O. J. Simpson murder case

Simpson with his daughter Sydney, 1986

Nicole Brown met O. J. Simpson in 1977,[20] when she was 18 and working as a waitress at the Daisy (a Beverly Hills private club).[21][22] Simpson was married but the two began dating. Simpson filed for divorce in March 1979 and married Brown on February 2, 1985.[23][24][25] Their marriage lasted seven years and produced two children, Sydney (b. 1985) and Justin (b. 1988).[26] Brown filed for divorce on February 25, 1992, citing "irreconcilable differences".[27]

According to Dr. Lenore Walker, the Simpson-Brown marriage was a “textbook example of domestic abuse.”[28][29][30] Brown signed a prenuptial agreement and was then prohibited from working while married.[31] She wrote that she felt conflicted about notifying the police of the abuse because she was financially dependent on him.[28] Nicole described an incident in which Simpson broke her arm during a fight but she lied and told the emergency room staff that she had fallen off her bike to protect Simpson from being arrested.[32] She wrote about Simpson beating her in public, during sex and even in front of family and friends.[33] Of the 62 incidents of abuse, the police were notified eight times and Simpson was arrested once.[34][35][36]

Brown said Simpson was stalking and harassing her after they divorced.[37] This behavior is an intimidation tactic meant to force the victim to return to the abuser.[38] Brown documented an incident where Simpson spied on her having sex with her new boyfriend.[39] Afterwards, Brown said she felt her life was in danger because Simpson had said he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.[40] She also drafted a will for herself as well.[41]

The women's shelter Sojourn received a call from Brown four days prior to her murder.[42][43] She was considering going there because she was afraid of what Simpson might do because she was refusing his pleas to reconcile their marriage[44] and had reported a missing set of keys to her house a few weeks ago. They were later found on Simpson when he was arrested.[45]

A few months before the murders, Simpson completed a film pilot for Frogmen, an adventure series similar to The A-Team. Simpson played the lead role of "Bullfrog" Burke, who led a group of former U.S. Navy SEALs. He received "a fair amount of" military training – including use of a knife – for Frogmen, and holds a knife to the throat of a woman (playing the role of his daughter) in one scene. A 25-minute tape of the pilot, which did not include the knife scene, was found by investigators and watched on Simpson's television as they searched his house. The defense tried to block its use on these grounds, but Judge Ito allowed the tape to be shown. However, the prosecution never introduced it as evidence during the trial.[46] It was reported that among the skills of the character of "Bullfrog Burke" was night killings[47] and the "silent kill" technique of slashing the throat,[48] and that SEALs regularly wear knit caps like the one found at the scene.[49] The Navy calls these watch caps.[50]

On Brown's last evening alive, she attended Sydney's dance recital at Paul Revere Middle School with her family. Simpson also attended. The family then went to eat at the Mezzaluna restaurant, and Simpson was not invited. Goldman was a waiter at Mezzaluna, though he was not assigned to Brown's table. He and Brown had become close friends in the weeks before their deaths.[51] After eating at Mezzaluna, Brown and her children went to Ben & Jerry's before returning home.[52] Karen Lee Crawford, the manager of Mezzaluna, recounted that Brown's mother phoned the restaurant at 9:37 p.m. about a pair of lost eyeglasses. Crawford found them and put them in a white envelope. Goldman left the restaurant at 9:50 p.m., after his shift, to return the glasses by dropping them off at Brown's house.[53][54]

Simpson ate takeout food from McDonald's with Kato Kaelin, a bit-part actor and family friend who had been given the use of a guest house on Simpson's estate. Rumors circulated that Simpson had been on drugs at the time of the murder, and the New York Post's Cindy Adams reported that the pair had actually gone to a local Burger King, where a prominent drug dealer known only as "J. R." had admitted to selling them crystal meth.[55][56]

At 5 pm, Kardashian and one of his defense lawyers read Simpson's public letter.[85][88][89] In the letter, Simpson sent greetings to 24 friends and wrote, "First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder." He described the fights with Brown and their decision not to reconcile as normal in a long relationship, and asked the media "as a last wish" not to bother his children. He wrote to then girlfriend Paula Barbieri "I'm sorry ... we're not going to have, our chance ... As I leave, you'll be in my thoughts." It also included "I can't go on" and an apology to the Goldman family. The letter concluded, "Don't feel sorry for me. I have had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person."[85][88][86][90][89]

Most interpreted this as a suicide note; Simpson's mother Eunice collapsed after hearing it,[85][91][63][92][93] and reporters joined the search for Simpson. At Kardashian's press conference, Shapiro said that he and Simpson's psychiatrists agreed with the suicide note interpretation. Through television, Shapiro appealed to Simpson to surrender.[94][85]

News helicopters searched the Los Angeles highway system for Cowlings's white Ford Bronco (Cowlings and Simpson both had white Broncos).[92][89] At 5:51 pm, Simpson reportedly called 9-1-1; the call was traced to the Santa Ana Freeway, near Lake Forest. At around 6:20 pm, a motorist in Orange County notified California Highway Patrol after seeing someone believed to be Simpson riding in the Bronco on the I-5 freeway heading north, driven by Cowlings. The police tracked calls placed from Simpson on his cell phone. At 6:45 pm, police officer Ruth Dixon saw the Bronco head north on Interstate 405. When she caught up to it, Cowlings yelled out that Simpson was in the back seat of the vehicle and had a gun to his own head.[94][85][89] The officer backed off, but followed the vehicle[95] at 35 miles per hour (56 km/h),[1] with up to 20 police cars following her in the chase.[85][96][97]

Zoey Tur[91] of KCBS-TV was the first to find Simpson from a news helicopter, after colleagues heard that the FBI's mobile phone tracking had located him at the El Toro Y. More than nine news helicopters eventually joined the pursuit; Tur compared the fleet to Apocalypse Now, and the high degree of media participation caused camera signals to appear on incorrect television channels.[94][89] The chase was so long that one helicopter ran out of fuel, forcing its station to ask another for a camera feed.[63]

Knowing that Cowlings was listening to KNX-AM, sports announcer Peter Arbogast called Simpson's former USC football coach John McKay and connected him to Simpson. As both men wept Simpson told McKay "OK, Coach, I won’t do anything stupid. I promise" off the air. "There is no doubt in my mind that McKay stopped O.J. from killing himself in the back of that Bronco", Arbogast said.[93] McKay reiterated on radio his pleas to Simpson to turn himself in instead of committing suicide;[98] "My God, we love you, Juice. Just pull over and I'll come out and stand by you all the rest of my life".[92] Walter Payton, Vince Evans,[91] and others from around the country also pleaded with Simpson over radio to surrender.[85]

At Parker Center, officials discussed how to persuade Simpson to surrender peacefully. Detective Tom Lange, who had interviewed Simpson about the murders on June 13, realized that he had Simpson's cell phone number and called him repeatedly. A colleague hooked a tape recorder up to Lange's phone and captured a conversation between Lange and Simpson in which Lange repeatedly pleaded with Simpson to "throw the gun out [of] the window" for the sake of his mother and children. Simpson apologized for not turning himself in earlier that day and responded that he was "the only one who deserved to get hurt" and was "just gonna go with Nicole". He asked Lange to "just let me get to the house" and said "I need [the gun] for me". Cowlings's voice is overheard in the recording (after the Bronco had arrived at Simpson's home surrounded by police) pleading with Simpson to surrender and end the chase peacefully.[99][89]

