Cardoza 1

I could not, would not, kill my wife.

Courtroom Rhetoric in the O.J. Simpson Murder Trial

Brittany Leigh Cardoza

9 December, 2015
The Ohio University

Cardoza 2
Introduction
Perhaps one of the most controversial and infamous murder trials in the last 30 years, the
O.J. Simpson trial offers ample opportunity to study the strength and weaknesses of rhetorical
strategies. After being charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her
friend Ronald Lyle Goldman in 1994, former professional football player Orenthal James
Simpson became the center of a highly publicized criminal trial that lasted over 8 months.
Though Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial, he was found guilty in a subsequent civil
case for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman and certainly in the court of public opinion.
Whatever doubt might have lingered concerning Simpson's guilt all but disappeared in 2006
when he wrote and published the book, If I did It. Though the Simpson asserted that the book
was written from a hypothetical point of view, the detailed record of the crime it contained and
the now infamous statement, Then something went horribly wrong, and I know
what happened, but I can't tell you how (Linder, 2000), was widely received
as a confession to the murders. Though the trial represents a failure of
justice in many ways, it was also a catalyst for the discussion of race in
criminal trials, the improvement of forensic evidence, and the practice of
telelitigation. Telelitigation is defined as, The way that media has
transformed sensational trials with celebrity defendants and victims into
telemediated forms (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999). Coiners of the phrase trial
compare media coverage to Televangelism, stating, Just as the presence of
electronic media in the sanctuary has altered religious discourse, the presence of cameras in the
courtroom has popularized litigation and altered its rhetorical content (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999).

Cardoza 3
Examination of the rhetoric used by the opposing legal teams in this case
show how each attempted to answer the question, Did he do it? and why
they were, or were not, successful.
Jury Selection
When preparing a legal argument, or any argument for that matter, the first thing one
must consider is his or her audience. Skilled rhetoricians can identify the concerns of their
specific audience and tailor their message accordingly. One of the O.J. Simpson trial's most
significant contributions to the legal field was the awareness it brought to the differences in
perception of criminal proceedings between black and white Americans. Polling data regarding
the criminal case showed a high incidence of white respondents convinced of Simpson's guilt
and a high incidence of black respondents convinced of his innocence (Linder, 2000). The failure
of the prosecution attorneys to appreciate the significance of this racial divide led them to make
a critical error that might have left their case doomed from the very start. Perhaps looking to
facilitate the publicity of the trial, the prosecution chose to file the criminal suit in downtown
Los Angeles instead of the smaller judicial district of Santa Monica, where the crime took place
(Linder, 2000). The vastly different demographics of the two districts lead to a much higher
proportion of black jurors than would have been present in a Santa Monica jury (Linder, 2000).
The final jury for the case was disproportionally black and disproportionally female. Both the
prosecution and the defense pushed for a predominantly female jury, but for very different
reasons. The head of the prosecution, Maricia Clark, believed that the domestic abuse aspects of
the case would draw sympathy from female jurors, while defense attorneys utilized data that
showed women are more likely to be sympathetic to the defense in murder trials (Linder, 2000).

Cardoza 4
The defense team simulated jury tests that revealed a pervasive view of Nicole Brown
Simpson, among that demographic, as a untrustworthy white woman who took advantage of the
wealth of a black man (Linder, 2000). Ultimately, the predominantly black, female jury worked
in the favor of the defense. In light of the verdict reached by this jury, delivered after a relatively
short deliberation of only four hours, it is likely that the extensive preparation put into the
defense's jury selection allowed them to craft an ideal audience for their rhetorical strategy.

