O. J. Simpson Trial Analysis

During the 1990 's, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was involved in a myriad of controversies in which the media had exposed their corruption and brutal racism towards African Americans. On November 9, 1994, the LAPD convicted a black former National Football League player, O.J. Simpson, of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman. This case soon came to be known as the most controversial criminal trial in American history that lasted until the verdict on October 3, 1995, when O.J. was deemed innocent by the Los Angeles State Court. This victory was accomplished with the help of his defense team, led by his attorney, Johnnie Cochran, who gave a strong summation to the jury. The language employed in Cochran 's closing argument not only attempts to

Simpson. Throughout his entire summation, Cochran provides an extended syllogism that powerfully induces culpability in his audience that ultimately obligates them to make the decision of acquitting O.J. Simpson. He reaches this irrefutable conclusion by first premising a disproof in which he employs an understatement to deem the prosecution 's "ocean of evidence" to be just a "molehill under an avalanche of lies" (388). This undeniably provokes a sense of doubt within the jury to concede the Prosecution 's arguments that has lost its validity. Subsequently, from the burgeoning anger toward the LAPD 's lies, Cochran follows up with a simple conclusion that they must "do the right thing," and as said repeatedly throughout his summation, "if it doesn 't fit, you must acquit" (389). Being confronted with this simple conclusion, the clenched fists of the black jury unclasp its tension into a room of superheroes ready to fight for justice. Having constantly played the “race card” to refute his opponent, Cochran is effectively able to touch the empathies of the African Americans within the jury, ultimately burying them in culpability to make the right decision to save O.J. Simpson, a fellow