Abordaje jurídico de la serie “Crímenes americanos: todos contra O. J. Simpson”

Abstract

The present work is based on the series "American Crimes, All Against O. J. Simpson", and its objective is to analyze the effectiveness of jury trials in determining the innocence or guilt of an accused, the role of the judge and the role of the defense. and the prosecution in these types of processes. Because in recent years a tendency has appeared to begin to apply that constitutional mandate of 1853 with jury trials and because the current Minister of Justice, Dr. Cuneo Libarona, has as its main objective to promote by presenting a bill that, If approved, this system of justice administration would be installed throughout the national territory, we see it appropriate to analyze what advantages and disadvantages it may bring. The series is a clear example of what can happen in reality, but it is not the rule, since although in our opinion the jury's decision was wrong and pretentious, it is not the result that occurs in most cases. that are resolved in this way. The hypothesis from which we started considered that the jury trial has more negative than positive aspects, due to a series of prejudices that did not allow us to analyze this system of administration of justice with the objectivity that was required. Finally, after weeks of research, we have concluded that, although there is no perfect model, jury trial is a system that has a large number of positive aspects that must be guaranteed with the corresponding procedures, always safeguarding procedural issues that arise guarantee the highest degree of impartiality and transparency possible. This impartiality is achieved with clear rules, explaining to the jury the technical and legal issues that it must evaluate when determining the innocence or guilt of an accused and when rendering its verdict, and what, ultimately, the tools it must use to allow participation citizen in the administration of justice.