What do you think?
Rate this book
Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case
One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, examines the American criminal justice system, critically analyzing its strengths and weaknesses. Using the O.J. Simpson murder case as the backdrop, Reasonable Doubts explores the larger issues that shape our country's legal system.
Chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson be convicted, Alan Dershowitz is uniquely suited to deconstruct the case in order to use it in understanding the modern criminal justice system. The crucial questions raised by the O.J. Simpson case, and Dershowitz's answers, invite a reassessment not only of the case itself, but also of the strengths—and weaknesses—of the legal system in America today.
Chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson be convicted, Alan Dershowitz is uniquely suited to deconstruct the case in order to use it in understanding the modern criminal justice system. The crucial questions raised by the O.J. Simpson case, and Dershowitz's answers, invite a reassessment not only of the case itself, but also of the strengths—and weaknesses—of the legal system in America today.
272 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1996
About the author
Alan M. Dershowitz
161 books328 followersAlan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 26, 2022
3.5 i read like 70%
May 1, 2023
Professor Alan Dershowitz explores a series of questions raised by the OJ Simpson Trial in 1995. Dershowitz exposes the realities of the criminal justice system in America. The book is aimed at those people who believe OJ Simpson was guilty and that the juries verdict of “not guilty” was unjust.
Professor Dershowitz was chosen by the defense to prepare the appeal, if Simpson was found guilty.
He uses the OJ Simpson case to examine the issues of race, media, money, celebrity and gender in the wider context of the American justice system. The case become a lightning rod of anger down racial lines, most whites believed him guilty yet the majority of Afro Americans believed Simpson was innocent and most likely framed by a raciest LAPD. The pictures of blacks cheering the not guilty verdict and white people stunned by the same verdict is still fresh in my mind.
Alan Dershowitz has written a compelling book, well researched and he is very knowledgeable. He believes it is better to allow a guilty person to walk free than to imprison an innocent person.
Professor Dershowitz was chosen by the defense to prepare the appeal, if Simpson was found guilty.
He uses the OJ Simpson case to examine the issues of race, media, money, celebrity and gender in the wider context of the American justice system. The case become a lightning rod of anger down racial lines, most whites believed him guilty yet the majority of Afro Americans believed Simpson was innocent and most likely framed by a raciest LAPD. The pictures of blacks cheering the not guilty verdict and white people stunned by the same verdict is still fresh in my mind.
Alan Dershowitz has written a compelling book, well researched and he is very knowledgeable. He believes it is better to allow a guilty person to walk free than to imprison an innocent person.
June 7, 2017
Knock Knock. ˆWho's there?ˆ Dershowitz. ˆDershowitz who?ˆ Dershowitz the best scholarly assessment of the trial I've read so far! Dershowitz, while looking a little bit like a character from "The Princess Bride," is a Harvard Law professor and provides the most measured, comprehensive examination of the legal processes surrounding the "Trial of the Century" out of all the major attorneys. He prefers a level playing field, police responsibility, and a reasonable estimation of reasonable doubt: all elements that make our nation's legal system fair and balanced. If you are one of those people who sided with the "good guy" prosecution team, then any degree of reasonability will not exclude you from liking Dershowitz as much as I did. Is it too late for me to attend Harvard?
November 29, 2021
It's crazy how badly the cops fumbled the bag on this one... O.J. did it, you didn't need more evidence. Truly fucked up the jury.
November 25, 2023
An interesting examination of the case and system.
July 26, 2026
A WELL-KNOWN APPELLATE LAWYER LOOKS AT THE SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL
Alan Dershowitz (b. 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “Everyone would remember … when the verdict was announced in the case of [O.J. Simpson]… Nearly everyone had an opinion of how the case should or would be decided… At 1:00 P.M. Eastern time… my office at Harvard Law School was bursting at the seams with students, journalists, TV cameras, and assorted friends and colleagues. When the word had come the previous afternoon that there was a verdict, I was invited by the defense team to … be in the courtroom when [the verdict] was read. But it was the day before Yom Kippur and I wanted to … attend the Kol Nidre service with my family.
