In 1994, Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman were murdered at her home, while her 2 young children slept. The evidence that Brown’s husband, O.J Simpson, was guilty, was overwhelming. Amongst other things, his wife’s blood was found on his socks, his car, and all over his house the day after the murders, and his hair was found on the bodies of the victims. The blood-stained left glove of a unique pair was found at the crime scene, while the right was found at his home. A size 12 bloody shoe print was found on the carpet, matching his shoe type and size. Droplets of blood were found at the scene, which were analysed to determine a roughly 0,05% chance that the murderer was anyone but Simpson. In case you had any doubt, he also later …show more content…
Even if Simpson was factually guilty, there are many mitigating circumstances that can affect the final decision in court. They had no personal knowledge of what happened, so how could they take or reject the case based on the innocence of Simpson? Therefore what his lawyers really did was not cheat the law, but pursue true justice. However, for most people, the fact that their actions were legally justified means very little. Morally, freeing a known-murderer seems inexcusable. But it would be ignorant to assume that these lawyers had the goal of freeing Simpson. They were hoping not necessarily for him to be set free, but that appropriate decision would be reached. Think about it this way, what if you honestly believed your client was guilty, didn't defend him as vigorously as a result, then found out afterwards you were mistaken? Upon closer inspection, taking a case while knowing the client is guilty is quite understandable. Lawyers are professionally defined by the level of the cases they handle. If they chose clients by innocence, they’d have no job. These are educated, upstanding people, and it is only human to desire a successful