If the glove fits: The importance of the media in jury decision-making
By Timothy Forrest
What if everything you thought you knew about fairness, fame, and race in America was put on trial? What if, in this same trial, everything you thought you knew about justice was shattered? What if someone who you were absolutely certain was guilty – certain without a shadow of a doubt – was found innocent? Would you still believe in the system?
During the O.J. Simpson trial, formally known as The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, much of the public’s faith in the justice system was shattered. This case lasted more than eight months, was nationally televised, and is considered to be one of the most highly publicized and polarizing legal cases in American history – many even view this as “the trial of the century.” Many disagree with the jury’s verdict of “not guilty”, and believe it is just another testament to how money could get rich people out of any problem. Others agree with the decision, and believe that it was a big step for African Americans who had long been mistreated by the police. But what if this trial was not about any of these things? What if, instead, this case was about exposing the flaws in a system that the entire country so blindly trusted?
The legal defense of Simpson’s Dream Team during the trial brought many issues to light. They claimed that the case was corrupt and that the evidence had been tampered with. This infamous group of lawyers was able to invalidate the testimonies of more than 150 witnesses (such as those of Mark Fuhrman and Dennis Fung), dismiss tons of forensic evidence (like the infamous gloves), and ultimately convince the jury that O.J. Simpson was innocent, even when the evidence appeared to paint a clear picture of his guilt. This case made it abundantly clear how important it was to prepare for a trial, and why the legal field has undergone significant changes to this day. While this court emphasized the importance of many things such as witness testimonies and depositions, how critical it was to handle evidence correctly, and the skill that went into selecting a jury, the most important thing to be gained from the O.J. Simpson trial is how necessary it is that juries be shielded from the media.
Many believe that the media does not have a significant impact on juries across the country. However, this is simply not true, as there is a boatload of evidence which proves otherwise. Judges have long been concerned with extensive pre-trial publicity, as they believe many jurors will use the information given to them by the media in deliberations, and research has consistently shown that this publicity can shape jurors’ opinions before they even enter the courtroom. A study by Stewart (2007) highlights that exposure to media coverage—especially sensationalized or biased reporting—can lead to prejudices about the defendant's guilt, making it difficult for jurors to remain impartial. This is especially true when media outlets present inflammatory or emotionally charged narratives about the case. The study also suggests that this bias can persist even after jurors are instructed to disregard media reports.
Media framing theory also suggests that the way a case is portrayed in the media can influence how jurors interpret the facts. Iyengar and Kinder (1987) argue that the media’s framing of a story—whether focusing on the emotional, political, or factual elements—can shape how individuals form opinions about a case. For example, if the media portrays a defendant in a negative light, jurors may be more likely to perceive the defendant as guilty, regardless of the evidence presented in court, and vice versa. During the trial of O.J. Simpson, media outlets prioritized this case, and focused their content on providing their own analysis after each day of the trial, which could have had a significant impact on the jury. Additionally, jurors may discuss media portrayals during deliberations, which can cloud their ability to focus on the evidence. A study by Diamond and Casper (1992) indicates that media exposure can affect jury deliberations, potentially leading to less rational and more emotion-driven discussions. This research makes it clear that the media can have a significant impact on the jury.
All in all, the importance in protecting the jury from the media lies in the belief that strongly held ideas cannot be replaced by evidence or argument in the courtroom, as a juror would have already decided the outcome based on the information they already had. And, in the aftermath of the trial, many speculated on the impact of the media. After all, the media had already turned this case into a spectator sport. They decided that O.J. Simpson’s “great escape” was important enough to interrupt the 1994 NBA Finals (an event with over 95 million viewers) while coverage of the trial was so heavily monitored that the case sparked the invention of Fox News in 1996. Sure enough, it was found that people who felt more psychologically involved with Simpson, presumably as a result of this exposure with the media, were more likely to believe that he was innocent. Furthermore, African American respondents were also more likely to believe in Simpson's innocence than others. Why is this important? Seventy five percent of the (8 out of 12) members of OJ’s Simpson’s jury were African American. At eye level, it appears that the jury was heavily biased in favor of Simpson, which would mean he already had an advantage. This study seems to show not only how jurors were influenced by the media, but also that the prejudice surrounding Simpson’s case ran as deep as the selection of the jury.
