Welcome back to Law School in Plain English.I'm your host, Jeff.Thanks for tuning in again as we explore the fundamentals of criminal law through one of the most high-profile cases in history, the People v. O.J.Simpson.
In our last episode, we looked at mens rea, or the guilty mind, to understand why intent is so important in proving a crime. Today, we will dive into the concept of actus reus, or the guilty act.
If mens rei is about what someone was thinking, actus reus is about what they actually did.In any criminal case, both components, intent and action, are necessary to establish guilt.Without both, a crime has not truly been committed.
Whether you are a law student considering law school or a true crime enthusiast, this episode will break down Actus Reis step-by-step using real testimony, evidence, and statement from the Simpson trial to help bring this concept to life.
Let's dive in. In criminal law, actus reus is the guilty act or the physical action that constitutes the crime.Actus reus tells us what they actually did.
Prosecutors must establish that the defendant engaged in a specific act or set of acts that fulfill the definition of the crime charged. In the O.J.
Simpson case, the prosecution had to prove not only that Simpson intended harm, but that he actually carried out the act of murder.
They argue that Simpson's actions on the night of June 12, 1994, directly led to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Without clear evidence of his physical actions, Actus Reus, the prosecution could not establish that a crime had taken place.
To frame Actis Reyes from the start, prosecutor Marsha Clark emphasized Simpson's alleged physical presence and actions at the crime scene in her opening statement.Here's an excerpt.The evidence will show that O.J.Simpson was at the scene.
He went there with the intent to kill, and he acted on that intent. The DNA, the blood, the footprints, all of it points to a man who not only wanted these people dead, but made sure they were.This was not a distant or passive crime.
This was an act, deliberate and personal. Clark's statement goes directly to Actas Reyes, asserting that Simpson actively and physically committed the crime.
By mentioning evidence like DNA and footprints, she set up her argument that Simpson was undeniably at the scene taking actions that constituted murder. Now, let us look at the defense's opening.
Lead attorney Johnny Cochran immediately challenged the notion that Simpson's actions could be proven, aiming to create doubt about the prosecution's claim of a physical presence at the crime scene.Here's an excerpt.
The prosecution wants you to believe that O.J.Simpson was at the scene, that he left traces and markers behind, But where is the proof?We have DNA that has been mishandled, evidence that has been tampered with.
You cannot say someone committed an act unless you are certain they were even there.The evidence does not show that OJ Simpson committed any act of violence that night.
Cochran's strategy was to cast doubt on whether Simpson physically committed the acts alleged.By challenging the evidence tying Simpson to the scene, he aimed to weaken the Actis Reis component.His message to the jury was clear.
Without certainty about Simpson's presence, the prosecution could not prove Actis Reis. To prove Actus Reus, prosecutors rely on physical evidence, objects, DNA, and any concrete signs of the defendant's actions.
In the Simpson trial, the prosecution presented various forms of evidence to establish Actus Reus, including DNA samples, footprints, and a bloody glove.Let's look at the DNA evidence.
Prosecutors pointed to DNA found at the crime scene that matched Simpson's blood.Samples collected from Nicole Brown's driveway, the walkway, and Simpson's car were argued to contain Simpson's DNA.
Prosecutor Marsha Clark emphasized this evidence during the trial, arguing that these were traces of Simpson's actions, proof that he was at the scene and actively participated in the crime.Here's part of what she said.
Blood found at the scene matches OJ Simpson.His DNA was left on the walkway, on the glove, and in his car.This is not a mystery or a coincidence.These are markers of a man who was there. who took action and who left a part of himself behind.
By linking DNA to Simpson, the prosecution argued that his presence and thus the physical actions could not be denied.This was their evidence of actus reus.Now, let's look at the bloody glove.
The glove was found at Simpson's property and allegedly matched a glove found at the crime scene. The prosecution argued that this glove was not just a coincidence.It was a direct physical link, a trace of Simpson's actions.
Marsha Clark claimed, this glove ties Simpson to the crime scene.It's not just a piece of clothing.It's an extension of his actions. He left it behind as a mark of what he did, and it places him in the moment in the act of murder.
