12 Angry men

The jurors made a critical error in their evaluation of the evidence. With all of the evidence shown to the jurors, it is easy to conclude that there was no tampering with or framing of the evidence in order to frame "the kid" of the crime against his blood father. The defendant has the ability to cast doubt, but only in the case where it was discovered that the foul play and evidence were uncovered. Based on the facts revealed along with the DNA test, O.J Simpson committed a heinous crime.  The aspect of the evidence being interfered with and designed to portray O.J Sampson to the idea that he gives an essential element in evaluating his innocence more so regarding the public figure and his social class as an African-American athlete who was a threat to an individual with the prejudice mentality.

It is possible to conclude that O.J Simpson was trapped with someone to frame him for an offense which he did or never commit. In the case, ‘’12 Angry men’’, on the defendant side, there was no any information or evidence offered to the bench of juries which could have been similar to that of Simson trial. The idea of randomness in this scenario can be dismissed. Currently, it would be appropriate to consider the D.N.A testing because it is more influential in evaluating the innocence of ‘’the kid.’’ However, upon considering the one piece of evidence over the other, as the eyewitness testimony over the knife, then it would give some room for doubts. As it appears in the ‘’12 Angry men’’, there was a possibility of the kid being innocent.