counter create hit Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

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

Availability: Ready to download

One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in th One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in the history of America's judicial system produce a verdict after only hours of jury deliberation? Was this really a case of circumstantial evidence?


Compare
Ads Banner

One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in th One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in the history of America's judicial system produce a verdict after only hours of jury deliberation? Was this really a case of circumstantial evidence?

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

  1. 4 out of 5

    Phil

    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: al 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?

  2. 4 out of 5

    Andrew Evans

    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 focu 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.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Heather

    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 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.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Lisa

    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, any 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**

  5. 4 out of 5

    Suli Yang

    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.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Christy Wolfe

    Very good book. Great insight to trial lawyers and the things they do.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Mimi Schweid

    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.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Sean

  9. 5 out of 5

    Devi

  10. 4 out of 5

    Abby Haworth

  11. 5 out of 5

    Chicki

  12. 4 out of 5

    Nick

  13. 4 out of 5

    Lynda

  14. 5 out of 5

    Reed Brooks

  15. 4 out of 5

    Jeff Hackney

  16. 4 out of 5

    Claudia

  17. 4 out of 5

    Chuck

  18. 5 out of 5

    Valerity (Val)

  19. 5 out of 5

    Lois

  20. 5 out of 5

    Diane

  21. 4 out of 5

    Tammy

  22. 5 out of 5

    Jbl Robinson

  23. 4 out of 5

    Kara

  24. 4 out of 5

    B.j.

  25. 5 out of 5

    David Entinghe

  26. 5 out of 5

    Nancy Montgomery

  27. 5 out of 5

    Aidan Sank

  28. 4 out of 5

    Alicia Mintz

  29. 5 out of 5

    Natella

  30. 4 out of 5

    Kin Darrel

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.