“I also thought I would have to begin preparing for an appeal. Indeed, from the moment I learned that the jurors had reached their verdict, I began to outline the likely issues for an appeal. As an appellate lawyer, I am programmed to be a pessimist. My job is to prepare for the worst, to provide a parachute in the event of a conviction. That is why O.J. Simpson always referred to me as his ‘God forbid’ lawyer… But there was no mistaking the jury’s verdict: not guilty… There was silence in my office. No one cheered. No one laughed… It was not a moment for celebration. There were two victims, brutally murdered… There was a man who had spent 16 months in jail accused of a crime of which a jury had just ruled him not legally guilty, but of which most Americans thought he was factually guilty… It was a moment for introspection and quiet professional satisfaction among the members of my team and quite professional satisfaction among the members of my team of student assistants.” (Pg.11-14)
He continues, “Many whites, convinced of Simpson’s guilt, complained that the criminal justice system had failed them. But angry whites did not riot as blacks had rioted following the initial acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. Writer Ben Stein predicted that ‘the whites will riot the way we whites do: leave the cities, go to Idaho or Oregon or Arizona, vote for Gingrich… and punish the blacks by closing their day-care programs and cutting off their Medicaid.’” (Pg. 14-15)
He explains, “I have written this book primarily for the majority of thoughtful observers who sincerely and understandably believe that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and that the jury’s verdict of ‘not guilty’ was therefore a miscarriage of justice. I will try to explain why even jurors who thought that Simpson ‘did it’ as a matter of fact could reasonably have found him guilty as a matter of law---and of justice. It is not the purpose of this book to try to persuade readers that they are wrong if they think O.J. Simpson was guilty. Rather, it is my intention to explain how, under our system of criminal justice, the Simpson jury could properly have reached a verdict so at odds with the conclusions reached by millions … who watched… the trial. I joined the O.J. Simpson defense team, in large part, because I knew that this case… would be an education for America… about the realities of our criminal justice system… It is the purpose of this book, therefore, to explore the larger issues raised by the course of the investigation, the conduct of the trial, the verdict, and the racially divided reaction to it.” (Pg.16-17)
He acknowledges that the prosecution had ‘a powerful case.’ But “Eventually, we learned that … police and prosecutors had made the following mistakes: 1. The police contaminated the crime scene by covering the bodies with a blanket from Nicole Brown’s home, casting doubt on all the hair and fiber evidence they claimed to have recovered later. 2. The bodies of the victims were dragged around the crime scene before hair and fiber samples were taken from their clothing. 3. The police failed to notify the coroner’s office in a timely fashion… 4. The police failed to obtain a warrant to enter the Simpson estate, and instead came up with a story that seemed open to doubt… 7. The LAPD sent to the crime scene a trainee… who collected blood samples along with Dennis Fung. 8. Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson’s blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. Trial evidence would allow the defense to argue that 1.5 c’s of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. 9. The criminologists failed to find blood on the back gate and socks… during the original investigation, and only found it several weeks after Simpson’s blood sample had been taken and carried around by Vannatter.” (Pg. 31-32)
He asserts, “[Marcia] Clark and other prosecutors put Mark Fuhrman on the stand after having been informed that he was a racist, a liar, and a person capable of planting evidence… The prosecutors also saw his psychological reports, in which he admitted his racist attitudes and actions. The only thing they didn’t know what that Fuhrman… would be caught by the tape-recorded interviews that Fuhrman gave to an aspiring screenwriter. If the tapes had not surfaced, the prosecutors would have attempted to destroy the … witnesses who came forward to testify about Fuhrman’s racism.” (Pg. 44)
He asks, “What… if the trial judge had ruled that the original search of Simpson’s estate had been unconstitutional and all its fruits had to be suppressed? Such a ruling … would have excluded from evidence the bloody glove… the socks… the blood found in the driveway.” (Pg. 46)
He explains, “To the shock of the prosecutors, the FBI tests demonstrated the presence of EDTA in the blood found on the socks. They also found no EDTA in the area surrounding the blood on the socks… This should have … let the prosecution to … agree that this blood had to come from preserved reference samples… it is possible that despite this testimony, the blood did come from a human body, but it is also possible that the blood came from a test tube of blood preserved with EDTA.” (Pg. 75-76) He asserts, “The socks bore none of the fibers, hairs, dirt, berry juice, or other material that abounded at the crime scene.” (Pg. 77)
He contends, “this evidence did not stand alone. No reasonable juror could totally ignore the fact that THIS evidence was gathered by the same police department that might have tampered with the other evidence, and that it was presented by the same prosecutor’s office that might knowingly have presented perjured testimony in support of the search of the Simpson estate.” (Pg. 87)
