room for an individual bias which did exist in the start of the movie for each juror had his own perception which got evened out eventually.
Many at times though, a juror’s decision is highly biased and not decided on the basis of facts but on the reports put forth by the media or the propositions not matter how unfair made by the counsels. The Simpson’s trial too was a sensational media event of unprecedented proportions, with courtroom television cameras captured the carnival-like atmosphere of the proceedings. The prosecution had presented a ‘mountain of evidence ‘which was systemically cast upon by shadows of doubt by Simpson’s team of expensive attorneys, who made the case overtly dramatic and proclaimed that their client was framed by unscrupulous and racist police
…show more content…
JURY IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL
Any jury trial is incomplete without a reference to the important function which a judge plays in the proceedings for a judge is primarily responsible for issues of law and he jury is the care taker of the facts even though three points are essential to be considered being:
1. The judge would always possess the power to halt a weak prosecution and direct the jury to acquit.
2. The judge has a responsibility to assist the jury in its determination of the facts during the course of the trial.
3. The judge, in complex law concepts, needs to take more than reasonable care to explain the same to the jury for the jury to easily apply the law to the factual decision making.
Even though the juries while reaching a verdict need to be considering the above still they many a times follow their own will rather than the law to the situation commonly referred to as the “jury nullification”. Juries have often targeted the behaviours of police and other criminal justice system actors. For example, observers have noted that in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, juries may have used their power of the verdict to send a message to the police rather than to punish the