Los Angeles streets emptied and drink orders stopped at bars as people watched on television.[85] Every television showed the chase;[93] ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, and local news outlets interrupted regularly scheduled programming to cover the incident, watched by an estimated 95 million viewers nationwide;[100][101][94][102] only 90 million had watched that year's Super Bowl.[63] While NBC continued coverage of Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets at Madison Square Garden, the game appeared in a small box in the corner while Tom Brokaw covered the chase.[100][94] The chase was covered live by ABC anchors Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters on behalf of the network's five news magazines, which achieved some of their highest-ever ratings that week.[102] The chase was broadcast internationally, with Gascon's relatives in France and China seeing him on television.[89]

Thousands of spectators and onlookers packed overpasses along the route of the chase, waiting for the white Bronco. In a festival-like atmosphere, many had signs urging Simpson to flee.[98][96][89] Spectators shouting "Go, O.J., go"—the famous slogan from Simpson's Hertz commercials[103][104]—and encouraging the actions of a possibly suicidal murder suspect outraged Jim Hill, among those broadcasting pleas to their friend to surrender.[85] Jack Ferreira and Mike Smith were among those watching the chase not knowing why;[93] they felt part of a "common emotional experience", one author wrote, as they "wonder[ed] if O. J. Simpson would commit suicide, escape, be arrested, or engage in some kind of violent confrontation. Whatever might ensue, the shared adventure gave millions of viewers a vested interest, a sense of participation, a feeling of being on the inside of a national drama in the making".[100]

Simpson reportedly demanded that he be allowed to speak to his mother before he would surrender. The chase ended at 8:00 p.m. at his Brentwood estate, 50 miles (80 km) later, where his son, Jason, ran out of the house, "gesturing wildly",[96] and 27 SWAT officers awaited.[63][89] After remaining in the Bronco for about 45 minutes,[98] Simpson exited at 8:50 pm with a framed family photo and went inside for about an hour; a police spokesman stated that he spoke to his mother and drank a glass of orange juice, causing reporters to laugh.[94][85]

Shapiro arrived, and Simpson surrendered to authorities a few minutes later. In the Bronco, police found "$8,000 in cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .357 Magnum, a United States passport, family pictures, and a disguise kit with a fake goatee and mustache".[98] Simpson was booked at Parker Center and taken to Men's Central Jail; Cowlings was booked on suspicion of harboring a fugitive and held on $250,000 bail.

The Bronco chase, the suicide note, and the items found in the Bronco were not presented as evidence in the criminal trial. Marcia Clark conceded that such evidence did imply guilt yet defended her decision, citing the public reaction to the chase and suicide note as proof the trial had been compromised by Simpson's celebrity status. Most of the public, including Simpson's friend Al Michaels,[94] interpreted his actions as an admission of guilt yet thousands of people encouraged him to flee prosecution and were sympathetic to his feelings of guilt.[105]

District Attorney Gil Garcetti elected to file charges in downtown Los Angeles, as opposed to Santa Monica, in which jurisdiction the crimes took place.[120] The Los Angeles Superior Court then decided to hold the trial in Downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica due to safety issues at the Santa Monica Court house. The decision may have affected the trial's outcome because it resulted in a jury pool that was less educated, had lower incomes, and contained more African Americans.[121] Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant for Simpson, wrote that more educated jurors with higher incomes are more likely to accept the validity of DNA evidence and the argument that domestic violence is a prelude to murder. Gabriel notes that African Americans, unlike other minorities, are far more likely to be receptive to the claim of racially motivated fraud by the police.[120]

C.S. Foltz Criminal Courts Building

In October 1994, Judge Lance Ito started interviewing 304 prospective jurors, each of whom had to fill out a 75-page questionnaire. On November 3, twelve jurors were seated with twelve alternates. Over the course of the trial, ten were dismissed for a wide variety of reasons. Only four of the original jurors remained on the final panel.[122]

According to media reports, Clark believed women, regardless of race, would sympathize with the domestic violence aspect of the case and connect with Nicole personally. On the other hand, the defense's research suggested that black women would not be sympathetic to Nicole, who was white, because of tensions about interracial marriages. Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40 percent white, 28 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian, the final jury for the trial had ten women and two men, of whom nine were black, two white and one Hispanic.[123][124] The jury was sequestered for 265 days, the most in American history. It broke the previous record with more than a month left to go.

On April 5, 1995, juror Jeanette Harris was dismissed because Judge Ito learned she had failed to disclose an incident of domestic abuse.[125] Afterwards, Harris gave an interview and accused the deputies of racism and claimed the jurors are dividing themselves along racial lines. Ito then met with the jurors, who all denied Harris's allegations of racial tension among themselves. The following day, Ito dismissed the three deputies anyway, which upset the jurors that didn't complain because the dismissal appeared to lend credence to Harris's allegations, which they all denied.[126] On April 21, thirteen of the eighteen jurors refused to come to court until they spoke with Ito about it. Ito then ordered them to court and the 13 protesters responded by wearing all black and refusing to come out to the jury box upon arrival.[127] The media described this incident as a "Jury Revolt" and the protesters wearing all black as resembling a "funeral procession".[128][129][130][131]

The two lead prosecutors were Deputy District Attorneys Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. Clark was designated as the lead prosecutor and Darden became Clark's co-counsel. Prosecutors Hank Goldberg and William Hodgman, who have successfully prosecuted high-profile cases in the past, assisted Clark and Darden. Two prosecutors who were DNA experts, Rockne Harmon and George "Woody" Clarke, were brought in to present the DNA evidence in the case and were assisted by Prosecutor Lisa Kahn.[132][133][134]

The prosecution argued that the domestic violence within the Simpson-Brown marriage culminated in her murder.[135] Simpson's history of abusing Nicole resulted in their divorce and him pleading guilty to one count of domestic violence in 1989.[136] On the night of the murders, Simpson attended a dance recital for his daughter and was reportedly angry with Nicole because of a black dress that she wore, which he said was "tight". Simpson's then girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, wanted to attend the recital with Simpson but he did not invite her. After the recital, Simpson returned home to a voicemail from Barbieri ending their relationship. Simpson then drove over to Nicole Brown's home to reconcile their relationship as a result and when Nicole refused, Simpson killed her in a "final act of control." Ron Goldman then came upon the scene and was murdered as well.[137][138][139]

The prosecution opened its case by calling LAPD 911 dispatcher Sharon Gilbert and playing a four-minute 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on January 1, 1989, in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her and Simpson himself is even heard in the background yelling at her and possibly hitting her as well. The officer who responded to that call, Detective John Edwards, testified next that when he arrived, a severely beaten Nicole Brown Simpson ran from the bushes where she was hiding and to the detective screaming "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," referring to O.J. Simpson. Pictures of Nicole Brown's face from that night were then shown to the jury to confirm his testimony. That incident led to Simpson's arrest and eventual pleading of no contest to one count of domestic violence for which he received probation for one year.[140] LAPD officer and long time friend of both Simpson and Brown, Ron Shipp, testified on February 1, 1995 that Simpson told him the day after the murders that he did not want to take a polygraph test offered to him by the police because "I've had a lot of dreams about killing her. I really don't know about taking that thing." The prosecution then called Denise Brown, Nicole Brown's sister, to the witness stand. She tearfully testified to many episodes of domestic violence in the 1980s, when she saw Simpson pick up his wife and hurl her against a wall, then physically throw her out of their house during an argument. She also testified that Simpson was agitated with Nicole the night of his daughter's dance recital as well, the same night Nicole was murdered.[141] Although a home videotape taken immediately after the dance recital showed a cheerful Simpson being given a kiss by Denise Brown,[142] Kato Kaelin corroborated Denise Brown's claim that Simpson was "upset" with Nicole because of the black dress she wore, which he said was "tight".[68]