He recalls, “I heard Cochran’s [closing] argument for the first time when it was delivered… Nor did I know in advance about Cochran’s reference to Hitler. Although I’m not sure I would have made the argument myself, I was not offended by it.” (Pg. 119)
After the infamous demonstration of Simpson trying on the gloves, “I went into Simpson’s holding cell with him… I took the gloves in with me and asked Simpson to try them on without the latex gloves, because I anticipated that the prosecution would ask him to do exactly that… they did not fit any better.” (Pg. 130)
He argues, “I am suggesting that if some of the evidence was tampered with---and the argument with respect to the socks is quite compelling---then the jury would be obliged to regard with suspicion all the evidence to which the corrupt police officers had access. That suspicion might reasonably lead them to discount some more of the prosecution’s evidence, without which the circumstantial case would be less than convincing.” (Pg. 132-133)
He points out, “Had the LAPD been scrupulous in its evidence collection… Vannatter would not have had the opportunity to walk around with Simpson’s blood for three hours. Nor would Fuhrman… have had the opportunity to ‘find’ the glove. If the criminalists had clearly established whether the blood was on the socks and the back gate on the day of the murders, there would have been no opportunity for anyone to plant it or to claim it was planted.” (Pg. 138)
He asserts, “The most common complaint about lawyers---especially criminal defense lawyers---is that they distort the truth, and there is some sense in that accusation. But…. A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for truth. When defense attorneys represent guilty clients---as most do, most of the time---their responsibility is to try, by all fair and ethical means, to PREVENT the truth about their client’s guilt from emerging. Failure to do so… is malpractice… Like it or not… that is what our Constitution and our legal system require of defense counsel.” (Pg. 166)
He suggests, “if some jurors sent a message, they did so not because Johnnie Cochran asked them to, but rather because Detectives Fuhrman and Vannatter---and the prosecutors who presented these witnesses---challenged them either to accept or reject false police testimony. They rejected it.” (Pg. 204)
This book is perhaps one of the best presentations of the evidence about ‘reasonable doubt’ in this case, and it will be of keen interest to those studying this case.
Alan Dershowitz (b. 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “Everyone would remember … when the verdict was announced in the case of [O.J. Simpson]… Nearly everyone had an opinion of how the case should or would be decided… At 1:00 P.M. Eastern time… my office at Harvard Law School was bursting at the seams with students, journalists, TV cameras, and assorted friends and colleagues. When the word had come the previous afternoon that there was a verdict, I was invited by the defense team to … be in the courtroom when [the verdict] was read. But it was the day before Yom Kippur and I wanted to … attend the Kol Nidre service with my family.
“I also thought I would have to begin preparing for an appeal. Indeed, from the moment I learned that the jurors had reached their verdict, I began to outline the likely issues for an appeal. As an appellate lawyer, I am programmed to be a pessimist. My job is to prepare for the worst, to provide a parachute in the event of a conviction. That is why O.J. Simpson always referred to me as his ‘God forbid’ lawyer… But there was no mistaking the jury’s verdict: not guilty… There was silence in my office. No one cheered. No one laughed… It was not a moment for celebration. There were two victims, brutally murdered… There was a man who had spent 16 months in jail accused of a crime of which a jury had just ruled him not legally guilty, but of which most Americans thought he was factually guilty… It was a moment for introspection and quiet professional satisfaction among the members of my team and quite professional satisfaction among the members of my team of student assistants.” (Pg.11-14)
He continues, “Many whites, convinced of Simpson’s guilt, complained that the criminal justice system had failed them. But angry whites did not riot as blacks had rioted following the initial acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. Writer Ben Stein predicted that ‘the whites will riot the way we whites do: leave the cities, go to Idaho or Oregon or Arizona, vote for Gingrich… and punish the blacks by closing their day-care programs and cutting off their Medicaid.’” (Pg. 14-15)
He explains, “I have written this book primarily for the majority of thoughtful observers who sincerely and understandably believe that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and that the jury’s verdict of ‘not guilty’ was therefore a miscarriage of justice. I will try to explain why even jurors who thought that Simpson ‘did it’ as a matter of fact could reasonably have found him guilty as a matter of law---and of justice. It is not the purpose of this book to try to persuade readers that they are wrong if they think O.J. Simpson was guilty. Rather, it is my intention to explain how, under our system of criminal justice, the Simpson jury could properly have reached a verdict so at odds with the conclusions reached by millions … who watched… the trial. I joined the O.J. Simpson defense team, in large part, because I knew that this case… would be an education for America… about the realities of our criminal justice system… It is the purpose of this book, therefore, to explore the larger issues raised by the course of the investigation, the conduct of the trial, the verdict, and the racially divided reaction to it.” (Pg.16-17)
