StMU Research Scholars

Featuring Scholarly Research, Writing, and Media at St. Mary’s University

November 26, 2019

The Prosecutor Who Took On The Dream Team

To Marcia Clark, June 13, 1994 seemed like any other day. She got a late start after wrangling her son to Pre-Kindergarten. She walked into her office at the Special Trials division of the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office with ease due to a lighter caseload, which was a seldom occurrence for Marcia. This was when she received a call from Detective Phil Vanhatter of the LAPD Robbery/Homicide Division.1 Detective Vanhatter began telling Marcia about a double murder that took place in Brentwood. The victims were Nicole Brown and a then unidentified male. This would become one of the biggest cases of the twentieth century, and our heroine would have her work cut out for her.

After some investigation, the woman would later be identified as Orenthal James “O.J.” Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. O.J. Simpson was a retired NFL football player. When police went to notify Simpson, he had taken an unexpected flight to Chicago. The police then began to uncover old domestic dispute cases between Nicole and O.J. This did not mean he killed her, but many wives are killed by abusive husbands. When O.J. was contacted, he did not ask how or when Nicole had been killed. Before his flight landed back in LA, he had already contacted the same lawyer who represented him in the trial for the domestic assault. All of these actions can be explained away by grief taking hold in different ways, and O.J. wanting to properly protect himself. However, when Nicole’s sister, Denise, was contacted, she immediately started screaming, “He killed her! He finally killed her!” When asked who she was referring to, she answered, “O.J.”2 The chief of the West Los Angeles detective-homicide unit, Ron Phillips, would later recall that Simpson never questioned whether Nicole had been murdered or if it had just been a horrible accident.3

Photograph of O.J. Simpson | 1990 | Gerald Johnson | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons |

Officer Robert Riske was the officer to respond to the scene after a came in about a possible break in across the street.4 It was not a robbery. The caller had mistaken the dog barking and commotion caused by Kato, an Akita, and his owners for someone trying to break into her home. They were out for a stroll when they stumbled upon a bloody, gruesome scene outside of 875 South Bundy.5 There was a trail of blood from the front gate to the front door. Nicole Simpson was at the bottom of the stairs while a young man with his shirt pulled over his head was against the fence. This man would later be identified as Ron Goldman, a waiter at a restaurant that Nicole had visited earlier. At the scene was a black hat, a white envelope, and a single leather glove. There was a single set of shoeprints in the back, by the alley. There was also fresh drops of blood next to the shoe prints, leading detectives to believe the killer cut himself, or herself, on the left hand.6 Mark Fuhrman would be the first to respond to the scene. Marcia would later look on the photos and notice wreckage of Ron Goldman’s body compared to the wounds that Nicole had suffered. Marcia thought of Goldman’s assault as a “merciless assault against an unarmed, unsuspecting victim.”7 She thought of Goldman’s wounds as frenzied, with ruthless determination. Nicole’s seemed more efficient. She had been “swept up, thrown down, slashed at the throat, and dropped at the foot of the steps.”8

Marcia headed back to the office and immediately went to the head of the Special Trials Unit, David Conn. She laid out the details of the case and what she had seen at Simpson’s home. She knew that she was not Miss Congeniality among the lawyers in LA. She was a newly divorced, single parent. She tended to be habitually late. She had little patience and was a no nonsense kind of person. She was also a woman in a time when women, for all the leaps and bounds that had been made for women’s rights, were still were not on the same respect level as men.9

The media circus was a mad house. They swarmed for any clue as to what was going on inside the case. It was already national news and Marcia couldn’t get to any information. The police didn’t exactly work hand in hand with the prosecutors, and this time they were a metaphorical stonewall. Marcia was chain-smoking and trying to stay on top of information before the media could ruin her jury pool and case.

