Anthony Robinson's Arguement In The O. J. Simpson Trial

Anthony Robinson strove all his life to escape the caste system of the ghetto he grew up in. He graduated from a prestigious college and joined the military, only to be falsely identified in a rape case and convicted. He argued many times that he was innocent and was devastated that he ended up in jail, adding to the reputation of those who grow up in the ghetto usually end up in prisons. He had to serve thirteen years in jail before he was paroled able to prove his innocence; he accomplished this with a DNA sample after saving his own money to fund a DNA examination to prove he did not commit the crime and clear his record(1,2). Sadly, Robinson is not the only one who's life was ruined because he was falsely convicted and given no fair trial.

A savvy lawyer can prove a person who is guilty guiltless although there are pieces of evidence against them and the public disagrees with the verdict. This situation is replicated in the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. Simpson was a former player for the National Football League and actor who was tried in criminal court for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. Since Simpson had enough money and popularity, he was able to hire a highly specialized team of lawyers including two attorneys who specialized in DNA. At the time, DNA was a new type of evidence. The types of evidence used to secure the case where the blood - which was tampered with - and the glove that "did not fit" his hand. O.J. Simpson used a leather glove when murdering the victims, but it did seem to fit his hand with a sanitary rubber glove providing a layer already on his hand in court(4). This case was widely publicized and many believed that O.J. Simpson was without a shadow of a doubt guilty. Against the sensible conclusion, the court ruled him not guilty, which caused an uproar. The case was taken to civil court, in which they found him guilty and the families of the victims received a fund of thirty-three and a half million dollars (4). The problem is that the criminal court was not able to find a man clearly guilty of murder guilty, yet the civil court was able to come to the true verdict without confusion. Therefore, if a lawyer can prove a clearly guilty person, not guilty, then a lawyer can prove an innocent person guilty just as easily. The justice system is supposed to prevent this, but an innocent person should still fear that there might be a lawyer capable of and a court ignorant enough to convict the