Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case

Great book. Dershowitz challenges the mainstream narrative about the O.J. verdict by pointing out the fundamental liberal assumptions on which the American criminal jurisprudence was built.

Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the OJ Simpson Case by Alan M. DershowitzIn reading this book I was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Dershowitz’s approach to relating the events of this trial. Mr. Dershowitz was a tenured Professor at Harvard, up until 2013 when he retired. During the OJ Simpson trail, he was part of the Defense, closely monitoring the trial in case an appeal had to be filed.The contents of this book are not an attempt to ascertain whether OJ was actually innocent or guilty. This is a treatise on how the law actually works. At no point does Professor Dershowitz come out and call OJ innocent. This is a record of the trial, blow by blow, that gives the reader insight into why the verdict was for acquittal.Reasonable Doubts are the deciding factors into whether or not a verdict is correctly made. That justice sometimes miscarries is a given. But this book shows what comprises “Reasonable Doubts.”Sherlock Holmes once said it is not a matter of what you know; it is a matter of what you can prove. This is the basis of any court proceeding. The Jury is to consider the accused “innocent until proven guilty.” By the letter of the law, then; your opinion doesn’t matter. On the Jury you must decide on whether or not the prosecution has proven its case. In your own mind you may believe the person totally guilty. But the question is, would a reasonable person hearing the same facts that you have heard as a member of the Jury have reason to doubt part of the picture?Professor Dershowitz takes us through a step by step recounting of where there were serious errors of judgment in the Prosecution’s case. Some of the mistakes were possibly not mistakes at all, yet there were enough certain mistakes to toss the balance. As Professor Dershowitz says, it isn’t the business of the Defense to prove their client innocent. It is their duty to see that they have a fair trial. This may mean having some evidence thrown out for a seemingly trivial reason. The fact is, the Prosecution will be doing likewise. Any point that is detrimental to the defendant must be challenged by the Defense. Furthermore, the Defense must endeavor to trip up witnesses on their testimony, challenge the Prosecution on every motion and question, and wax eloquent during closing arguments.This case was not won by the Defense; it was lost by the Prosecution. Time and again the author points out flaws and tells the readers how the Prosecution might have avoided the flaws. It tells of witness tampering, convenient amnesia, possible evidence tampering and planting, and policemen unworthy of the badges they wore.For the record I am white, male, and I believe OJ to be guilty. I have read a good many of the books that were the result of the trial, this being one of the best, and my opinion hasn’t changed. But I now believe given the circumstances outlined by Professor Dershowitz, and by other authors both for and against OJ’s acquittal, that the Jury made the right call. They did not find the man innocent; they found the Prosecution unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubts…Quoth the Raven…

Poor quality... Nowhere near as described..

There have been two (more actually) high profile trials featuring around the clock, wild-eyed reporting and commentator-frenzy that resulted in surprising verdicts- at least to the people that watched the media madness. They were the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials. What characterized both was that the juries were sequestered. They could not participate in the news hysteria. The juries saw facts and evidence as presented in the court and as validated as true or exposed as fraud via cross examination.Afterward, the media and disappointed viewers accused the jurors of being racists, but everybody already knew that would happen.This book details the facts and contradictions thereof as seen by the jury. You might consider the lens too small, but this is our system, these are our rules and attorneys extol their virtues. People may not like the verdict or the defendants, especially after the media trashing. But people cannot react to media editing and emphasis, sound bites, commentators, pundits, critics and polls- instead of facts.The book identifies succinctly which "facts" were not precisely as presented in the news and explanations that never made the headlines. This well written volume assembles them compactly, not over several months of testimony and thousands of hours of legal time-wasting. It will shred many beliefs held by the news-hour observer. These facts, viewed all at once produce a different picture of the events and the trial than you have today. When I say "facts", everything in the book is in the trial record. This is not an independant investigation.It is a powerful presentation. After reading it, you may not change your opinion of O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence. But if there is an ounce of integrity in your investigation, you will have a much, much better understanding of how a jury reached this verdict.So, Instead of "Reasonable Doubt" the title might read, "Beware The Media Circuis."Joseph Hines

Book as described - no problems - would use this supplier again