Opening Statements
On January 24th and 25th, 1995, the so called case of the century (Shuetz & Lilley,
1999) began with its opening statements. Opening statements are used as a means to prime a jury
to receive testimony, and so are extremely consequential exhibition points for rhetorical strategy.
The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson exemplifies the use of
telelitigation and forewarning in opening statements.
Telelitigation, as described by Janet Schuetz (1999), is the transformation of litigation in
response to heavy media coverage and public interest. Though he practived law before the
advent of televisions, famous attorney Clarence Darrow introduced the concept of telelitigation
while defending John Scopes of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow employed a dramatic
defense that catered more to the trial's audience than to its jury, becoming one of the first to
focus overtly on the court of public opinion. Similarly, Simpson's defense team tailored their
defense to effect the jury as well as the thousands of Americans watching the live trial coverage.
Johnnie Cochran delivered an extensively melodramatic opening statement aimed at the trial
cameras, likely hoping to increase public interest. Cochran was reprimanded by the presiding

Cardoza 5
judge, Lance Ito, on two occasions during his opening statements for presenting a envelope that
he insinuated contained the murder weapon and outlining the testimonies of defense witnesses
he had failed to report to the prosecution (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999). Both of these theatrical
moves raised entertainment value and audience emotion in a lasting way.
Another strategy for making a lasting effect on a jury, or audience in a televised trial, is
forewarning. Forewarning is an effective tactic employed by warning the jury about the
argument presented by the opposing legal team, priming them in a way that might make the jury
more critical of the opponent's case and more receptive to the argument of the forewarning
attorney (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999). Though opening statements are not supposed to contain any
legal arguments, an artful and somewhat deceptive rhetorician can make use of this tactic
without drawing objections. This strategy is effective because, as psychological research on the
topic has shown, forewarning can make a person significantly more likely to resist later
persuasion (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999). Prosecution attorney Maricia Clark used this strategy
sparingly in her opening statement, simply warning the jury that the defense would try to attack
the dependability of the DNA evidence, assuring them that the forensic test was trustworthy
(Schuetz & Lilley, 1999). Lin S. Lilley, co-author of The O.J. Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, Media,
and the Law (1999), asserts that Clark might have been better served by a stronger, more
technical explanation of the strength of her DNA evidence, particularly with the high burden of
proof required in a criminal trial. The defense's version of forewarning the jury was procedural;
defense attorney Johnnie Cochran heavily highlighted the concept of reasonable doubt and
showed visuals of the jury instructions on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, burden
of proof, and other concepts that would prime the jury to be hyper-critical of the prosecutions

Cardoza 6
case (Schuetz & Lilley, 1999).

Prosecution Case
Given the inability of the prosecution to prove Simpson's guilt conclusively with physical
evidence, they began their case with testimony aimed at attacking Simpson's character and
establishing a pattern of domestic abuse. Cristopher Darden questioned Denise Brown, Nicole's
sister, extensively about Nicole's relationship with O.J. Simpson; Brown emotionally recounted
multiple occasions during the couple's marriage when she witnessed Simpson objectify, harass,
and physically abuse her sister. Brown first recounted an evening in 1988 when she was with
O.J., Nicole, and other friends at a bar when O.J., '[] grabbed Nicole's crotch and said, This is
where babies come from and this belongs to me' (People v. Simpson). This testimony went to
show that Simpson considered his wife as a sexual object. Brown then testified to an occasion on
which O.J. Became enraged by a comment made by Denise about his treatment of Nicole and
proceeded to tear through the house on a destructive rampage before picking up Nicole and
throwing her against a wall, then picking her up again and throwing her out the front door
(People v. Simpson). Denise testified to taking pictures of Nicole's injuries after the aforementioned incident at Nicole's request. The pictures were submitted as evidence of O.J.'s abuse.
Finally, Denise testified that her sister claimed to be afraid of her former husband after the
divorce because he had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man; this
statement was very important to the prosecution's case because it identified a motive for murder.
The prosecution also questioned multiple police personnel who dealt with domestic violence
disturbances between the couple over the years. Given prosecutor Clark's belief that women