The prosecution planned to present 62 separate incidents of domestic violence, including three previously unknown incidents Brown had documented in several letters she had written and placed in a bank safety deposit box. Judge Ito denied the defense's motion to suppress the incidents of domestic violence, but only allowed witnessed accounts to be presented to the jury because of Simpson's Sixth Amendment rights. The letters Nicole Brown had written and the statements she made to friends and family were ruled inadmissible as hearsay because Brown was dead and unable to be cross-examined. Despite this, the prosecution had witnesses for 44 separate incidents they planned to present to the jury.[143]

However, the prosecution dropped the domestic violence portion of their case on June 20, 1995.[144] Marcia Clark stated it was because they believed the DNA evidence against Simpson was insurmountable, but the media speculated it was because of the comments made by dismissed juror Jeanette Harris. Christopher Darden later confirmed that to be true.[145] Harris was dismissed on April 6 because she failed to disclose that she was a victim of domestic violence from her ex-husband.[146] But afterwards, Harris gave an interview and called the evidence of Simpson's abuse of Nicole "a whole lot of nothing" and also said "that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder". This dismissal of Simpson's abusive behavior from a female juror, who was also a victim of such abuse by her own husband, convinced the prosecution that the jury was not receptive to the domestic violence argument.[147][148] After the verdict, the jurors called the domestic violence portion of the case a "waste of time".[149] Shapiro, Dershowitz, and Uelmen later admitted they believe that race played a factor in the jurors' dismissal of Nicole Brown's abuse by Simpson.[150][151]

The defense retained renowned advocate for victims of domestic abuse, Dr. Lenore E. Walker.[152] Cochran said that she would testify that Simpson doesn't fit the profile of an abuser that would murder his spouse.[153] Dr. Walker's colleagues were appalled by her decision to defend Simpson and accused her of betraying her advocacy for a $250,000 retainer.[154] Dr. Walker was dropped from the witness list for "tactical reasons" after she submitted her report on the case.[155][156] In it, she opines that the statistic from Dershowitz that of the two million incidents of abuse per year, only 2,000 victims are actually murdered by their spouses as being misleading because Brown was already dead.[157][158] The relevant statistic was "of the murdered spouses who were also victims of abuse, what percentage of them were murdered by their current or ex-husband?" When she reported that number was 80.3%, they dropped her from the witness list.[159]

The revelation of Simpson's abuse of Nicole is credited with turning public opinion against him.[160] The public shock at the reason why Dr. Walker was dropped from the defense witness list is credited with transforming public opinion on spousal abuse from a private familial matter to a serious public health issue.[161][162][163]

Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, testified on June 14, 1995 that Brown's time of death was estimated as between 10:00pm and 10:30pm.[164][165] Kato Kaelin testified on March 22, 1995 that he last saw Simpson at 9:36pm that evening. Simpson was not seen again until 10:54pm when he answered the intercom at the front door for the limousine driver, Allan Park.[166][167] Simpson had no alibi for approximately one hour and 18 minutes during which time the murders took place.[168]

Allan Park testified on March 28, 1995 that he arrived at Simpson's home at 10:25pm on the night of the murders and stopped at the Rockingham entrance: Simpson's Bronco was not there.[169] He then drove over to the Ashford entrance and rang the intercom three times, getting no answer, starting at 10:40pm.[170] At approximately 10:50pm he saw a "tall African American shadowy figure resembling Simpson" approach the front door before aborting towards the southern walkway that leads to Kaelin's bungalow.[168]

Park's testimony was significant because it explained the location of the glove found at Simpson's home.[171] The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door was easily understood but the glove was found on the other side of the house. Park said the "shadowy figure" initially approached the front door before heading down the southern walkway which leads to where the glove was found by Fuhrman. The prosecution believed that Simpson had driven his Bronco to and from Brown's home to commit the murders, saw that Park was there and aborted his attempt to enter through the front door and tried to enter through the back instead.[172] He panicked and made the sounds that Kaelin heard when he realized that the security system would not let him enter through the rear entrance.[173] He then discarded the glove, came back and went through the front door.[12]

During cross examination, Park conceded that he could not identify the figure but said he saw that person enter the front door and afterwards Simpson answered and said he was home alone but he was calling a friend over. Park conceded that he did not notice any cuts on Simpson's left hand but added "I shook his right hand, not his left."[168]

Crime scene photo at Nicole Brown's home.

The prosecution presented a total of 108 exhibits, including 61 drops of blood,[174] of DNA evidence allegedly linking Simpson to the murders. With no witnesses to the crime, the prosecution was dependent on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime.[134] The volume of DNA evidence in this case was unique and the prosecution believed they could reconstruct how the crime was committed with enough accuracy to resemble an eyewitness account.[174][175] Marcia Clark stated in her opening statements that there was a "trail of blood from the Bundy Crime scene through Simpson's Ford Bronco to his bedroom at Rockingham".[176]

• Simpson's DNA found on blood drops next to the bloody footprints near the victims at the Bundy crime scene.[177] Probability of error was 1-in-9.7 billion.[134]
• Simpson's DNA found on a trail of blood drops leading away from the victims, towards and on the back gate at Bundy.[178] Probability of error was 1-in-200.[179]
• Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on the outside of the door and inside Simpson's Bronco. Probability of error was 1-in-21 billion.[180]
• Simpson's DNA found on blood drops leading from the area where his Bronco was parked at Simpson's Rockingham home to the front door entrance.[181]
• Simpson, Brown and Goldman's DNA on a bloody glove found behind his home.[182]
• Simpson and Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom. Probability of error was 1-in-6.8 billion.[183]

LAPD criminalist and hair fiber expert Susan Brockbank testified on June 27, 1995 and FBI Special Agent and fiber expert Doug Deedrick testified on June 29, 1995 to the following findings:[184][185]

• The fibers from the glove found at Simpson's home microscopically match the one found at the crime scene, proving they were each other's mate.[186][187]
• Both of the victims, the two gloves, and the Blue knit cap worn by the killer had hair consistent with Simpson.[188] The hair in the Blue Knit cap worn by the killer was embedded in the seams, indicating it was there from being worn repeatedly.[189][190]
• Dark blue cotton clothing fibers were found on both victims. The video from the Dance recital that Simpson attended earlier that night shows him wearing a similarly colored shirt. Kato Kaelin testified that Simpson was still wearing that shirt when they got home from McDonalds but not anymore when he answered the door for the limousine driver. The police searched his home but the shirt was never found.[12][191][192]
• Hair consistent with Goldman was found on Brown and clothing fibers consistent with Brown was found on Goldman. This supported the prosecution's theory that the assailant killed Brown first, then Goldman, and afterwards returned to Brown to cut her throat. The hair consistent with Brown that was found on the Rockingham glove was torn which also supports the prosecution claim that the killer grabbed Brown by her hair to cut her throat.[193]
• Fibers that were only used in the 1993-1994 model year Ford Bronco, the same car that Simpson owns, were found on both victims, the knit cap and on both gloves.[194][195][196][197]
• The glove found at Simpson's home that belonged to the murderer had hair and clothing fibers consistent with Simpson, Brown and Goldman as well as fibers from a 1993-1994 Ford Bronco and Brown's Akita dog.[198][199][200]

On June 19, 1995, FBI shoe print expert William J. Bodziak, testified that the bloody shoe prints found at the crime scene and inside Simpson's Bronco were made from a rare and expensive pair of Bruno Magli Italian shoes. He determined the shoes were a size 12, the same size that Simpson wears, and are only sold at Bloomingdales. Only 29 pairs of that size were sold in the U.S. and one of them was sold at the same store that Simpson often buys his shoes from. Bodziak also testified that, despite two sets of footprints at the crime scene, only one attacker was present because they were all made by the same shoes. During cross-examination Bailey suggested the murderer deliberately wore shoes that were the wrong size, which Bodziak dismissed as "ridiculous".[144][201][202][203][204]

