Reference no: EM131715756

OJ Simpson and the American Justice System :  Law and Society

1) The Fourth Amendment reads: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons. houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court has established that certain circumstances exist in which people and property may be seized without a warrant. These include, but are not Limited to, situations in which immediate danger or harm is present; evidence is about to be destroyed; seizure of evidence in plain view; and seizure of property after obtaining consent.

If evidence is collected improperly (i.e., without a warrant), it can be excluded from trial -the Exclusionary Rule. In this cast, the police argued that when they saw blood on the Bronco they were led to believe that there was imminent harm and this allowed them to enter the property without a warrant. The pre-trial judge believed this argument and included the evidence collected as a result of that search - most importantly, the second bloody glove.

Do you think the police violated the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not? And, further, do you believe the glove should have been excluded?

2) At one point, Gerry Spence, makes the argument that the prosecution was trying to make the case about gender, when it was actually about race. What do you think he meant by this? And, if the prosecution had understood this, how would their tactics have changed? Do you think it would have impacted the outcome?

3) Who had the greater burden - the prosecution or the defense? In what ways?

4) Did the jury get this right? If yes, why? If not, why not?

5) What factors do you believe contributed most to Simpson's acquittal?