Oj Simpson Case

Megan Reese

Argumentation and Persuasion

Paper III Why O.J Got Away with Murder: A Murray Ogborn Application Physical evidence, DNA proof, and a violent past history could seal the fate of OJ Simpson in the controversial murder trial of his wife Nicole Brown. Although so much damming evidence pointed that he was the murderer, on October 3rd 1995 a jury reached the verdict of not guilty. How does a murderer get away with murder when there is a vast amount of scientific evidence and testimonials presented to a jury? Murray Ogborn, a redound trial lawyer, would argue that the District Attorney (D.A) did not tell the right story, and thus the jury could not remember or relate to all the factual evidence presented during the 9

Ogborn (1995) suggested that the primacy-recency theory should be applied at trail because; most people have devolved the 1st impression in the 1st 4 minutes of the opening. In the D.A’s opening statement, they did not paint a story of O.J Simpson. Darden, D.A, told the jury, “He killed her (Nicole Brown) out of jealousy. He killed her because he could not have her (O.J Simpson trial: Opening statements; testimony begins).” Within the first 4 minutes, the D.A did not build a story, but throughout statements that the jury had to tie together on their own to build a story. On the other hand, right off the bat the Defense told the jury a story of O.J Simpson, a character who was a football legend, who fell in love, who had children. Within the first 4 minutes, the Defense had built a story, with OJ as the protagonist (the character in stories we most identify with). Also, the same fatal mistake was made in the closing statements by the D.A. The D.A needed a story, and the Defense painted one very clearly. The majority of the trail was the beef of the D.A’s case against Simpson. However, considering the trail would last 9 months, a lot of the jury would not remember the beef of the D.A’s case. As the primacy-recency theory states, “we remember best those facts that are made first and last in a presentation (p.187, Beeson).” When the D.A decided not to present a story in the beginning or the end of the trail and their opposition did, the D.A might as well take the handcuffs off of