Simpson denied ever owning a pair of those "ugly ass shoes" and there was only circumstantial evidence he did.[205] Bloomingdales employee Samuel Poser testified he remembered showing Simpson those shoes but there was no store record of him purchasing them.[206]

Although the prosecution could not prove that Simpson owned a pair of those shoes, Bodziak testified that a similar bloody shoe print was left on the floor inside Simpson's Bronco. Scheck suggested that Fuhrman broke into the Bronco and left the footprint there; he produced a photo of Fuhrman walking through a puddle of blood. Bodziak admitted that he was not able to confirm that the shoe print in the car definitely came from a Bruno Magli shoe, but dismissed Scheck's claim because none of the shoe prints at the crime scene were made by Fuhrman's shoes, making it unlikely he could have made a bloody shoe print in the Bronco.[207][208]

Johnnie Cochran in 2001

Simpson hired a team of high-profile defense lawyers, initially led by Robert Shapiro, who was previously a civil lawyer known for settling, and then subsequently by Johnnie Cochran, who at that point was known for police brutality and civil rights cases.[209] The team included noted defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Harvard appeals lawyer Alan Dershowitz, his student Robert Blasier, and Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law Gerald Uelmen. Assisting Cochran were Carl E. Douglas and Shawn Holley. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were also hired; they headed the Innocence Project and specialized in DNA evidence. Simpson's defense was said to have cost between US$3 million and $6 million; the media dubbed the group of talented attorneys the Dream Team,[210][211] while the taxpayer cost of prosecution was over US$9 million.[212]

The defense team's reasonable doubt theory was summarized as "compromised, contaminated, corrupted" in opening statements.[213][140] They argued that the DNA evidence against Simpson was "compromised" by the mishandling of criminalists Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola during the collection phase of evidence gathering, and that 100% of the "real killer(s)" DNA had vanished from the evidence samples.[214] The evidence was then "contaminated" in the LAPD crime lab by criminalist Collin Yamauchi, and Simpson's DNA from his reference vial was transferred to all but three exhibits.[215] The remaining three exhibits were planted by the police and thus "corrupted" by police fraud.[216] The defense also questioned the timeline, claiming the murders happened around 11:00pm that night.[217]

Dr. Robert Huizenga testified on July 14, 1995[218] that Simpson was not physically capable of carrying out the murders due to chronic arthritis and old football injuries. During cross-examination, the prosecution produced an exercise video that Simpson made a few weeks before the murders titled O.J. Simpson Minimum Maintenance: Fitness for Men, which demonstrated that Simpson was anything but frail.[219] Dr. Huizenga admitted afterwards that Simpson could have committed the murders if he was in "the throes of an adrenaline rush."[220]

Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist, testified on August 10, 1995[221] and claimed the murders happened closer to 11:00pm, which is when Simpson has an alibi.[217][222] He stated that Brown was still conscious and standing when her throat was cut[223] and that Goldman was standing and fighting his assailant for ten minutes with a lacerated jugular vein.[224][225]

After the trial, Baden admitted his claim of Goldman's long struggle was inaccurate[226][227] and that testifying for Simpson was a mistake.[228] Critics claimed that Baden knowingly gave false testimony in order to collect a $100,000 retainer[229][230][231] because the week before he testified, Dr. Gerdes admitted[232] that Goldman's blood was in Simpson's Bronco[233] despite Goldman never having an opportunity within his lifetime to be in the Bronco.[234]

Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld argued that the results from the DNA testing were not reliable because the police were "sloppy" in collecting and preserving it from the crime scene.[62][235] Fung and Mazzola did admit to making several mistakes during evidence collection which included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items, packaging and storing the evidence items using plastic bags, rather than paper bags as recommended, and storing them in the police van, which was not refrigerated, for up to seven hours after collection.[125][126][127][128][236] This, they argued, would allow bacteria to degrade all of the "real killer(s)" DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab.[237]

The prosecution denied that the mistakes made by Fung and Mazzola changed the validity of the results.[62] They noted that all of the evidence samples were testable and that most of the DNA testing was done at the two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab where contamination supposedly happened. Since all of the samples the consulting labs received were testable, while Scheck and Neufeld's theory predicted that they should have been inconclusive after being "100% degraded", the claim that all the DNA was lost to bacterial degradation was not credible.[238] The prosecution denied that contamination happened in the LAPD crime lab as well because the result would be a mixture of the "real killer(s)" DNA and Simpson's DNA but the results showed that only Simpson's DNA was present.[239] The prosecution also noted the defense declined to challenge any of those results by testing the evidence themselves.[62][235][240] Marcia Clark called Scheck and Neufeld's claims a "smoke screen."[241][242]

The contamination claim was made by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes.[243] He testified on August 2, 1995 that Forensic PCR DNA matching is not reliable[244][245][246][247] and "The LAPD crime lab has a substantial contamination problem. It is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away."[238] Gerdes testified that because of the LAPD's history of contamination, he would not consider any of the PCR DNA matches in this case reliable because the tests were carried out by the LAPD. He also claimed that the consulting labs’ PCR DNA matches were not reliable, as the evidence they tested went "through the LAPD" for packaging and shipping.[238] Gerdes believed only three of the DNA matches to have been valid, which were the same three the defense alleged were planted by the police.[239][248][249][250]

During cross-examination, Dr. Gerdes admitted there was no evidence that cross-contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying to "what might have occurred and not what actually did occur". He accepted that the victims' blood was in the Bronco and Simpson's blood was at the crime scene and neither was due to contamination. He also conceded that nothing happened during "packaging and shipping" that would affect the validity of the results at the two consulting labs. The prosecution implied that Gerdes was not a credible witness: he had no forensic experience and had only testified for criminal defendants in the past and always said the DNA evidence against them was not reliable due to contamination. Clark also implied that it was not a coincidence that the three evidence items he initially said were valid were the same three the defense claimed were planted while the other 58 were all false positives and the 47 substrate controls, which are used to determine if contamination occurred, were all false negatives.[251][252] Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995 and admitted that Gerdes's claim was "highly improbable".[253][254][244][255]

Barry Scheck's eight-day cross-examination of Dennis Fung was lauded in the media.[256] However, Howard Coleman, president of Seattle-based forensic DNA laboratory GeneLex, criticized Scheck's cross-examination as "smoke and mirrors" and stated "Everything we get in the lab is contaminated to some degree. What contamination and degradation will lead you to is an inconclusive result. It doesn't lead you to a false positive."[257]

Poster describing reasonable doubt theory proposed by the defense.

