Book SummaryThe New York Times bestselling book titled Reasonable Doubt: The Criminal Justice System and the OJ Simpson Case examines the OJ Simpson criminal trial of the mid of the 90s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, connects the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. Then a Harvard law teacher and one of the country's most renowned legal minds, Dershowitz was one of OJ Simpson's twelve defense lawyers during his trial. Dershowitz uses the Simpson case to illustrate how today's criminal justice system works and relates it to public misperceptions. Many outside viewers of the case firmly believed that Simpson had committed the crimes for which he had been accused. Therefore, much of the public was simply stunned when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole. On June 13, 1994, Nicole Brown, OJ Simpson's ex-wife, was found murdered along with Ronald Goldman (Dershowitz 19). The first chapter of Reasonable Doubts describes how many people have come to the conclusion that OJ committed the murders. Incriminating evidence emerged that more than pointed to Simpson's guilt (Dershowitz 21). Soon, media reports stated that Simpson would be charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Simpson's reluctance to be peacefully taken into custody was illustrated by his famous chase on the Los Angeles freeway that ended in his eventual surrender (Dershowitz 23). Dershowitz chose to join the defense team when given the opportunity, arguing that the case could greatly educate people, especially his Harvard Law students, about... middle of paper... l The prosecution had dozens of federal, state and local officials at their disposal, including the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department. The defense succeeded in instilling reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. One of the main differences between the defense and the prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution used witnesses that cast a shadow of doubt on the entire jury (Dershowitz 97) . Dershowitz claimed that the prosecution knew there were falsehoods in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). Overall, although many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the prosecution's faults and ultimately plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors...