It has
often been said that a trial is a search for truth. However, is there only one
truth in a complex dispute? In 1995, former NFL star O.J. Simpson went on trial for the murder of his
ex-wife and her friend. The criminal trial was broadcast on TV from the
courtroom and captivated the nation’s interest. The “search for truth” was
placed front and center in the American conscience. Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz describes the scene in his article, Is
a Criminal Trial a Search For Truth?:
A review of the trial transcript reveals that this phrase was
used more than seventy times. The prosecutors claimed that they were searching
for truth and that the defense was deliberately obscuring it. . . . The defense
also claimed the mantle of truth and accused the prosecution of placing
barriers in its path. And throughout the trial, the pundits observed that
neither side was really interested in truth, only in winning. They were right –
and wrong.
Simpson
was acquitted of the criminal charges against him by the jury. The victims’
families also filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson for wrongful death of their
loved ones. In the civil trial that took place immediately following the
criminal trial, the jury found Simpson liable for the deaths. One incident, two
trials, and two different “truths.”
No comments:
Post a Comment