Cardoza 7
would be sympathetic to victims of domestic violence, it is likely that this aspect of the
prosecution's case was meant to win over the primarily female jury. The defense attempted to
undermine Denise Brown's testimony by asking her why, if the abuse was so awful, she never
called the police or filed a report (People v. Simpson).
After giving ample evidence that Simpson was an abuser, the prosecution had to prove
that he was also a murderer. Clark and Darden questioned witnesses to establish a timeline of the
night of the murders and show that Simpson's whereabouts at the time of the murder were
unknown. Simpson's houseguest Brian Kato Kaelin testified that O.J. was not at home from
about 9:30pm to 10:45; limo driver Allen Park supported this timeline by testifying that he
observed Simpson arriving home at 10:45 wearing a dark sweatsuit before emerging from the
house moments later with his bags ready to take Park's limo to the airport (People v. Simpson).
Prosecution produced another witness that saw a car similar to Simpson's white Ford Bronco,
which the previous witnesses testified was not present at O.J.'s estate during the time of the
murders, speeding away from crime scene at about 10:35pm.
To make the evidence-based argument that Simpson committed the murders of his exwife and Ronald Goldman, the prosecution called police officers, detectives, and criminalists to
testify to the investigation and the physical evidence. This evidence included incriminating
blood drips and bloody footprints found at the crime scene, Simpson's car, and Simpson's home,
as well as bloody socks, gloves, and a knit cap that linked Simpson to the crime scene (People v.
Simpson). The defense sought to undermine the physical evidence, attack police procedure, and
discredit the prosecution's witnesses. On cross-examination, Cochran accused Robert Riske, the
police officer that first responded to the murder scene, of contaminating the scene by stepping in

Cardoza 8
blood and mud and handling evidence without gloves. Defense attorney Barry Scheck accused
criminalist Dennis Fung and other members of the Los Angeles police department of procedural
mistakes and participating in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. Though the witnesses held up
against he conspiracy claims, Fung admitted that mistakes were made in DNA collection
(People v. Simpson). When detective Tom Lange gave his interpretation of the crime scene,
Cochran provided alternative theories that included drug dealers looking to even the score after a
friend of Nicole's had failed to pay her debt. The defense did the greatest damage to the
credibility of detective Mark Furhman, who they accused of being a racist and prejudicially
targeting blacks. Furhman tried to deny these accusations and claimed he hadn't used the word,
nigger, at anytime in the last decade. The defense was later able to present a witness with
audio tapes of Furhman using the word, proving to the jury and the thousands of television
spectators that the detective had lied on the stand (People v. Simpson).

Defense Case
O.J. Simpson's multi-million dollar defense team, nicknamed the Dream Team in the
media, put up a very effective case against what seemed like an overwhelming amount of
testimonial and physical evidence. The key to their success was their ability to play into the fears
of their specific audience. With a primarily black jury and the whole country watching, the
defense played the race card heavily, accusing the Los Angeles police department of being run
by racists looking to ruin the life of a successful black man (Linder, 2000). The prosecution
attempted to combat these claims by bringing attention to the multiple instances the LAPD gave
Simpson the benefit of the doubt, from decisions not to further pursue domestic violence

Cardoza 9
disturbances to the four day delay between the murders and Simpson's arrest. However, the
damning testimony of Laura Hart McKinny on Mark Fuhrman gave the defense leverage to
make outrageous claims. McKinny had previously interviewed Fuhrman for a screenplay she
was developing that focused on law enforcement. In the interview, Fuhrman used the word
nigger to refer to black people upwards of 40 times and expressed racist sentiments.
Presentation of the audio tape of this interview to the jury after Fuhrman had already testified
against having used the word destroyed his credibility and gave the defense's outrageous claims
of conspiracy and evidence-planting by Fuhrman and the LAPD an air of legitimacy. The most
memorable pieces of evidence from the trial was a pair or bloody gloves, one found at the
murder scene and the other on the side of Simpson's house. The gloves seemed like damning
evidence, but Cochran cleverly convinced the prosecution to have Simpson try on the glove. It is
likely that Cochran knew the leather glove would not fit as it had been drenched in blood, then
frozen and thawed multiple times through out the course of the trial, damaging its elasticity.
Further, Darden asserted after the glove incident that Simpson's hand was likely swollen after
failing to take his arthritis medications. Regardless of the many logical reasons the glove would
no longer fit, Cochran, in a display of telelitigation, made a dramatic spectacle of the glove
incident and repeatedly pushed the catchy phrase, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit (People v.
Simpson).
The defense attempted to use the testimony of Simpson's physician, Dr. Robert Huizenga,
to assert that Simpson's lingering complications from his career as a professional athlete
chronic arthritis and knee injuries made him physically incapable of committing the murders.
The prosecution was able to affectively combat this argument by submitting a work-out video

Cardoza 10
made by Simpson shortly before the murders, showing that he was in good physical condition
(People v. Simpson).