He acknowledges that the prosecution had ‘a powerful case.’ But “Eventually, we learned that … police and prosecutors had made the following mistakes: 1. The police contaminated the crime scene by covering the bodies with a blanket from Nicole Brown’s home, casting doubt on all the hair and fiber evidence they claimed to have recovered later. 2. The bodies of the victims were dragged around the crime scene before hair and fiber samples were taken from their clothing. 3. The police failed to notify the coroner’s office in a timely fashion… 4. The police failed to obtain a warrant to enter the Simpson estate, and instead came up with a story that seemed open to doubt… 7. The LAPD sent to the crime scene a trainee… who collected blood samples along with Dennis Fung. 8. Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson’s blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. Trial evidence would allow the defense to argue that 1.5 c’s of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. 9. The criminologists failed to find blood on the back gate and socks… during the original investigation, and only found it several weeks after Simpson’s blood sample had been taken and carried around by Vannatter.” (Pg. 31-32)
He asserts, “[Marcia] Clark and other prosecutors put Mark Fuhrman on the stand after having been informed that he was a racist, a liar, and a person capable of planting evidence… The prosecutors also saw his psychological reports, in which he admitted his racist attitudes and actions. The only thing they didn’t know what that Fuhrman… would be caught by the tape-recorded interviews that Fuhrman gave to an aspiring screenwriter. If the tapes had not surfaced, the prosecutors would have attempted to destroy the … witnesses who came forward to testify about Fuhrman’s racism.” (Pg. 44)
He asks, “What… if the trial judge had ruled that the original search of Simpson’s estate had been unconstitutional and all its fruits had to be suppressed? Such a ruling … would have excluded from evidence the bloody glove… the socks… the blood found in the driveway.” (Pg. 46)
He explains, “To the shock of the prosecutors, the FBI tests demonstrated the presence of EDTA in the blood found on the socks. They also found no EDTA in the area surrounding the blood on the socks… This should have … let the prosecution to … agree that this blood had to come from preserved reference samples… it is possible that despite this testimony, the blood did come from a human body, but it is also possible that the blood came from a test tube of blood preserved with EDTA.” (Pg. 75-76) He asserts, “The socks bore none of the fibers, hairs, dirt, berry juice, or other material that abounded at the crime scene.” (Pg. 77)
He contends, “this evidence did not stand alone. No reasonable juror could totally ignore the fact that THIS evidence was gathered by the same police department that might have tampered with the other evidence, and that it was presented by the same prosecutor’s office that might knowingly have presented perjured testimony in support of the search of the Simpson estate.” (Pg. 87)
He recalls, “I heard Cochran’s [closing] argument for the first time when it was delivered… Nor did I know in advance about Cochran’s reference to Hitler. Although I’m not sure I would have made the argument myself, I was not offended by it.” (Pg. 119)
After the infamous demonstration of Simpson trying on the gloves, “I went into Simpson’s holding cell with him… I took the gloves in with me and asked Simpson to try them on without the latex gloves, because I anticipated that the prosecution would ask him to do exactly that… they did not fit any better.” (Pg. 130)
He argues, “I am suggesting that if some of the evidence was tampered with---and the argument with respect to the socks is quite compelling---then the jury would be obliged to regard with suspicion all the evidence to which the corrupt police officers had access. That suspicion might reasonably lead them to discount some more of the prosecution’s evidence, without which the circumstantial case would be less than convincing.” (Pg. 132-133)
He points out, “Had the LAPD been scrupulous in its evidence collection… Vannatter would not have had the opportunity to walk around with Simpson’s blood for three hours. Nor would Fuhrman… have had the opportunity to ‘find’ the glove. If the criminalists had clearly established whether the blood was on the socks and the back gate on the day of the murders, there would have been no opportunity for anyone to plant it or to claim it was planted.” (Pg. 138)
He asserts, “The most common complaint about lawyers---especially criminal defense lawyers---is that they distort the truth, and there is some sense in that accusation. But…. A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for truth. When defense attorneys represent guilty clients---as most do, most of the time---their responsibility is to try, by all fair and ethical means, to PREVENT the truth about their client’s guilt from emerging. Failure to do so… is malpractice… Like it or not… that is what our Constitution and our legal system require of defense counsel.” (Pg. 166)
He suggests, “if some jurors sent a message, they did so not because Johnnie Cochran asked them to, but rather because Detectives Fuhrman and Vannatter---and the prosecutors who presented these witnesses---challenged them either to accept or reject false police testimony. They rejected it.” (Pg. 204)
This book is perhaps one of the best presentations of the evidence about ‘reasonable doubt’ in this case, and it will be of keen interest to those studying this case.