The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were planted by the police[258] but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted in a police conspiracy.[259][260][261] They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis,[262] criminalists Dennis Fung,[126] Andrea Mazzola,[128] and Colin Yamauchi,[215] and Detectives Philip Vannatter[263] and Mark Fuhrman,[264] of participating in a plot to frame Simpson. In closing arguments, Cochran called Fuhrman and Vannatter "twins of deception"[265] and told the jury to remember Vannatter as "the man who carried the blood"[266] and Fuhrman as "the man who found the glove."[267]

The only physical evidence offered by the defense that the police tried to frame Simpson was the allegation that two of the 108 DNA evidence samples tested in the case contained the preservative Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA. Ironically, it was the prosecution who asked to have the samples tested for the preservative, not the defense.[268] The defense alleged that the drop of blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene, which matched Simpson, and the blood found on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom, which matched Nicole Brown, were planted by the police. In order to support the claim, the defense pointed to the presence of EDTA, a preservative found in the purple-topped collection tubes used for police reference vials, in the samples. On July 24, 1995, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist who had analysed results provided by FBI special agent Roger Martz, testified that the level of EDTA in the evidence samples was higher than that which is normally found in blood: this appeared to support the claim they came from the reference vials.[269][270] During cross-examination, Clark asked Dr. Rieders to read out loud the portion of the EPA article that stated what the normal levels of EDTA in blood are, which he referenced during his testimony.[271] This demonstrated that he misread it and that the levels found in the evidence samples were consistent with those found in blood that was not preserved in a police reference vial.[272] Dr. Rieders then claimed it was a "typo"[273][274] but the prosecution produced a direct copy from the EPA disproving that claim.[275][276] The prosecution also had Dr. Rieders admit that EDTA is also found in food[277] and specifically the ingredients used in McDonald's Big Mac and French fries[271] that Simpson had eaten earlier that night with Kato Kaelin.[276]

FBI special agent Roger Martz was called by the defense on July 25, 1995 to testify that EDTA was present in the evidence samples, yet instead said he did not identify EDTA in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before.[278][279] Initially, he conceded the blood samples "responded like EDTA responded" and "was consistent with the presence of EDTA" but clarified his response after hearing during the lunch break that "everyone is saying that I found EDTA, but I am not saying that". When the defense accused their own witness of changing his demeanor to favor the prosecution, he replied "I cannot be entirely truthful by only giving 'yes' and 'no' answers".[280] Martz stated that it was impossible to ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA, as while the presumptive test for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive. Martz also tested his own unpreserved blood and got the same results for EDTA levels as the evidence samples, which he said conclusively disproved the claim the evidence blood came from the reference vials.[281] He contended that the defense had jumped to conclusions from the presumptive test results, while his tests had in fact shown that "those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood".[282][283]

The defense alleged that Simpson's blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene was planted by the police. The blood on the back gate was collected on July 3, 1995, rather than June 13, the day after the murders.[284] The volume of DNA on that blood was significantly higher than the other blood evidence collected on June 13. The volume of DNA was so high that the defense conceded that it could not be explained by contamination in the lab, yet noted that it was unusual for that blood to have more DNA on it than the other samples collected at the crime scene, especially since it had been left exposed to the elements for several weeks and after the crime scene had supposedly been washed over. On March 20, 1995 Detective Vannatter testified that he instructed Fung to collect the blood on the gate on June 13 and Fung admitted he had not done so.[285] The defense suggested the reason why Fung did not collect the blood is because it was not there that day; Scheck showed a blown-up photograph taken of the back gate on June 13 and he admitted he could not see it in the photograph.[286]

The prosecution responded by showing that a different photograph showed that the blood was present on the back gate on June 13 and before the blood had been taken from Simpson's arm.[62][287][288] Officer Robert Riske was the first officer to the crime scene and the one who pointed out the blood on the back gate to Fuhrman, who documented it in his notes that night.[289] Multiple other officers also testified under oath that the blood was present on the back gate the night of the murders.[266] The prosecution also pointed out that the media cameras present proved that Vannatter never returned to the Bundy crime scene (Nicole Brown's home) that evening, where Simpson's blood was allegedly planted.[290]

Barry Scheck alleged the police had twice planted the victims' blood inside Simpson's Bronco. An initial collection was made on June 13; the defense accused Vannatter of planting the victims' blood in the Bronco when he returned to Simpson's home later that evening. The prosecution responded that the Bronco had already been impounded by the time Vannatter returned and was not even at Rockingham.[291]

The defense alleged that the police had planted Brown's blood on the socks found in Simpson's bedroom. The socks were collected on June 13 and had blood from both Simpson and Brown, but her blood on the socks was not identified until August 4.[292] The socks were found by Detective Fuhrman, but the defense suggested Vannatter planted the blood. He had received both blood reference vials from the victims earlier that day from the coroner and booked them immediately into evidence. Vannatter then drove back to Rockingham later that evening to hand deliver the reference vial for Simpson to Fung, which the defense alleged gave him opportunity to plant the blood. Fung testified he could not see blood on the socks he collected from Simpson's bedroom[126] but the prosecution later demonstrated that those blood stains are only visible underneath a microscope.

Detective Vannatter denied planting Nicole Brown's blood on the socks. The video from Willie Ford indicated that the socks had already been collected and stored in the evidence van before Vannatter arrived and footage from the media cameras present appeared to prove that he never went inside the evidence van when he arrived at Rockingham.[293]

Mark Fuhrman in 2008

The last exhibit allegedly planted was the bloody glove found at Simpson's property by Detective Mark Fuhrman.[294] Unlike the sock and the back gate, the defense provided no physical or eyewitness evidence to support their claim that the prosecution could then refute.[295][296] Jeffrey Toobin published an article in The New Yorker months before the trial began, which cited a source in Simpson's defense team that they intended to accuse Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove with the motive being racism. Robert Shapiro later admitted he was Toobin's source.[297]

Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey suggested that Fuhrman found the glove at the crime scene, picked it up with a stick and placed it in a plastic bag, and then concealed it in his sock when he drove to Simpson's home with Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Philips. Bailey suggested that he then planted the glove in order to frame Simpson, with the motive either being racism or a desire to become the hero in a high-profile case.[298] Scheck also suggested that Fuhrman broke into Simpson's Bronco and used the glove like a paint brush to plant blood onto and inside the Bronco.[299]

The prosecution denied that Fuhrman planted the glove. They noted that several officers had already combed over the crime scene for almost two hours before Fuhrman arrived and none had noticed a second glove at the scene. Detective Lange testified that 14 other officers were there when Fuhrman arrived and all said there was only one glove at the crime scene.[300] Lt. Frank Spangler also testified that he was with Fuhrman for the duration of his time there and stated he would have seen Fuhrman purloin the glove if he had in fact done so. Clark added that Fuhrman did not know whether Simpson had an alibi, if there were any witnesses to the murders, whose blood was on the glove, that the Bronco belonged to Simpson, or whether Kaelin had already searched the area where the glove was found.[301][302][303]

During cross-examination by Bailey,[304] Fuhrman denied that he had used the word "nigger" to describe African Americans in the ten years prior to his testimony.[304] A few months later, the defense discovered audiotapes of Fuhrman repeatedly using the word – 41 times in total, eight years before the murders. The tapes were made between 1985 and 1994 by screenwriter named Laura Hart McKinny, who had interviewed Fuhrman at length for a Hollywood screenplay she was writing on women police officers. The Fuhrman tapes became the cornerstone of the defense's case that Fuhrman's testimony lacked credibility. Clark called the tapes "the biggest red herring there ever was."[264]

After McKinny was forced to hand over the tapes to the defense, Fuhrman says he asked the prosecution for a redirect to explain the context of those tapes but the prosecution and his fellow police officers abandoned him after Ito played the audiotapes in open court for the public to hear.[305] The public reaction to the tapes was explosive and compared to the video of the Rodney King beating from a year prior. Fuhrman says he instantly became a pariah.[306] After the trial, Fuhrman said that he was not a racist and apologized for his previous language, saying he was play-acting when he made the tapes, as he had been asked to be as dramatic as possible and was promised a $10,000 fee if the screenplay was produced.[307] Many of his minority former coworkers expressed support for him.[308]