Closing arguments
The first closing argument was given by Maricia Clark for the prosecution. She revisited
the timeline of the murders and highlighted the inconsistencies in Simpson's story, and every
instance the investigation was able to catch him in a lie. Clark revisited key testimony about
Simpson's behavior after the murder, hoping to give evidence of guilt. She also tried to make an
appeal that would act in opposition to the defense's claims that Simpson was framed because the
police had negative perceptions of him as a black man. Clark tried to rework the defense's
characterization of Simpson by claiming that the scariest murders are committed by people who
seem to be the good guys. Clark highlighted positive qualities about Simpson; he was handsome,
charming, and a sports hero. Clark claimed that, when people like Simpson commit atrocities,
the people do not want to believe it because it puts their sense of safety, their sense that they
know who is good and who is bad, in jeopardy (People v. Simpson). Finally, Clark tried to
reinforce her physical evidence and attack the the defense's claims, stating that they were insults
to the jury's intelligence. She urged the jury to consider the evidence of Simpson's past violent
behavior to assure them he was more than capable of, and had motive to commit, the crimes for
which he was charged (People v. Simpson).
Next, Cristopher Darden made a much shorter closing argument for the prosecution that
attempted to bring all the complicated evidence back to the basic story of a jealous, possessive
husband with a history of abuse who left a blood trail behind him after the vicious murders.

Cardoza 11
Darden tried to make an emotional appeal to the jury to remind them that celebrities like
Simpson were not above the law and that millions of dollars might by you a skilled defense
team, but it should not buy freedom for a killer (People v. Simpson). The closing argument made
by Johnnie Cochran was more of the same attacks on physical evidence, timeline, and the
prosecutions demonization of Simpson. However, he devoted a fair amount of time to the
controversy of Mark Fuhrman's perjury and racist sentiments, reinforcing the claim that he was
engaged in a cover-up and stirring up a racial frenzy by dramatically comparing Fuhrman to
Adolf Hitler (People v. Simpson). This last attempt to make the trial about race, so much so that
there was fear of a racial rioting if Simpson was convicted, was likely an attempt to pressure the
jury to see this as a monumental civil rights case, swaying them to acquit for fear of the societal
retributions of conviction even if they were not already distrustful of law enforcement.

Verdict and Conclusions

As we have already seen, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of both murder charges and
allowed to return home. However, in light of the civil trial convicting Simpson of liability for the
wrongful death of Ronald Goldman and battery of Nicole Brown, as well as Simpson's
somewhat hypothetical written confession, there is little doubt that he was guilty. In hindsight,
armed with knowledge of the truth, we can see the strategies used by both legal teams to twist
the facts to fit their arguments. Important lessons on rhetorical strategies that can be gleamed
from this trial is the importance of adjusting the argument to fit the audience. The defense staked
their case on the data that told them that African Americans were much more likely to be
distrustful of law enforcement and used it to their advantage. This case lead to many discussions

Cardoza 12
about race in the criminal justice system, thought he case was not inherently racial. According to
a member of the prosecution team, the realization that different races view law enforcement and
physical evidence differently lead to improvement of evidence collection and analysis techniques
(Hodgeman, 2005). Hopefully, prosecutors will be able to provide evidence so strong that it will
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of the race of the jurors. Finally, the Simpson
Trial sparked a lot of discussion over telelitigation, it seems the defense's technique of making
dramatic emotional appeals is the favored technique in a highly televised case. For these reasons
and more, scholars of communication and many other relevant fields will continue to study the
O.J. Simpson trial for many years to come.

Cardoza 13
References
Interview William Hodgeman. (2005, April 4). Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/hodgman.html
Linder, D. (2000). The Trial of O. J. Simpson. Retrieved from
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
People of Los Angeles v. Orenthal James Simpson. 1995.
Schuetz, J. E., & Lilley, L. S. (1999). The O.J. Simpson Trials : Rhetoric, Media, and the
Law. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.