The infamous O. J. Simpson murder trial is a telling example of what an officer should not do with regards to a criminal proceeding. As lead investigator examining the murders of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Simpson, Detective Mark Fuhrman was a study in incompetence.
Right from the very outset of the trial, the transcript shows that Det. Fuhrman not only neglected to avoid any responses or body language that might indicate nervousness, lest the jury be suspect of his testimony, he outright stated that he was nervous. What’s more, he did not stick to the facts of the case, and instead speculated about surrounding matters, as evidenced by this excerpt from the transcript (1995a):
“Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT TESTIFYING TODAY?
A NERVOUS.
Q OKAY.
A RELUCTANT.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHY?
A THROUGHOUT — SINCE JUNE 13, IT SEEMS THAT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE IGNORED AND A LOT OF PERSONAL ISSUES COME TO THE FOREFRONT. I THINK THAT IS TOO BAD.”
Although he met the criteria set down by Grubb and Hemby of appropriate dress and speech patterns, he utterly failed in this first important test of his credibility. What, after all, is a jury to think when an investigating officer, whom they presume is present merely to present the facts his investigation had uncovered, announces that he is nervous? No matter what his answer to the follow-up question, “Why”, the jury is invited to speculate on the moment as to what it is he has to hide with regards to this particular trial.
Det. Fuhrman also did go through pre-trial preparation, as suggested by Grubb and Hemby. In his testimony, he even stated that he had a number of rehearsal sessions with members of the prosecution team prior to the trial date (1995a).
Nonetheless, he continued to speculate on unrelated and indirectly related matters throughout his testimony. “IT SEEMS THAT THE ISSUES WE WERE CONCERNED WITH WEREN’T EVIDENTIARY IN NATURE OR ABOUT THE CRIME; MOSTLY OF A PERSONAL NATURE” (1995a).
Most telling of all, though, he set himself up for failure and embarrassment before his testimony even began. As is now well known, Det. Fuhrman planted evidence at the crime scene and falsified official police reports and other documents in an effort to circumvent the justice system and achieve a conviction against Mr. Simpson.
Although Det. Fuhrman never openly admitted to these things, the transcript of his testimony shows this to be the case (1995b).
“Mr. Uelmen: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?”
Det. Fuhrmna: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.
Mr. Uelmen: Have you ever falsified a police report?
Det. Fuhrmna: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.
…
Mr. Uelmen: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?
Det. Fuhrman: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.”
Clearly, had the answer been “no”, Det. Fuhrman would have simply said so. According to Effective communication for criminal justice professionals, “During testimony, the investigating officer should never feel compelled to alter facts or to make statements that could damage or hinder his/her credibility.” Mark Fuhrman clearly failed to adhere to this most critical of all guidelines. It should be noted that by testifying to the effect that the planted evidence was legitimate, he was continuing to falsify the facts of the case during the trial stage.
As evidenced by the final outcome of the trial, Detective Fuhrman’s contribution to the case, in an effort to aid the prosecution, was the single largest factor in the acquittal of the defendant. Mr. Simpson’s own innocence or guilt was never actually tried, entirely due to how badly the investigation was mangled by Fuhrman.
This is as clear a proof as any for the absolute need for investigators to maintain professional discipline. No matter how certain Fuhrman was of Mr. Simpson’s guilt, his best course to work towards a conviction would have been to simply do his job the right way. Once doubt about the evidence entered the jury’s minds, the prosecution had lost the case; there was never even the slightest glimmer of hope of overcoming ‘reasonable doubt.’
An officer’s role is to simply present the facts of the case in the most credible way possible. No matter an officer’s own feeling pertaining to a defendant’s true guilt or innocence, it is vital that he or she play the role as allotted. Any deviation can, and often does, end in a spectacular catastrophe.
When testifying, an officer should be confident, clear, truthful, to the point, and accurate. Mark Fuhrman was none of these things. Because of that, whether he really was guilty or innocent, O. J. Simpson walked out of that courtroom a free man.
References:
Grubb, R. E. Jr., & Hemby, K. V.. (2003). Effective communication for criminal justice professionals. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
N. A. (1995). Testimony of Detective Mark Fuhrman. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Fuhrman-D.htm
N. A. (1995). Testimony of Mark Fuhrman, Witness for the Prosecution. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/fuhrman1.htm
Reference:
- Get More: www.BelradUniverse.com