On September 6, 1995, Fuhrman was called back to the witness stand by the defense, after the prosecution refused to redirect him, to answer more questions. The jury was absent but the exchange was televised. Fuhrman, with his lawyer standing by his side and facing the possibility of being charged with Perjury, was instructed by his attorney to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination to two consecutive questions he was asked. Defense attorney Uelmen asked Fuhrman if it was his intention to plead the Fifth to all questions, and Fuhrman's attorney instructed him to reply "yes". Uelmen then briefly spoke with the other members of the defense and said he had just one more question: "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?" Following his attorney's instruction, Fuhrman replied, "I choose to assert my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Cochran responded to Fuhrman's pleading the Fifth by accusing the other officers of being involved in a "cover-up" to protect Fuhrman and asked Judge Ito to suppress all of the evidence that Fuhrman found. Ito denied the request, stating that pleading the fifth does not imply guilt and there was no evidence of fraud. Cochran then asked that the jury be allowed to hear Fuhrman taking the fifth and again Ito denied his request. Ito also criticized the defense's theory of how Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove stating "it would strain logic to believe that".[309]

On June 15, 1995, Christopher Darden surprised Marcia Clark by asking Simpson to try on the gloves found at the crime scene and his home. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try them on because they had been soaked in blood from Simpson, Brown and Goldman,[62] and frozen and unfrozen several times. Instead they presented a witness who testified that Nicole Brown had purchased a pair of those gloves in the same size in 1990 at Bloomingdales for Simpson along with a receipt and a photo during the trial of Simpson earlier wearing the same type of gloves.[310]

The leather gloves appeared too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath. Clark claimed that Simpson was acting when he appeared to be struggling to put on the gloves, yet Cochran replied "I don't think he could act the size of his hands."[12][310] Darden then told Ito of his concerns that Simpson "has arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti-inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the joints and inflammation in his hands."[311][312] Cochran informed Ito the next day that Shawn Chapman contacted the Los Angeles County Jail doctor, who confirmed Simpson was taking his arthritis medication every day and that the jail's medical records verified this.[313] Uelmen came up with, and Cochran repeated, a quip he used in his closing arguments: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".

The prosecution stated they believed the gloves shrank from having been soaked in the blood of the victims.[12] Richard Rubin, former vice president of glove maker Aris Isotoner Inc. which makes the gloves in question, testified on September 12, 1995 that the gloves had indeed shrunk from their original size. He stated "the gloves in the original condition would easily go onto the hand of someone of Mr. Simpson's size." Darden then produced a new pair of the same type of gloves, which fitted Simpson when he tried them on.[314]

After the trial, Cochran revealed that Bailey had goaded Darden into asking Simpson to try on the gloves[315] and that Shapiro had told Simpson in advance how to give the appearance that they did not fit.[316] On September 8, 2012, Darden accused Cochran of tampering with the glove before the trial.[317] Dershowitz, a member of the Simpson defense team, refuted the claim, stating "the defense doesn't get access to evidence except under controlled circumstances."[317]

In closing arguments, Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson.[5] He questioned why, if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic violence calls against Brown between 1986 and 1988 but did not arrest him; they only arrested him on charges of abuse in January 1989, when photos of Brown's face were entered into the record. Darden noted the police did not arrest Simpson for five days after the 1994 murders.[5]

The prosecution told the jury in closing arguments that Fuhrman was a racist, but said that this should not detract from the factual evidence that showed Simpson's guilt. Clark put emphasis on the physical evidence such as the DNA, the bronco and Simpson's lack of an alibi, while Darden referred to Simpson's relationship with Nicole as a "ticking time bomb" and spoke about how the police had refused to arrest Simpson until Nicole's death despite his physical abuse, stalking and death threats, and Nicole filling a safety deposit box with a will and photographs of previous beatings in case Simpson murdered her.[5] In Cochran's summation to the jury, he was unable to refute any of the prosecution's claims, and instead emphasized that Fuhrman was proved to have repeatedly referred to black people as "niggers" and also to have boasted of beating young black men in his role as a police officer. Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and referred to him as "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare and the personification of evil", and claimed without proof that Fuhrman had single-handedly planted all of the evidence, including the gloves, in an attempt to frame Simpson for the murders based purely on his dislike of interracial couples.[5] In response, Fred Goldman, who was himself Jewish, referred to Cochran himself as "the worst kind of racist ever" and a "sick man" for making such a comparison, while Robert Shapiro, also Jewish, expressed that he was particularly offended by Cochran comparing Fuhrman's claims to the Holocaust, claiming that no comparison would ever be possible.

Fears grew that race riots, similar to the riots in 1992, would erupt across Los Angeles and the rest of the country if Simpson were convicted of the murders. As a result, all Los Angeles police officers were put on 12-hour shifts. The police arranged for more than 100 police officers on horseback to surround the Los Angeles County courthouse on the day the verdict was announced, in case of rioting by the crowd. President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide.

The only testimony the jury reviewed was that of limo driver Park.[70] At 10:07 a.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 1995, Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder. The jury arrived at the verdict by 3:00 p.m. on October 2, after four hours of deliberation, but it postponed the announcement.[318] After the verdict was read, juror number nine, 44-year-old Lionel Cryer, gave Simpson a black power raised fist salute.[319] The New York Times reported that Cryer was a former member of the revolutionary nationalist Black Panther Party that prosecutors had "inexplicably left on the panel".[320]

An estimated 100 million people worldwide watched or listened to the verdict announcement. Long-distance telephone call volume declined by 58%, and trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange decreased by 41%. Water usage decreased as people avoided using bathrooms. So much work stopped that the verdict cost an estimated $480 million in lost productivity.[318] The U.S. Supreme Court received a message on the verdict during oral arguments, with the justices quietly passing the note to each other while listening to the attorney's presentation. Congressmen canceled press conferences, with one telling reporters, "Not only would you not be here, but I wouldn't be here, either."[321]

After the verdict in favor of Simpson, most black people surveyed said they believed justice had been served, with most claiming that Simpson had been framed and some even suggesting that Mark Fuhrman was the actual killer. Most whites (75%) disagreed with the verdict and believed that it was racially motivated.[123] Discussion of the racial elements of the case continued long after the trial's end. An NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of black people in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. In 2016, FiveThirtyEight reported that most black people now think Simpson committed the murders.[322] According to a 2016 poll, 83% of white Americans and 57% of black Americans believe that Simpson committed the murders.[323]

Shapiro admitted the defense played the "race card," "from the bottom of the deck".[324] On Sunday, February 12, 1995, a long motorcade traveled to Brentwood and the jurors, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and Judge Ito made a two-hour inspection of the crime scene. It was followed by a three-hour tour of Simpson's estate. Simpson was under guard by several officers but did not wear handcuffs; he waited outside the crime scene in and around an unmarked police car and was permitted to enter his house. Simpson's defense team had switched out his photos of whites for blacks, including switching a picture of a nude Paula Barbieri (Simpson's girlfriend at the time, who was white) for a Norman Rockwell painting from Cochran's office. Prosecutors had requested that Ito restrict the tour to only the crime scene for this exact reason, but Ito refused, and came under heavy criticism for allowing the defense to control the trial.

Critics of the jury's not-guilty verdict contended that the deliberation time was unduly short relative to the length of the trial. Some said that the jurors, most of whom did not have any college education, did not understand the forensic evidence.[325] In post-trial interviews, several jurors said that they believed Simpson probably did commit the murders,[326] but that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Three jurors together wrote and published a book called Madam Foreman,[327] in which they described how their perception of police errors, not race, led to their verdict. They said that they considered Darden to be a token black assigned to the case by the prosecutor's office.[304] In Ezra Edelman's 2016 documentary O.J.: Made in America, juror number six, Carrie Bess, voiced her own personal dislike for Nicole for apparently "allowing" herself to be abused,[328] and said she believed "90% of the jury" actually decided to acquit Simpson as payback for the Rodney King incident, not because they believed in his innocence, and when asked if she believed the decision was correct, Bess merely shrugged indifferently, but later admitted that she regretted her decision after Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas.[329] Juror number nine, Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther Party and who notably gave Simpson a black fist salute after the verdict, said that in retrospect, however, he would render a guilty verdict.[330]

In 1996, Cochran wrote and published a book about the trial. It was titled Journey to Justice, and described his involvement in the case.[331] That same year, Shapiro also published a book about the trial called The Search for Justice. He criticized Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Cochran for bringing race into the trial.[332] In contrast to Cochran's book, Shapiro said that he does not believe that Simpson was framed by the LAPD, but considered the verdict correct due to reasonable doubt.[304] In a subsequent interview with Barbara Walters, Shapiro, who is Jewish, claimed that he was particularly offended by Cochran for comparing Fuhrman's words to the Holocaust, and vowed that he would never again work with Bailey or Cochran, but would still maintain a working relationship with Scheck.

