Racism in the Selection of Juries for O.J. Simpson’s Trial

Racism in the Selection of Juries for O.J. Simpson’s Trial

            O.J. Simpson’s trial happened at a time when the US was struggling with high levels of racial differences between the whites and the black-Americans. Cases heard at that time were affected by the racial affiliation of the juries listening to them. Therefore, prosecutors and defendants did everything they could to have juries from their racial affiliation, although they had little control over the final panel of juries. Also, courts from different parts of the country were known for different racial affiliations depending on the majority of the residents. When Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife and a friend, the whites felt that he was guilty and needed to be executed. The black-Americans, on the other hand, felt that Simpson was targeted because he was black and had stood against any situation made to portray him as being inferior. The juries involved in both cases were selected with racial backing to offer a not guilty and guilty verdict for the cases as was needed and justice cannot be said to have prevailed.

The claim that the verdict on Simpson’s case was influenced right from the selection of the juries is based on the choice of the court to listen to the case. Mostly, cases used to have listened in courts within the districts where the said incident was reported. In this case, Simpson’s alleged murder was said to have happened in the Santa Monica district. Santa Monica was known for being the home to majority whites and juries there would be white. However, the case was moved to Los Angeles, where the majority population was black. The juries ended up being comprised of majority black-Americans, and the outcome could be predicted.

At some point, prosecutors admitted that the first mistake that led them to lose the case against Simpson was agreeing to have it listened to in Los Angeles. Besides, the Black-American juries held similar opinions to the Black-American residents that Simpson was a target of discrimination and that a ‘not guilty’ verdict was the best outcome (Dershowitz, 1997). Therefore, the movement of the case from Santa Monica to Los Angeles affected the composition of the juries’ panel and eventually, the verdict on the cases. Moreover, the selection exercise was affected by racial affiliations, and the composition came to affect the outcome of the cases and the civil case was not exempted.

The outcomes of Simpson’s trial carried significant interest to several parties. Such interests were responsible for the unfair selection of juries to listen to the cases. The civil society was angered by Simpson’s actions and nothing could be done to change their position that Simpson was responsible for the deaths. Therefore, the court in Santa Monica had to give a verdict that went in line with the expectations of the society. Santa Monica was majorly comprised of white families and blacks were always the victims of unfair hearings. The juries selected were as expected majorly white and the judge I charge of the selection ignored all the concerns from the defense team to have a racially balanced panel. Besides, having seven white juries in a panel comprising of at least four races and with a maximum of twelve juries cannot be said to be fair. The verdict came out as expected and Simpson was slammed with a fine that was to serve as a consolation for the families. Moreover, the strict rules in the selection of juries for the Los Angeles trial led to controversy that came with the questionnaires that the juries were required to fill.

Potential juries were required to answer about two hundred and ninety-four questions on a seventy-nine-page questionnaire. The requirement did not go down well with most of the juries who became suspicious of the selection process. Also, the natures of the questions asked on the questionnaires were irrelevant, just like the rules set by Judge Ito.  For example, the juries were asked whether they had ever submitted urine samples for any medical analysis and if they were comfortable with the results provided. The questions appeared to provide a basis for excluding juries who did not provide personal information on the same. The question made it difficult for most of the juries despite their competence in handling cases, and the time required to fill the questionnaires was also too much for most of them.  Also, the judge failed to consider the complaints made by some of the parties involved in the selection process.

The inclusion of more than one party in an exercise is always expected to mean that inclusion is embraced. The parties, however, need to see their views and opinions treated with the intensity they need to achieve the inclusion goal. The selection juries for Simpson’s case were, however, nothing closer to a panel that embraces inclusion. The opinions of people against Judge Ito’s opinions in the Los Angeles murder case were overlooked. For example, a concern was raised by the prosecutors on the possibility that juries could have lied to earn inclusion into the panel. The prosecutors further called for the dismantlement of the panel since the juries could not be trusted. Instead, Judge Ito approved the panel and failed to consider the claims from the prosecutors. Also, the opinions of the defense team in the civil case over a potential favoritism in the selection of white juries into the panel were rubbished by the judge. Generally, all the opinions that would suggest that the case would end up in Simpson being found guilty for the murder case and not guilty for the civil case were given no attention in the selection of the panel (Shapiro, 2019). Therefore, the outcome of the cases can only be said to have been determined at the point of selecting juries. Moreover, racism can be viewed from a different perspective rather than the fact that Black-Americans were favored into the panel.

Racism in Simpson’s case can be interpreted as an attempt to give advantage to a ‘not guilty’ verdict since that was the position held by the Black-Americans and ‘guilty’ verdict in the civil case as expected by the whites. When the case was reported, reactions were based on racial affiliations in the US. The whites believed that Simpson had murdered his ex-wife and her friend was based on the hate that Simpson had towards the whites. On the other hand, the blacks believed that Simpson was being targeted because of his race, and the case took a turn for a racial contest. Justice would only be served if a racially neutral panel listened to it. Any opinion to favor any of the sides should be treated as racism (Toobin, 2015). Therefore, the attorneys’ allowance to have a panel comprised of ten women and two men was an act to support a certain race. The attorneys had reliable data to show that female juries would rule in favor of Simpson. The main reason provided by the data was that the female juries would accuse Simpson’s ex-wife of milking money irresponsibly from a popular black man. Also, the female juries would not support Marcia Clark for being a hard-edged female prosecutor. The decision to have a female-dominated panel was, therefore, by all means, a win for the blacks hence the outcome of the cases. On the civil case, the panel was given an almost fair treatment of gender with the slots containing seven women and five men. The move can be seen to have been done to avoid dominance by female juries who would rule in favor of Simpson. However, the outcome of the cases can be partly blamed on the mistakes made by the prosecutors, but that does not eliminate the role played by racism.

Criticism has been directed towards the prosecutors for several mistakes that made them to support unfair rulings for both cases. First, the prosecutors supported the decision to move the case to Los Angeles in a bid to save the prosecutors from long travels. The mistake is seen in that Los Angeles is associated with Black-American juries, and the prosecutors did not notice the mistake they were making. The second mistake was the prosecutors’ ignorance of the fact that they could lose the case. The prosecutors went into the case holding the position that the case was strong enough to guarantee victory irrespective of the juries involved. Therefore, the prosecutors failed to seek the death-sentence ability of the juries during the selection period. The prosecutors for the civil case took the advantage of a white dominated panel to win against Simpson. The verdict can clearly be associated with racism and an effort to console the involved families. However, the mistakes would not be costly, were it not for the racial impact on the case.

In sum, the juries involved in Simpson’s cases were selected with racial backing to give the verdict that served the interests of the people at the places where the cases were being heard. Simpson’s alleged murder was said to have happened in the Santa Monica district, which was known for being the home to majority whites and juries there would be white. However, the case was moved to Los Angeles, where the majority population was black. Also, the composition of the panel for the civil case was dominated by whites and the verdict was given in favor of the white families. The verdicts reflected the interests of the majority races in the panels. Generally, the outcome of the trials was affected by the role played by racism in the selection of juries.

 

 

References

Dershowitz, A. M. (1997). Reasonable doubts: The criminal justice system and the OJ Simpson     case. Simon and Schuster.

Shapiro, R. (2019). The search for justice: A defense attorney’s brief on the OJ Simpson case.         Graymalkin Media.

Toobin, J. (2015). The Run of His Life: The People VOJ Simpson. Random House Trade    Paperbacks.