Did the O.J. Simpson Murder Trials of 1995 have any effect on future law cases throughout the U.S.?

Did the way that the entire trial was conducted (choosing of jurors and all) have any further influence on any other court cases in the U.S., even in the rest of the world? I am writing a paper on the O.J. case, source citations would be much appreciated. thanks.Did the O.J. Simpson Murder Trials of 1995 have any effect on future law cases throughout the U.S.?
.


No.


.


OJ did not win it; the Los Angeles Police Department and District Attorney Garcetti lost it. They managed to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.





You be the Judge:





1) Los Angeles PD was proven to have tampered with evidence. They 'discovered' blood tainted sock in OJ's home. Well, the FIRST video of the scene clearly showed no sock. The second LAPD video magically shows the sock. Second, that drop of blood they found on that sock? It contained EDTA, a chemical preservative not found in human blood. It is however, found in blood stored in test tubes - like the test tubes of blood in LAPD custody.


.


2) So, their credibility went down the tube. Just as OJ's blood expert Dr. Lee asked, ';If you're at a restaurant and you find a fly in your spaghetti, will you accept the restaurant owner's 'Trust me, there's only one fly in that entire batch of spaghetti' or will you want that whole batch thrown out?'; Will you believe LAPD's claim that the rest of their evidence is legit?


.


3) The bloody glove clearly did not fit. They were advised - even by the defense team - NOT to fit the glove; at least not in public. After the case, OJ lawyer Johnny Cochran said on national TV that he quietly advised his counterpart, prosecutor Christopher Darden not to fit the glove. The prosecutors got 'cocky' according to defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz and proceeded.





4) LAPD's star detective Mark Fuhrman was proven to have lied about his past racist remarks. He testified, under oath, that he's never uttered any racial slurs. The defense produced a tape. Fuhrman lied.





.


So, as former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi opined, it's not that a majority African American jury just said, ';Let's give a brother a pass on two murders.'; ';Black juries convict black defendants in L.A. all the time.'; Bugliosi should know. He put away the white Manson Family in front of a white jury.





The case was weakened.





An overeager police department was scientifically proven to have had its fingers in the cookie jar.





A sock magically appeared.





The blood evidence was tainted.





A key detective on the case lied under oath.





Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You be the Judge or, for that matter, the jury.


.


.


So, no, there were no significant effects on future criminal cases.





Keep in mind that in the subsequent Wrongful Death civil case, where the threshold is simply preponderance of evidence, OJ lost.


.


Good Luck.


.Did the O.J. Simpson Murder Trials of 1995 have any effect on future law cases throughout the U.S.?
O.J. had a very smart lawyer who wisely (for O.J.) chose a very ';dumb'; jury. Jury selection has since become big business.





';Jury Nullification'; happen when a jury fails to convict a defendant even if the evidence is very clear that he is guilty as in the O.J. case.





The O.J. trial also put domestic violence in a new light.
Yes and in at least two ways that I can think of off the top of my head. (1) It popularized the use of DNA evidence that some petitioned to use to exonerte or confirm guilt after sentencing; and (2) it helped judges get control of their courtrooms in so far as the media is concerned.
Many more people now have jury profilers who try and look for traits in a juror that will make the trial go the way they want.