O. J. Simpson's Exculpatory Evidence In Court
Are Judges Manipulative
Courts have a certain system that one would expect that everyone would adhere to.
Unfortunately, it seems as if judges have their own agenda. Stare decisis is supposed to be
adhered to but judges like to put their own spin on things. Precedents are like word games to
judges. They love to play around with them and change them to their liking. Judges use judiciary
interpretation to manipulate the law by deciding that the precedent is sufficiently different from
the case that they are handling so that the legal principles in the precedent case doesn’t apply to
their case to get the legal outcome that they want. Judges can actually choose which pieces of
evidence can be shown to the jury. There isn’t much …show more content…
However, there were a lot of
people who said that O.J Simpson was going to be declared guilty and yet he was acquitted. O.J
Simpson was an African American male who was acquitted. That doesn’t happen too often. The
judge allowed exculpatory evidence in Simpson’s case which was the reason for Simpson’s
acquittal. If exculpatory evidence got an African American male acquitted, then Olsen at least
had a chance to get acquitted. By not allowing the evidence the judge took away any chance that
Olsen might have had.
The United States courts put a lot of weight on testimonies and witnesses and yet in a
Brady claim the evidence has to be material. If all the evidence is not presented, then how can
one say that the defendant received a fair trial. Judge Nielsen manipulated the Brady claim to
make sure that the jury didn’t know about Melnikoff allegedly contaminating the equate capsule.
The Brady claim was supposed to prevent prosecutors from suppressing evidence that could
Courts have a certain system that one would expect that everyone would adhere to.
Unfortunately, it seems as if judges have their own agenda. Stare decisis is supposed to be
adhered to but judges like to put their own spin on things. Precedents are like word games to
judges. They love to play around with them and change them to their liking. Judges use judiciary
interpretation to manipulate the law by deciding that the precedent is sufficiently different from
the case that they are handling so that the legal principles in the precedent case doesn’t apply to
their case to get the legal outcome that they want. Judges can actually choose which pieces of
evidence can be shown to the jury. There isn’t much …show more content…
However, there were a lot of
people who said that O.J Simpson was going to be declared guilty and yet he was acquitted. O.J
Simpson was an African American male who was acquitted. That doesn’t happen too often. The
judge allowed exculpatory evidence in Simpson’s case which was the reason for Simpson’s
acquittal. If exculpatory evidence got an African American male acquitted, then Olsen at least
had a chance to get acquitted. By not allowing the evidence the judge took away any chance that
Olsen might have had.
The United States courts put a lot of weight on testimonies and witnesses and yet in a
Brady claim the evidence has to be material. If all the evidence is not presented, then how can
one say that the defendant received a fair trial. Judge Nielsen manipulated the Brady claim to
make sure that the jury didn’t know about Melnikoff allegedly contaminating the equate capsule.
The Brady claim was supposed to prevent prosecutors from suppressing evidence that could