Marcia Clark was already very suspicious of O.J.’s “alibi.” The timeline didn’t add up and he didn’t answer the door for the limo driver until fifteen minutes after the scheduled arrival time. The amount of suspicion against O.J. Simpson was growing when his lawyer decided to drop due to a “personal friendship.” Robert Shapiro then stepped in. This was also suspicious to Marcia, due to the clients that Shapiro had in the past. Shapiro had clients such as Erik Menendez, Christina Sinatra, and other celebrities. This put Marcia on edge. Shapiro was a spin doctor. To act as an aid in Shapiro’s picture, Faye Resnick, friend of Nicole Brown Simpson, released a book about Nicole and O.J.10 The book received a lot of publicity. It was a New York Times best seller. Judge Ito did his best to stifle the book during the court hearing, but those actions worked in the opposite way. There was an a huge concern that the jury pool would be tainted. Judge Ito and Marcia both worried that the book would paint a poor picture of the victims or would skew the jury’s view of O.J.

Marcia hated that they didn’t hold him when they questioned him. She knew he had the ability to run, and instead, they let him go home. He was scheduled to come in to the station on a Monday. The grand jury was scheduled to start and there was no sign of Orenthal James Simpson at his own hearing. Was he running? Marcia began chain smoking again. She got Shapiro on the line and he was passed the puck to a Saul Faerstein. Saul Faerstein was a forensic psychologist. Faerstein and Shapiro were arguing that O.J. was depressed and they needed to make sure he was not suicidal. They were at O.J.’s good friend, Robert Kardashian’s house. Marcia had to start the court proceedings without O.J. present. She would have to start the proceedings because O.J. Simpson was on the run. All of Marcia’s instincts were correct and now, due to the lack of respect given to her, she looked like she was not able to handle her responsibilities.11 O.J. should have been held without bail. When a judge decides on bail, they look at factors such as the defendant’s ability to skip bail or the possibility of that occurring. O.J. Simpson showed both of these factors. He had money and showed the emotional inconsistency to make a judgement as poor as fleeing. Once O.J. was arrested, police officers found a bag with a fake passport, a wig, mustache, and other items that seemed to say O.J. was planning to flee the country. The items also included a ticket to Mexico.

On top of O.J. being on the run with a gun in the same Ford Bronco that had blood on it, Kato Kaelin, the actor that was a witness to Simpson’s whereabouts on the night of the murder and O.J.’s friend and room mate, was pleading the fifth amendment. This is the amendment that state’s a person does not need to answer any questions that might incriminate oneself. Marcia had no choice but to apologize profusely to the already impatient and annoyed group of jurors. Marcia could not comprehend how people referred to O.J. as a nickname rather than his full name, Orenthal James Simpson. She found it comparable to someone calling Charles Manson “Chuck.” Meanwhile, she fought to get an inch of protocol that was given to her. People were wooed by O.J.’s charm, charisma, and celebrity. O.J. wrote three letters when he left. Shapiro read one of the three letters, addressed to the public, on national television, and delivered the other two to the intended recipients.12 Marcia felt that this instance harmed her case. The lawyer to any other suspected murderer would’ve had to turn over these letters, but because O.J. Simpson was famous and America was very divided on the situation, they were allowed to keep the letters. Marcia felt he was getting preferential treatment and it was harming her case. When he was on the run, the highway was scattered with signs that said “Free OJ!” In his travel bag were a passport, a plastic bag with a fake goatee, a fake mustache, a bottle of makeup adhesive and remover.13

When asked to how he planned to plead, Simpson pled 100% not guilty. Marcia’s passion for the case showed through when she immediately thought, “You unregenerate, scum-sucking creep.”14 During the trial, Clark began her presentation before the jury by stating, ” You may not like me for bringing this case. I’m not winning any popularity contests for doing so.”15 This made it seem as though prosecuting Orenthal James Simpson was an unpopular decision that would ultimately be a waste of time and tax payer money.