Many believe that this case illustrates a tension between the First Amendment’s protection of the press and the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair trial and, most importantly, an impartial jury. Several lawyers believe that extensive media coverage of a trial inherently jeopardizes a defendant’s right to a fair trial, with 4 out of 5 of them believing that O.J. Simpson would not get a fair trial because of all the publicity concerning his case. There were even a plethora of instances where Judge Lance Ito threatened to ban media coverage altogether. While the Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to demand closed court proceedings, there are some instances where open proceedings could violate a defendant's right to a fair trial. For instance, in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, the Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision to exclude the press and public from hearing a part of a trial. Yet, a trial that is open to public scrutiny is more likely to be fair. Maybe this is what the Dream Team realized, and maybe it was part of the reason that they changed their mind about the media’s involvement in the case and began to embrace it. Still, the murkiness surrounding what is allowed with restricting the press provides more of a reason to censor the jury. If the law cannot decide the impact the media has on a trial, how can the jury decide which information is important? This only demonstrates the increased need for protecting the jury from the notable impact that the press so clearly possesses.
While the media played a huge impact on the jury in this case, improvements have been made to this process of shielding the jury to decrease the possibility of them being influenced by the press. During the O.J. Simpson trial jurors were simply instructed to avoid media coverage. However, today’s courts recognize the prevalence of digital media and provide explicit instructions banning jurors from searching online, reading news about the case, or discussing it on social media. Judges now issue "no electronic communication" orders, making it clear that jurors cannot access information beyond what is presented in court. Violations can lead to mistrials or juror removal, which serves as a deterrent.
In the O.J. Simpson trial, voir dire (jury selection) also did not fully account for implicit biases created by extensive media exposure before the trial. Many jurors were influenced by racial tensions, celebrity status, and media narratives surrounding Simpson. Nowadays, attorneys and judges use social media screening to identify potential biases before jurors are selected. Some courts use implicit bias training for jurors to help them recognize unconscious prejudices. Courts may even conduct extensive questioning about jurors’ exposure to pretrial publicity to determine whether they can remain impartial.
During the O.J. Simpson trial jurors were sequestered for 266 days, one of the longest in U.S. history. Despite this, some jurors later admitted to being indirectly influenced by media coverage and family discussions. Now, courts have since recognized that long-term sequestration can cause psychological stress and may backfire by making jurors resentful. Instead of full sequestration, courts now use partial sequestration—limiting jurors’ internet access during trial hours but allowing limited contact with family in supervised environments. Judges frequently question jurors mid-trial about potential outside influences, helping to catch bias before it affects the verdict. The impact of this case is extremely vital to court rooms today, and has aided in the restructuring of the standard that jurors are held to for the better.
To this day, many people still question whether O.J. Simpson actually did commit these heinous crimes of which he was accused. However, the question shouldn’t be whether the jury made the right decision – the important thing to gain from this case is how crucial it is to prepare for a trial by taking note of external influences. If the police hadn’t mishandled evidence, they would have been able to use it to convict him. If the witnesses had been properly prepared and weren’t almost perfectly cross–examined, maybe the jury could have used their testimonies to find him guilty. If the jury was censored more carefully, then maybe the media wouldn’t have had such an impact on their decision. Despite all of these “what-ifs,” the fact of the matter is that none of these things happened, and for that, we should be thankful for this outcome. Without the Simpson case, the flaws of our justice system would have never been brought to light. So argue and question whether the glove fit all you want, but this trial’s impact on how we think about the media and jury deliberations will continue to be seen for years to come.
