurors out of court first. But as a defendant, he has the right to face all the evidence related to him guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the defendant is always present. Jurors can't read newspapers or TV news, so they don't know anything about what happened outside the court, such as the press conference held by defense lawyers and the statements of the victims' families. The defendant has a right to know all this.
During this time, jurors went to the grocery store to buy food, and they were followed by bailiffs to ensure that they were not in contact with the outside world. Jurors are not allowed to communicate and discuss cases with each other until the whole case is over and handed over to them for decision. In short, everything is to protect them from all kinds of emotions and non-evidence to maintain a fair judgment. Therefore, you can say that during this period, the freedom of jurors is far less than that of suspects in this case. Due to the protection of the constitutional amendment, the defendant has the right to face all the evidence and the whole trial process. Because he is a party, no one can hide anything from him, which makes him very confused and sentenced. Juries can only face very limited legal evidence. This case is really special, because the competition between the two sides is fierce and the trial process is particularly long, resulting in the jurors being isolated for nine months.