The defense theory was initially based around the investigation having not considered anyone besides Simpson, thus planting evidence to support their theory.16 The defense would present tapes recording Mark Fuhrman using racial slurs. Johnnie Cochran would use this to support the defense’s theory. The L.A. Riots had recently occurred and racial tension in Los Angeles were high. Johnnie Cochran played on that as a way to get the jurors and the public on O.J. Simpson’s side. Johnnie Cochran created a moral dilemma. If the jurors and public did not support O.J., they were racists. The defense started hitting below the belt with that stance. During this time, Marcia Clark was still going back and forth with her divorce proceedings. Sheriffs and deputies were taking Marcia through a tunnel under the streets to avoid the paparazzi that were hounding her. She was going back and forth between criminal courts and civil courts, trying to put out personal fires as well as bringing justice to Nicole Brown Simpson. Mark Fuhrman even went as far as going after Judge Lance Ito’s wife. Marcia was sure they would lose if Judge Ito had to step down. Johnnie Cochran wanted to keep Judge Ito as well.

Photograph of Judge Lance Ito, the presiding judge over the trial | October 1995 | Twins of Sedona | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Marcia Clark decided to hit back with evidence. She pointed out the set of aforementioned bloody footprints, hair samples and trace DNA. The bloody footprints were that of size 12 Bruno Magli loafer. The loafer cost $160 and only 9% of men in America wore that size. O.J. Simpson wore size 12 and was 6 feet 2 inches tall. The men who wore that size shoe tended to fall between 6 feet tall and 6 feet 4 inches tall. A burglar would also not be wearing a $160 shoe to a burglary. The same footprint was found on Nicole’s back. The specialists, Bill Bodziak, that was brought in to testify on the evidence, concluded that there was no reason to believe there was more than one set of shoes present. They also found the same model of shoe present in O.J. Simpson’s home. O.J. once referred to the shoes as “ugly a**” shoes and he swore he would never own them. A photo would later surface of him wearing the same model of shoes.

The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. This case was one of the most polarizing for the citizens of the United States. The “Dream Team” did a very good job of spinning doubt on the evidence. It can also be argued that Marcia Clark did not show the brevity of what each piece of evidence meant. As hard as she tried, O.J. Simpson is not behind bars. If that is warranted or not, that is still up for debate but in a civil suit, he was found to owe the families money due to wrongful death.

Photograph of the headstone of Nicole Brown Simpson | February 1, 2000 | David McNew | Courtesy of Getty Images and Hulton Archive
  1. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New York: Penguin, 1997), 14.
  2. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 41.
  3. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 39.
  4. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 24.
  5. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 25.
  6. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 25.
  7. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New Yok: Penguin, 1997), 34-35.
  8. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New York: Penguin, 1997), 61.
  9. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New York: Penguin, 1997), 18.
  10. Vincent Bugliosi, Outrage The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder(New York: W.W. Norton &Co., 2016), 80.
  11. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 66.
  12. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 105.
  13. Jeffrey Toobin, The Run Of His Life The People v. O.J. Simpson, (New York: Random House 2015), 111.
  14. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New York: Penguin, 1997), 125.
  15. Vincent Bugliosi, Outrage The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder(New York: W.W. Norton &Co., 2016), 336.
  16. Marcia Clark, Without a Doubt (New York: Penguin, 1997), 367.

Tags from the story

Marcia Clark

O.J. Simpson

Recent Comments

Giselle Garcia

This article is very detailed and I like how Clark’s thoughts were included in the storyline. She had such determination to prove O.J. was guilty and have justice served for the victims. Clark faced many difficulties with this case, especially convincing people that he could possibly commit this crime. She did a good job at finding supporting evidence against him but it wasn’t enough for the guilty verdict that she wanted.

reply

10/02/2020

11:35 am

Melanie Fraire

I had some knowledge of OJ’s case but I was not fully informed on it so this article was very informative to me. Props to Marcia for handling this so well, to be dealing with a case that had so much publicity while trying to deal with her divorce in her own personal life must’ve taken a lot out of her however, I think she did great regardless. Overall it’s a real shame that he was not found guilty even with all the evidence that was presented.