The glove was intended to serve as indisputable evidence of Simpson's presence, representing Actus Reus by connecting him physically to the murder.
However, when Simpson famously tried on the glove during the trial and it appeared not to fit, this piece of evidence took a hit in credibility, which the defense used to weaken the Actis Reyes argument.Now, let's look at the footprints.
Bloody shoe prints were found at the scene, which the prosecution claimed matched a specific type of shoe that Simpson had been seen wearing in the past.These prints, they argued, indicated a physical presence, steps taken during the act itself.
They suggested this as direct evidence of Simpson's movement around the crime scene. The defense countered each piece of physical evidence, attacking its validity and suggesting mishandling.
They questioned the collection and storage of DNA samples, implied tampering with the glove, and argued that the shoe print evidence was speculative.Cochran argued in closing, if evidence has been mishandled,
If there is reasonable doubt about its origin, then it cannot prove anything.These supposed traces of O.J.Simpson's actions are questionable at best, and at worst, they are nothing more than attempts to paint a picture that isn't true.
By questioning each piece of evidence, the defense aimed to dismantle the prosecution's actus reus argument, attempting to convince the jury that there was no solid proof that Simpson physically committed any actions at the crime scene.
Now, let us look at how both sides addressed Actus Reis in their closing arguments.By this point, both had presented all their evidence, and they used these final moments to drive home their key arguments.
Marsha Clark, in her closing argument, summarized the physical evidence of Simpson's actions at the scene. She urged the jury to see the physical markers—blood, DNA, the glove—as proof of Simpson's direct involvement.Here is part of what she said.
This was no accident.No misunderstanding.The evidence shows clearly that O.J.Simpson was there, that he took steps, left traces, and committed these acts. The DNA, the footprint, the glove.These are not random artifacts.
They are proof that he was there committing the crime. Clark's argument emphasized that Actus Reus was not hypothetical.It was evidenced by the physical traces left behind.
Her goal was to make the jury view these pieces of evidence as irrefutable proof of Simpson's physical actions.
Johnny Cochran, on the other hand, reminded the jury of the flaws and inconsistencies in the evidence, casting doubt on the very idea that Simpson had been physically present.Here is a passage from his closing argument.
The prosecution wants you to ignore the flaws, to ignore the fact that the evidence has been compromised. Without clear proof, without certainty, there can be no claim that O.J.Simpson committed these acts.
The law demands certainty, and this is something this case does not have. By focusing on uncertainties and casting doubt on each piece of evidence, Cochran challenged the prosecution's actus reus argument.
His goal was to convince the jury that the prosecution had not proven Simpson's actions beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as we have seen, Actus Reus, or the Guilty Act, is all about proving the physical actions that make up a crime.
In the Simpson trial, this meant connecting Simpson's presence, actions, and physical traces to the murder scene.
The prosecution built their case around evidence like DNA, footprints, and the infamous glove to demonstrate that Simpson actively participated in the crime.
They argue that each piece of evidence told a story, showing not just that Simpson was present, but that he took deliberate actions leading to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
The defense, however, fought this narrative by focusing on the inconsistencies and potential mishandling of the evidence.
They raised questions about the reliability of DNA samples, pointed out issues with the chain of custody, and emphasized the infamous glove moment, where the glove appeared not to fit Simpson's hand.
Each of these strategies aimed to cast doubt on the prosecution's assertion of Actus Reus, challenging the very idea that Simpson had physically committed the crime.
In the end, the battle over actus reus, over the guilty act itself, reminds us how crucial it is for the prosecution to prove not only what someone intended, but what they actually did.
Without proof of a physical act, intent alone is not enough to secure a conviction. The burden is on the prosecution to show both.
And when it comes to physical evidence, every piece must stand up to scrutiny because one weak link can open the door to reasonable doubt. Thank you for listening to Law School in Plain English.
In our next episode, we will explore what constitutes the crime of murder, what it takes to charge someone with murder, and why it is such a unique and serious offense.
We will continue with the OJ Simpson case to understand the charges brought against him and how murder is defined in legal terms.Until the next time. Keep questioning, keep searching, and as always, stay curious.
Sign in
