People Vs Oj Simpson Essay

797 Words4 Pages

The People v. O. J. Simpson trial took place between the years of 1994 and 1995. During this highly media covered case jury members were constantly changed out. They were deemed discredited for their own individual life events before the trial. Women who had a record of domestic violence were asked to leave. Men who had autographs, pictures with and merchandise of O.J. Simpson were also asked to be excused. This was due to the fact that they could alter the case findings by being bias. Determining not only eyewitnesses can change the outcome of this case when being discredited but the jurors as well. Valentine and Maras (2011) performed a study in which they found that there was very little research on the influence of leading questions …show more content…

Participants should not just be college students and determine if the jurors themselves could be considered discredited. Jurors’ maybe racist, sexiest, ageist may judge the eyewitness or the accused with no regard towards the evidence. Another limitation was the lack of knowledge of the jurors. They could have no knowledge in regards to the subject of criminal law and forensics to determine the outcome of a trial. As well a lay person may believe a false eyewitness, believing they would not change what exactly they saw.
A follow up study to help with these limitations would be a study that would have a more diverse selection of people. They would be administered one of the three scenarios as well. While the people are viewing the scenario, they will also be taking an exam to depict if they are racist or not or have feelings towards people that are different from them. In closing, both discredited eyewitnesses and jurors can determine and outcome of a trial, resulting in a life changing decision for the person that is accused. Many studies have supported that jurors will vote in a higher rating of guilty when an eye witness is present even if they are discredited. Though it is less in terms of an unrefuted eyewitness in comparison to a discredited eyewitness as our study