reply

11/02/2020

11:35 am

Francisco Cruzado

This article was intriguing and engaging, and It had a bitter taste by the end, for when one reads about judicial unfairness, especially when involving the privilege of a celebrity, it stresses oneself. I think O.J. Simpson represented a world that splits celebrities into two: into an epic side, a blurry construction based upon talent and achievements, and a human side, as wicked as it could be. This article addressed such a theme in a very deep way throughout the narration. I wonder, however, from where does such a propensity to create two-sided humans come from?

reply

12/02/2020

11:35 am

Thiffany Yeupell

I commend Marcia Clark for putting up a good fight in the O.J. Simpson trial and dealing with her personal circumstances at the same time. I have only heard briefly of the trial before but reading all the happenings that occurred during its procession astounded me. The amount of leeway Simpson was able to obtain and all the spins the defense was able to conjure up for the case is astonishing, but Clark was not left in the dust, as I believe that the evidence prove to be substantial. But in this case, I would imagine the tipping point for ‘winning the game’ was helped by the popularity and celebrity character that Simpson put on for the public, making it harder to judge by a jury of your peers, when said peers may be influenced by his status alone.

reply

18/02/2020

11:35 am

Hali Garcia

This is a great article! Marcia Clark put up a great fight and I could practically feel her frustration through this writing. It must have been very frustrating to have to argue this case with so many factors popping up such as the publishing of the book by Nicole’s friend, the worry of the jury being influenced, and that O.J Simpson was let go.

reply

23/02/2020

11:35 am

Samantha Zamorano

The case of O.J. Simpson is one that will always hit a nerve with me. There were so many pieces of forensic evidence, an overwhelming amount actually, that point to him being guilty; not to mention the obvious motive. Had the LAPD not been plagued with racist police officers and detectives, I think there’s a very good chance O.J would have bene acquitted. When I watched the series on Netflix I felt so bad for Marcia. She was so good at her job and she had to take criticism from O.J. fans who didn’t even know what they were talking about. She is incredibly brave for taking on such a high-profile case and handling it with grace.

reply

23/02/2020

11:35 am

Shriji Lalji

In my opinion it is fairly obvious that he did it. However, I was very interested in seeing the tactics and strategies his lawyers used to sway the jury. Simpson was an absolute superstar celebrity. The lawyers really used that to their advantage especially with the book. I thought that was quite a clever strategy. They also managed to used the racial tension at the time to their advantage. I wonder how those attorneys, who probably knew the reality of the situation, weighted their moral values when deciding to defend Simpson. I also wonder if it affected their personal lives, especially with their spouses. Although the “dream team” of attorneys did an exceptional job representing their client, I felt Marcia Clark at least at that time in her life was not fit to prosecute Simpson.

reply

25/02/2020

11:35 am

Ana Cravioto Herrero

It is always very interesting to hear about the O.J. Simpson case. I did not know much about Marcia Clark, but it is sad to know that she received so much hate but at the same time, she had many supporters because she was confident in what she was doing and she was good at her job. This care will definitely always be controversial, and it is very disappointing that our “system” could have made the wrong call because the way most of us see it now, he is blatantly guilty.

reply

08/03/2020

11:35 am

Aracely Beltran

I remember when I first heard about this case, I just thought “oh another celebrity who will get away with whatever rime”. I didn’t think it was that interesting however, this article was really good! It is so crazy the things that money and fame can get you out of. People will believe whatever you say even if there is evidence saying otherwise.

reply

15/03/2020

11:35 am

Vanessa Barron Ortiz

I remember hearing about this case a long time ago but didn’t think much of it because it sounded like a rich famous person problem, meaning that if that person had the money within months then would solve it. It saddens me that even with all the evidence being put forth he was not arrested and sentenced, which seems to show how the system is broken.

reply

24/03/2020

11:35 am

1 2

Leave a Reply