April 25, 2022
I read this book for a Law and Justice class and I have to say, this case was crazy.
I have my opinion - which I firmly stand behind- but it was honestly insane how the LAPD jacked up the evidence. I was shocked. Flabbergasted. Disbelieving.
I’m a 17-year-old-girl and I know not to do some of the stuff they did. I mean. . . Putting a blanket over a body?! Keeping blood in your pocket for hours?! MOVING the body?!
I just. . . Wow.
I didn’t know a lot about this case, as it was before my time, but I was very interested in the people involved, especially Robert Kardashian. I know I heard Kim say “Uncle OJ” one too me, but I never thought they were best freaking friends. Honestly, I don’t know what I thought. Or maybe I did but I didn’t put together how Kim and her sisters were related to it.
Anyway, this book was a good peek into what in the world happened.
Would I read it again? No. But I’m glad that I did read it; great insight to not only the specifics in Simpsons case, but in the justice system as a whole.
May 14, 2024
Whether you love him, or dislike him, Professor Dershowitz usually finds a way to make a thought-provoking argument, and he again in this book. Whether one agrees with him or not, he always exudes the courage to stand what for feels is right, and backs it with research and experience. He always entertains, and teaches. I commend him for that.
April 6, 2024
Criminal trial has a high conviction standard than civil trial. Compartmentalization of evidence didn’t work out in the Simpson case. When 5% of the key evidence is proven fabricated, it’s hard to trust the authenticity of the rest. And that’s how reasonable doubt got simpson walking out free
November 15, 2021
I personally read three other books that presented a lot of evidence that O.J. got away with murder. I never really saw him as a black man, but an extremely good football player with anger management and abusive spouse issues. That can happen regardless of color. But it seems when the verdict was read America was nearly divided in it's response by the color of the one hearing the verdict. I wanted to read something that might help me understand what was happening. No bias, or predetermined mindset, just something that could give me some sight into the defense other than the "race card". Reasonable Doubts is that book. Alan Dershowitz who was part of the dream team did an absolutely phenomenal job of painting a picture of the law, L.A. cops at that time, and very clear reasons why people could have reasonable doubts. I may not really believe justice was shown to two slain people, but legally, as long as there is reasonable doubt they had to acquit. I wish I could tell the author thank you for a simple, logical insight he provided for me in this case.
November 10, 2019
A very interesting book from one of Simpson's defense team. Alan Dershowitz shows why he is one of America's top lawyers by convincing you that while race and the media definitely played a large part of the trial, the blunders of the prosecution and the LAPD ultimately allowed Simpson to walk free.The book doesn't go into the behind-the-scenes dynamics of the relationship between OJ Simpson and his lawyers, nor does it try to convince you that Simpson was "innocent." It is more or less only focused on the evidence in the case and how the defense team used the mistakes made by the LAPD and the prosecution counsel to their advantage. A good read for those who want to know more about the actual lawyering in the case rather than the drama surrounding it.
December 25, 2025
I read this book many years ago, and it came up again today by chance. Reflecting on the case, I recall what an elder once said: this verdict marked a major turning point for American society, shaking people's faith in justice and pushing them toward a money-driven path.
The prosecution did make mistakes, and the outcome was certainly surprising—but the case still offers valuable insights into the workings of the justice system.
As for the book itself, I found it full of twists and turns, utterly captivating from start to finish.
