Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. In addition to this high-profile defense team, they also added additional attorneys, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who specialized in DNA evidence. During the trial, Lance Ito presided over the case. His decisions and management of the trial proceedings played a pivotal role in both shaping the course of the case and capturing the nation’s attention. Lead prosecutors from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, played significant roles in presenting the prosecution’s case against O.J. Simpson. Darden’s opening statement illustrated Simpson as a controlling, abusive husband by weaving together years and evidence of domestic violence, manipulation, and control to construct a compelling argument for motive. Darden’s opening statement began at the beginning of Nicole and O.J.’s relationship when she was a struggling 19-year-old waitress, and he was a 33-year-old household name. Darden’s narrative also addressed Simpson’s obsession with controlling Nicole, leading to him becoming jealous and murdering her and her friend, Ronald …show more content…
Cochran asserted that Fuhrman’s actions tainted the investigation and undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. This suggested that LAPD’s negligence and vanity led to the wrongful death of an innocent black man. Cochran notably referenced when the gloves did not fit Simpson, asserting the famous phrase, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” He argued that Simpson should be acquitted of the charges against him based on the evidence presented. Cochran’s closing argument was compelling because it placed the blame on many inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case against Simpson while addressing issues that the jury may not have been aware of, like the background history of the detectives investigating the case. Cochran successfully placed blame on the LAPD and their investigation of the homicide, leading the jury to question if the case and evidence were properly obtained. By effectively blending legal analysis with doubt and emotional persuasion, Cochran left a meaningful impression on the jury, ultimately paving the way for