Clark published a book about the case titled Without a Doubt (1998).[333] Her book recounts the trial proceedings, from jury selection to final summation. She concluded that nothing could have saved her case, given the defense's strategy of highlighting racial issues related to Simpson and the LAPD, and the predominance of blacks on the jury. In Clark's opinion, the prosecution's factual evidence, particularly the DNA, should have easily convicted Simpson. That it did not, she says, attests to a judicial system compromised by issues of race and celebrity.

Darden published a book about the case called In Contempt (1998).[334] In it he criticizes Ito as a "starstruck" judge who allowed the trial to turn into a media circus and the defense to control the court room while he collected hourglasses from fans and invited celebrities into his chambers. He also describes his frustration with a "dysfunctional and uneducated jury" that dismissed Simpson's history of domestic violence as irrelevant and inability to comprehend the DNA evidence in the case. Darden also describes his initial contact with Fuhrman and his suspicions that he is a racist and his feelings that the prosecution had been "kidnapped by a racist cop" whom they were unable to divorce themselves from. It also details the candid factors behind Darden's controversial decision for Simpson to try on the infamous glove and the impact it had on the trial's outcome.

In 1996, former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book titled Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder.[335] Bugliosi was very critical of Clark and Darden, faulting them, among other reasons, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. He contended that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also noted that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco. The prosecution said that they felt these items of evidence would bring up emotional issues on Simpson's part that could harm their case, despite the fact that the items seemed as though they could be used for fleeing.[5][335] He also criticized them for not wanting the jury to see or hear Simpson denying guilt, when there would not be a trial had Simpson not entered a not guilty plea. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's domestic abuse and presented evidence contrary to the defense's assertion that Simpson was a leader in the black community. Bugliosi also criticized the prosecution for trying the murder in Los Angeles, rather than Santa Monica, and described the prosecution's closing statements as inadequate.[335][336] During the jury selection process, the defense made it difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential black jurors, on the grounds that it is illegal to dismiss someone from the jury for racially motivated reasons. (California courts barred peremptory challenges to jurors based on race in People v. Wheeler,[337] years before the U.S. Supreme Court would do so in Batson v. Kentucky.)[338]

Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee published Blood Evidence: How DNA Is Revolutionizing The Way We Solve Crimes (2003). He devotes the last two chapters to explaining the arguments of Scheck and Neufeld against the DNA evidence in the Simpson case. Lee notes that Scheck and Neufeld were skeptics of DNA evidence and only recently before the trial, in 1992, accepted its validity and founded the Innocence Project.[339] Lee writes that neither of the defense's forensic DNA experts, Dr. Henry Lee or Dr. Edward Blake, considered Scheck and Neufeld's reasonable doubt theory about the blood evidence plausible. In hindsight, Dr. Lee opines that Scheck and Neufeld's claim that "the blood evidence is only as good as the people collecting it" was an obfuscation tactic to conflate the validity of the evidence with the integrity of the LAPD and then attack the latter because both Scheck and Neufeld knew that the defense's forensic DNA experts reached the same conclusion as the prosecution: the mistakes made during evidence collection did not render the results unreliable.[292] Lee opines that the jury did not understand the significance and precision of the DNA evidence. He bases this on comments from jurors after the trial, some of which included claims that the blood at the crime scene that matched Simpson had "degraded" and could possibly have been from Simpson's children or from one of the officials who collected the evidence. He attributes this misinterpretation to Scheck and Neufeld's deliberate obfuscation and deception about the reliability of the results. After the trial, the jurors faced harsh criticism for doubting the DNA evidence while Scheck and Neufeld received praise. Lee believes that the scathing criticism the jurors faced for doubting the DNA evidence based on the arguments Scheck and Neufeld made might have been the reason why they were the only two DNA experts from the criminal trial to decline to return for the subsequent civil trial to make those claims again.[340]

In 1996, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, the parents of Ron Goldman, filed a suit against Simpson for wrongful death, while Brown's estate, represented by her father Lou Brown,[356] brought suit against Simpson in a "survivor suit." The trial took place over four months in Santa Monica and, by judge's order, was not televised.[345][357] The Goldman family was represented by Daniel Petrocelli, with Simpson represented by Bob Baker.[357] Attorneys for both sides were given high marks by observing lawyers.[357] Simpson's defense in the trial was estimated to cost $1 million and was paid for by an insurance policy on his company, Orenthal Enterprises.[356]

Fuhrman was not called to testify, and Simpson was subpoenaed to testify on his own behalf.[7][123] A photo published in the National Enquirer in 1993 of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was presented at the civil trial. Simpson denied owning those shoes and said the photo was doctored like his mugshot on the cover of Time magazine, but E.J. Flammer, the photographer who produced the originals, disproved that claim. Other pre-1994 photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were discovered as well.[358][359][360]

The jury in the trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin (Brown's only children), $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate.[7] The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, thereby finding Simpson "responsible" for the respective murders.[361] In 2008, a Los Angeles superior court approved the plaintiffs' renewal application on the court judgment against Simpson.[362]

Four years after the trial, at an auction to pay some of the money in the compensation order, Bob Enyart, a conservative Christian radio host, paid $16,000 for some of Simpson's memorabilia, including his Hall of Fame induction certificate, two jerseys, and two trophies he was given for charity work. Enyart took the items outside the courthouse where the auction was held, burned the certificate and jerseys, and smashed the trophies with a sledgehammer.[363][364]

In November 2006, ReganBooks announced a book ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves based on interviews with Simpson titled If I Did It, an account which the publisher said was a hypothetical confession. The book's release was planned to coincide with a Fox special featuring Simpson. "This is a historic case, and I consider this his confession," publisher Judith Regan told the Associated Press.[365] On November 20, News Corporation, parent company of ReganBooks and Fox, canceled both the book and the TV interview due to a high level of public criticism. CEO Rupert Murdoch, speaking at a press conference, stated: "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project."[366]

Later, the Goldman family was awarded rights to the book to satisfy part of the judgment against Simpson. The title of the book was changed to If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. On the front cover of the book, the title was stylized with the word "If" to appear much smaller than those of "I Did It", and placed inside the "I", so unless looked at very closely, the title of the book reads "I Did It: Confessions of the Killer".[367] The Goldmans came under criticism for allowing the book to be released, particularly by the Brown family.