The prosecution did make mistakes, and the outcome was certainly surprising—but the case still offers valuable insights into the workings of the justice system.
As for the book itself, I found it full of twists and turns, utterly captivating from start to finish.
June 14, 2024
My greatest takeaway is that Dershowitz truly believes in the justice system. This challenges me because I'm interested in truth, not so much the system that allows the corruption of it. There were some solid defenses presented both in the trial and here. I agree that Simpson's defense out-strategized the prosecution, but facts are facts. The trial was about who killed the two victims, not about the honorability of the LAPD, which is what it became. And that is the American justice system.
April 19, 2016
It is clear from reading this book why Dershowitz is a good attorney because he makes a good case for why the jurors might have believed O.J. was guilty, but been unable to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Not sure that I would agree with him).
The parts of this book that I found the most interesting were not Dershowitz's attempts to convince us that evidence was planted, Fuhrman was a racist, or that the prosecution poisoned the public with too much false information before and during the trial. I did find his information on the adversary system of law and the criminal justice system interesting. The best part of the book is when he describes how the verdict was not necessarily a racial decision, but based on the experiences of the jurors and the lens through which they saw the evidence (which the defense played into and the prosecution did not even take into consideration). Dershowitz is very critical of the prosecution, particularly Marcia Clark, and details in length the mistakes that they made in their handling of the case, witnesses and evidence.
Dershowitz's main point was that the jury was making some sort of statement that the police can not lie and get away with it, so they found O.J. not guilty. For me, that felt like a justification that the jury and Dershowitz himself did not deserve.
The parts of this book that I found the most interesting were not Dershowitz's attempts to convince us that evidence was planted, Fuhrman was a racist, or that the prosecution poisoned the public with too much false information before and during the trial. I did find his information on the adversary system of law and the criminal justice system interesting. The best part of the book is when he describes how the verdict was not necessarily a racial decision, but based on the experiences of the jurors and the lens through which they saw the evidence (which the defense played into and the prosecution did not even take into consideration). Dershowitz is very critical of the prosecution, particularly Marcia Clark, and details in length the mistakes that they made in their handling of the case, witnesses and evidence.
Dershowitz's main point was that the jury was making some sort of statement that the police can not lie and get away with it, so they found O.J. not guilty. For me, that felt like a justification that the jury and Dershowitz himself did not deserve.
April 22, 2016
After watching the recent TV miniseries on O.J. Simpson's murder trial in 1994-95, it got me wanting to do some reading about the case. I had read a number of books that came out afterwards back then, but I am reading some others I hadn't read before. This one was by one of the defense lawyers team, law professor Alan Dershowitz. His primary job would have been to file the appeal if O.J. had been convicted and as we know, that wasn't necessary.
Here Dershowitz gives us a surprisingly (to me, anyway) compelling case for why the seemingly overwhelming amount of blood evidence at the murder scene and at O.J.'s home can't be believed at face value, given what he says was the enormous amount of police misconduct rampant among the LAPD. He also says it's "possible" that O.J. committed the murders, but his point was to explain why the jurors' decision to acquit Simpson was not as far-fetched as it seems to those of us who didn't hear all of the testimony. Well-written, even if I don't completely accept the points he makes.
**#44 of 120 books pledged to read/review during 2016**
Here Dershowitz gives us a surprisingly (to me, anyway) compelling case for why the seemingly overwhelming amount of blood evidence at the murder scene and at O.J.'s home can't be believed at face value, given what he says was the enormous amount of police misconduct rampant among the LAPD. He also says it's "possible" that O.J. committed the murders, but his point was to explain why the jurors' decision to acquit Simpson was not as far-fetched as it seems to those of us who didn't hear all of the testimony. Well-written, even if I don't completely accept the points he makes.
**#44 of 120 books pledged to read/review during 2016**
October 5, 2014
They always say "law should be stable but should not stand still", but it is only upon reading this book that I actually felt the law's pulse. The author did a great job to put law into context, and discuss how various aspect of the society is shaping it.
I would recommend to any one who is interested in the criminal justice system.
I would recommend to any one who is interested in the criminal justice system.
April 3, 2008
Very good book. Great insight to trial lawyers and the things they do.
March 10, 2015
I had to read this for my Great Trials of the Century course and I rather enjoyed it. I learned a lot which is always good.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews