Would O.J. Simpson Be Convicted Today?

The O.J. Simpson trial, dubbed “The Trial of the Century,” captivated America in the mid-1990s. Now, with Netflix’s latest documentary, American Manhunt: O.J. Simpson, reigniting interest in the case, many are left wondering: would O.J. Simpson be convicted if the trial were held in 2025? As a criminal defense attorney, I find this question both fascinating and complex, hinging on the evolution of forensic science, media influence, and jury psychology over the past three decades.

Advancements in Forensic Science

In 1995, DNA evidence was relatively new to the courtroom. While the prosecution presented compelling forensic evidence, including blood samples matching Simpson’s DNA, the defense skillfully undermined its credibility by highlighting potential contamination and mishandling by the LAPD. Today, forensic science has advanced significantly. Laboratories now follow stricter protocols, chain-of-custody procedures are meticulously documented, and DNA analysis technology is far more sensitive and accurate.

Had Simpson’s trial occurred in 2025, the forensic evidence would likely be more robust, with digital tracking of evidence handling and advanced DNA testing reducing doubts about contamination. The defense would face a steeper challenge discrediting such evidence, especially with the rise of forensic experts who specialize in clarifying complex scientific data for juries.

The Role of Social Media and Public Perception

In 1995, the media’s influence was massive, but it was largely confined to television, radio, and print. The trial became a televised spectacle, shaping public opinion in real-time. Fast forward to 2025, and the impact of social media cannot be overstated. Platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram would dissect every courtroom moment, creating viral narratives that could sway public perception before the jury even deliberates.

However, this omnipresent media environment cuts both ways. While it increases the risk of prejudicing potential jurors, it also fosters greater public awareness of legal processes and forensic science. Jurors today are more media-savvy and may be less susceptible to emotional manipulation. Judges also have more tools at their disposal to manage media influence, including stricter gag orders and digital monitoring to ensure jurors avoid external content related to the case.

Jury Psychology and Racial Dynamics

The racial tensions underlying Simpson’s trial were undeniable. The defense masterfully framed the case within the context of systemic racism and police misconduct, resonating with a jury that had lived through the Rodney King beating and subsequent LA riots. In 2025, while racial bias and systemic issues persist, there is broader public discourse around these topics, potentially leading to more nuanced jury deliberations.

Moreover, jury selection processes have evolved to better identify implicit biases. Courts now employ more sophisticated voir dire techniques, and attorneys can utilize psychological profiling tools to assess juror predispositions. This could lead to a more balanced jury, less influenced by racial narratives and more focused on the evidence.

The Defense Strategy: Would It Hold Up?

Johnnie Cochran’s famous line, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” epitomized the defense’s strategy of creating reasonable doubt through memorable, emotionally charged arguments. While such theatrics still have their place, today’s juries expect more substance. They are inundated with true crime documentaries, podcasts, and legal analysis, making them more critical of oversimplified defenses.

A modern defense team would need to supplement emotional appeals with data-driven arguments. The focus would likely shift from questioning the reliability of forensic evidence to exploring procedural errors, potential biases in digital evidence collection, and the integrity of investigative methods.

Conclusion: A Different Outcome?

Would O.J. Simpson be convicted if tried today? It’s impossible to say with certainty, but the odds might lean more heavily toward conviction. Advances in forensic science, greater juror awareness, and refined trial procedures create an environment less forgiving of reasonable doubt strategies that rely solely on emotional resonance.

Yet, the essence of the criminal justice system remains unchanged: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the defense’s role is to challenge that proof rigorously. Regardless of the era, a well-crafted defense can still sway a jury—because at the heart of every trial is not just evidence, but the complex, unpredictable nature of human judgment.

By Dennis Nave, Criminal Defense Attorney and Managing Partner of Nave Law Firm