On March 11, 2018, Fox broadcast Simpson's previously unaired interview with Regan, which was part of the book deal in a special titled O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession?[368] In the decade-old interview, which was supposed to air with the release of the book by ReganBooks, Simpson gave a very detailed hypothesis on how the murders would have been committed if he had been involved, initially using phrases like "I would" and "I'd think", but later moving to using first person phrasing with sentences like "I remember I grabbed the knife", "I don't remember except I'm standing there", "I don't recall", and "I must have", and involving a supposed accomplice named "Charlie". Due to the change in phrasing, these comments were interpreted by many as being a form of confession, which stirred strong reactions in print media and the internet.[369][370]

As a result of a 2007 incident in Las Vegas, Nevada regarding an attempt to steal materials Simpson claimed were stolen from him, Simpson was convicted in 2008 of multiple felonies including use of a deadly weapon to commit kidnapping, burglary and armed robbery, and sentenced to a minimum nine years to a maximum 33 years in prison. His attempts to appeal the sentence were unsuccessful and he was detained at Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada.[371] During his 2013 parole hearing, Simpson was granted parole on all counts except weapons-related and the two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. After a July 20, 2017 Nevada parole board hearing voting unanimously 4–0, Simpson was granted parole after a minimum nine-year sentence on the remaining counts for the Vegas robbery with Sunday, October 1, 2017 to be his release date from prison on parole. According to Nevada law, if he continues his good behavior, Simpson will have his 33-year sentence reduced by 50% to make September 29, 2022 the end of his sentence.[372] Upon release, Simpson intends to reside near his family in Miami, Florida, where he moved in 2000. Florida is one of the few U.S. states that protects one's home and pensions from seizures for such debts as those awarded following the civil trial. Goldman's father and sister, Fred and Kim, did not appear before the board, but stated that they had received about 1% of the $33.5 million that Simpson owes from the wrongful death suit.[373][374][375][376][377][378][379]

Simpson has participated in two high-profile interviews regarding the case – one in 1996 with Ross Becker, which outlines Simpson's side of the story, as well as a guided tour of his estate, where evidence used in the trial was found. The second took place in 2004, on the tenth anniversary of the murders, with Katie Couric for NBC speaking to Simpson. He had worked for that network as a sports commentator.[380]

In May 2008, Mike Gilbert, a former agent and friend of Simpson, released his book How I Helped O.J. Get Away with Murder,[381] which details Simpson confessing to the killings to Gilbert.[382] Gilbert states that Simpson had smoked marijuana and taken a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of the murders. Simpson said, "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive." This, Gilbert said, confirmed his belief that Simpson had confessed.[383][384]

In March 2016, the LAPD announced a knife had been found in 1998 buried at Simpson's estate, when the buildings were razed. A construction worker had given the knife to a police officer, who, believing the case had been closed, did not submit it as evidence at the time. Forensic tests demonstrated that the knife was not related to the murder.[385]

The presence of Kardashian on Simpson's legal team, combined with the press coverage of the trial, was the catalyst for the ongoing popularity of the Kardashian family.[386] While Kardashian's ex-wife Kris Jenner was already married to former Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) at the time of the trial, Kardashian's family was mostly out of the public eye before the trial, only becoming famous due to the trial.[387]

Such theories have been refuted by Clark,[401] Brown's sister Tanya, and Fred Goldman who said, "I believe [O.J.] did it, and he did it alone."[402]

The families of Brown and Goldman expressed anger at the premise of My Brother the Serial Killer, with both families dismissing the claims by the Rogers family.[403] Kim Goldman accused ID of irresponsibility, stating that no one had informed her of Glen Rogers' claims that he had been involved in her brother's death.[403]

ID's president, Henry Schlieff, replied that the documentary's intention was not to prove Rogers had committed the crimes, but to "give viewers new facts and let them make up their own minds", and that he believed Simpson was guilty of the murders.[404] Schlieff also commented that the movie did not point out any inconsistencies with the claims or evidence against Rogers because "ID viewers are savvy enough to root them out on their own".[404]

According to O.J.: Made in America director Ezra Edelman, no plausible alternative theory has emerged.[322]

• In 1995, Fox premiered the television movie The O. J. Simpson Story, which followed some of the more tawdry events in the relationship between Simpson and Brown, up to and including his arrest for Brown's murder. Simpson is portrayed by Bobby Hosea.[405][406]
• In 2000, 20th Century Fox produced American Tragedy, starring Ving Rhames as Cochran, Christopher Plummer as Bailey, Ron Silver as Shapiro, and Raymond Forchion as Simpson.
• BBC TV's documentary, O.J. Simpson: The Untold Story (2000), produced by Malcolm Brinkworth, "reveals that clues that some believe pointed away from Simpson as the killer were dismissed or ignored and highlights two other leads which could shed new light on the case".[389]
• In 2006, Robert Horgan made a short film, Reenactment of the Century, depicting a reenactment of the killings, starring Gerald Rush as Simpson, Sandra Olson as Brown, and Russ Russo as Goldman.
• In 2014, ID premiered the documentary OJ: Trial of the Century, which begins on the day of the murders, ends on the reading of the verdict, and comprises actual media footage of events and reactions as they unfolded.[407][408]
• In February 2016, FX premiered the anthology series American Crime Story. The self-contained first season, The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story, was adapted from the book The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson (1997), by Jeffrey Toobin, who had also served as a legal analyst for the New Yorker on the trial. The cast included Sarah Paulson as Clark, Courtney B. Vance as Cochran, John Travolta as Shapiro, David Schwimmer as Kardashian, Sterling K. Brown as Darden, and Cuba Gooding Jr. as Simpson.[409] It received critical acclaim[410] and several Emmy Awards.
• In April 2016, ID premiered O.J. Simpson Trial: The Real Story, which entirely comprises archival news footage of the murder case, the Bronco chase, the trial, the verdict, and reactions.[411]
• In June 2016, ESPN premiered O.J.: Made in America, a five-part, eight-hour documentary by Ezra Edelman on the trial. The documentary received widespread acclaim and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
• Boris Kodjoe will portray Simpson in Joshua Newton's film Nicole & O.J., which centers around the tumultuous relationship between Simpson and Brown and plans to argue Simpson's innocence.[412]
• In January 2020, Court TV premiered OJ25, a 37-part series documenting each week of the trial and hosted by former Los Angeles prosecutor and legal analyst Roger Cossack.[413]

Episodes of sitcoms, such as The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia ("Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense") and Seinfeld ("The Big Salad", "The Caddy"), have mocked the case, or more specifically, Simpson himself.[414]

R&B group H-Town dedicated their album Ladies Edition, Woman's World (1997) to Brown, to help victims of domestic violence.[415]

Rapper Eminem referenced the murders in his 1999 song "Role Model", saying, "Me and Marcus Allen went over to see Nicole, When we heard a knock at the door, must have been Ron Gold. Jumped behind the door, put the orgy on hold, Killed them both and smeared blood in a white Bronco (We Did It)".[416]

California nü metal band (hed) P.E. referenced Brown's murder in the song "Raise Hell" off their 2004 album Only in Amerika, in which frontman Jahred threatens the listener: "I chop yo' head off like my name was O.J."

The 2002 song "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", by American punk-pop band Good Charlotte includes the lyrics, "You know if you're famous you can kill your wife? There's no such thing as 25 to life, as long as you got the cash to pay for Cochran", in reference to the "Not Guilty" verdict which, many believe, wouldn't have been the case if Simpson hadn't appointed Cochran as his lead attorney.

Rapper Jay Z also referenced the trial in a song named "The Story of O.J" which revolves around the case and the influence of systemic racism on the trial.

Hip hop artist Magneto Dayo released a 2013 "diss track" song titled "OJ Simpson" in which he insults his ex-girlfriend/artist V-Nasty, by referencing the Simpson murder case. The song's lyrics were also added to the Houston Press' list of "The 15 Most Messed-Up O.J. Simpson Lyrics".[417][418]

The song “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream” from the 2011 Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” includes Cochran appearing as one of Elder Price's biggest fears, alongside Genghis Khan, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Adolf Hitler. Each character has a line describing why Price is afraid of them, with Cochran's being “I got O.J. free!”

The video game Duke Nukem 3D has several allusions to the OJ trial, including a television playing the Bronco chase.[419]