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

Who can forget the controversies surrounding the OJ Simpson murder trial. Alan Dershowitz, America's renowned civil liberties lawyer and Harvard Law School Professor, was a member of OJ Simpson's legal counsel. This is the single most important book about the intricacies of the case and the complexities and vexing issues confronting the criminal justice system as a whole. The tactics of prosecution and defense are eye-opening and as usual, Dershowtiz is not only a great teacher, his eloquent and compelling writing and readable style will hold you right to the end leaving you to reflect on the argument that regardless of Simpson's factual guilt or innocence, the jury's verdict of not guilty was the correct one within the framework of the existing, perhaps flawed, criminal justice system.

I watched a ridiculously large amount of the trial of the century and the associated talking heads. I was in utter disbelief when the jury acquitted O.J. Since then I have carefully evaluated the evidence that the jury had to consider. I now believe that, although O.J. probably did the crime, the jury came out with the proper decision.This book is excellent if you are interested in the trial or just want to know more about our judicial system. Professor Dershowitz clearly lays out the rules the jury had to operate under and isolates the information I had seen on television against what the jury was allowed to hear.

While watching the "trial of the Century", I kept feeling that the prosecution was truly botching its case. But, not being a lawyer, I was not quite sure my perceptions were accurate. When the verdict came in, I felt vindicated. I was for acquittal, although I am white, whatever that means. Reading Dershowitz' wonderful book gave me the Aha feeling almost every other page. And it made me almost regret that decision I took more than forty years ago to abandon the study of law and go for the social sciences. It is terrific to see a first-class legal mind at work. The book does not pretend to prove O.J.'s innocence, but it convincingly demonstrates that the jury arrived at the correct decision.His logic is impeccable and, as far as I am concerned, he accomplishes the task he set out for himself. A masterful intellectual performance. On the other hand, it is sad to see how prejudice and trial by the media could blind so many people and led them to ignore the fundamental idea of the rule of law: innocent until proven guilty, not to mention where the burden of proof lies. It is also sad to see how American police officers could try to frame somebody simply because of the color of his skin. History will eventual tell, but Dershowitz' book will remain an all-important piece of the historical puzzle. Kudos, Professor, I wish I had had the privilege of being your student.

I used this book to portray argue oj as a good person and to alter the image the media has of him in one of my english classes it was a great resource

When the OJ verdict came out, my wife and I were on a West Coast road trip. When the innkeepers found out I was an attorney, they would invariably ask me what I thought about the verdict. I replied that OJ probably killed his ex-wife. But OJ went free because of the many mistakes the police and prosecution committed, including giving the glove to OJ. (Rule no. 1: never have a hostile witness conduct a demonstration. Ever. Even if you think the demonstration is fail-proof.)This book confirms my hunches, which were certainly less informed than Dersh's. It also discusses all the different policies that go into our criminal justice system, in a language laypeople can understand. After you read this book, you'll understand that "probably guilty" is not enough to convict. You'll also know that most people had more information than the jury, and that the jury had to base their verdict upon the evidence presented at trial, rather than all the facts and factoids floating around. Ultimately, while the book may not convince you that (a) OJ didn't kill them (the book didn't try to that) or (b) OJ's guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it will provide you with a better understanding of the criminal system.