Hello to all visitors! Please visit the NEW Net54 board at
www.Net54baseball.com
You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
Not that I'm a fan, but wondering if anyone here thinks Mr. Simpson and his co-defendant will be getting a fair trial in Nevada from an all-white jury?
Also, does anyone know anything about the "memorabilia dealers" who he is accused of stealing his stuff from?
Las Vegas jury seated in O.J. Simpson's trial
By LINDA DEUTSCH – 1 day ago
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A jury has been selected to decide whether O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant kidnapped and robbed two sports memorabilia dealers last year in Las Vegas.
Twelve jurors and six alternates were seated Thursday after four days of sometimes contentious questioning by defense lawyers.
Most prospective jurors have said they disagree with Simpson's 1995 acquittal in the slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
But they insist they can be fair in the latest case.
Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges.
Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass says she wants to begin opening statements Monday.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The judge in the robbery and kidnapping trial of O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant approved the last of 40 jury prospects Thursday, including a man who wrote on his jury questionnaire that the former football star was "a murderer and got away with it."
Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass told lawyers to return later in the day to exercise peremptory challenges and choose the final 12 jurors and six alternates.
Defense attorneys clashed with the judge in the final hours of four days of jury questioning when she refused to remove a retired policeman who repeatedly said Simpson was a murderer. He said he filled his questionnaire with such statements for shock value.
"I wanted to scare you so I wouldn't have to be here," he told defense attorney Gabriel Grasso. "I was hoping they would say, 'Oh, this guy is crazy,' and they would move on."
But the man said he later decided he wanted to serve and would put his opinions about Simpson aside and give him a fair trial.
"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."
The potential juror had written that co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart was a murderer, too, but said he made a mistake. Stewart's lawyer unsuccessfully challenged him for cause.
The man also said a friend of his took a photo with Simpson after his 1995 murder acquittal and sent it out as a Christmas card.
"I thought it was funny," the man said.
Asked if he stood by his statement that Simpson got away with murder, he said, "I did mean it. It was an honest answer. But it was used to get out of serving. Now is now. Today is today. Everyone is starting with a clean slate."
Judge Glass approved his inclusion in the jury pool. District Attorney David Roger told protesting defense lawyers that if they didn't like the man, they could use a peremptory challenge to remove him.
Peremptory challenges are reserved for removing prospective jurors without stating a cause. The final pool of prospects included a number of people who disagreed with Simpson's acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. But all said they could put that aside and weigh the Las Vegas case on its own merits.
Simpson, 61, is accused with Stewart, 54, of kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes for allegedly stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room confrontation last year. They have pleaded not guilty.
In another development, the judge issued an order refusing to release questionnaires filled out by the jurors who make up the panel. She said she had promised the panel she would keep their answers secret.
Glass said she would release a blank copy of a jury questionnaire, but only after the jurors are seated.
Attorneys Colby Williams and Donald Campbell, representing AP and the Review-Journal, said Thursday that they filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to review Glass' decision.
Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.
"Prohibiting access to the completed questionnaires runs afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of access to voir dire proceedings in criminal trials and precludes the media from reporting newsworthy events in a timely manner," the document said.
Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."
"She's saying she's going to abide by a promise she never should have made," Mitchell said. "What is the reason for the secrecy anyway? We're supposed to have public trials."
Associated Press Writer Ken Ritter contributed to this report.
It is what it is, politcally correct or not. Once again, is it schadenfreude for OJ because everyone thinks he got away with murder, or did he step over the line using self-help trying to get his stolen stuff back that some back-room memorabilia dealers were peddling?
Here is the top result, with headline from Yahoo news:
All-white jury seated in OJ Simpson kidnapping case Fri Sep 12, 6:29 AM ET
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AFP) - An all-white jury of 12 was chosen to decide the fate of OJ Simpson who faces trial on kidnapping and armed robbery charges that could see the former football star jailed for life.
Simpson, 61, faces 12 charges stemming from a confrontation in a hotel room in September last year after which he and a gang of gun-toting cohorts left with pillow cases stuffed full of sports memorabilia.
In the state of Nevada, kidnapping and armed robbery both carry potential life sentences.
Simpson's latest ordeal comes 13 years after he was acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend.
The process of seating a jury actually began in mid-August when 500 prospective jurors filled out a 26-page questionnaire.
The judge took great pains to separate the current case from Simpson's racially charged murder trial.
She wanted to be sure that the jurors would not be biased against Simpson, who is African-American, and was acquitted of the 1994 slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, both of whom were white.
"If you are here thinking you are going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles in 1995 this is not the case for you," Glass said Monday.
"I mean really, truly, folks," Glass said. "I'm not kidding around. Can you put that aside and understand that the case we are trying here and the info you're going to hear about here is totally separate from that case?"
In Nevada trial, Simpson and a group of associates allegedly stormed a room at the Palace Station Hotel-Casino, brandishing weapons, to retrieve memorabilia largely related to the former football star's sporting career that he has insisted was stolen from him.
Simpson has insisted he did not know that anyone had guns and said he never saw weapons. Four of the gang, including the two who carried firearms, have struck plea agreements with prosecutors for reduced prison sentences in exchange for their testimony against Simpson.
Opening statements were expected to begin Monday.
Simpson, a football Hall of Fame inductee, also was a television advertising pitchman and Hollywood comic film actor before the 1994 murders.
i hope he serves many many years in prison. where are all the attornies on this board? would love to hear their opinions on the murderer's outlook now.
He murdered people? I thought he was found innocent in the criminal trial. A jury of his "peers" said he didn't do it, so doesn't that mean he is innocent? LOL.
i know that OJ most likely killed those people and can't understand why anyone would feel differently. but the law is the law and it should be the same for whoever it is that the law is applied to. i don't see how anyone can argue that an all white jury is fair. OJ most likely killed 2 white people. to have him judged then by an all white jury is a disgusting step back to the times when blacks had automatic guilty verdicts while being judged by all white juries who couldn't be less interested in what really happened. i think about what would happen if a white person killed 2 black people and then had to sit in front of an all black jury. i don't think it would ever happen and right or wrong i certainly see it as disgusting that OJ has to deal with it.
He was found "not guilty". "Innocent" would mean it was decided that he did not do it. "Not Guilty" means the prosecutors did not prove he did it. He was found civilly liable for wrongful death in the subsequent lawsuit against him.
I don't care about the color of the skin of the jury.....but I do care that the judge permits people on the jury that openly state that he is guilty of a crime for which he was found "not guilty".
I don't see how the judge can expect him to get a fair trial. And that does bother me a lot. Our system of justice is supposed to apply equally to all Americans. I know that in reality there are those that have advantages, but that is no reason to allow this type of disadvantage to a person accused of a crime.
Ali, the law does not allow for the striking of jurors based solely on the color of skin. You write as if "the system" somehow picked the all-white jury for Simpson just to screw him -- are you aware that his lawyers were involved in picking the jury? As for OJ's "peers", the criminal allegation occurred in Las Vegas; that's where the jury is selected from, not some golf course in Florida.
Ali- I hear what you are saying but it's a strange concept for sure. Would six black jurors and six white be more fair? If you increase that to seven white jurors is it stacked against him? Does he have an edge with eight black jurors? Hate to think that's what it is all about.
As much as I loathe OJ, this case never gets brought if not for his sordid past. I've yet to encounter a case in all my years in which the witnesses were as tainted and impossible to believe as this bunch.
Are you in Canada? I heard that their tour is Canada-wide. Chong came to London, ON a couple of years ago. Some friends had tickets and said the show was great.
i know his lawyers were barred from asking any of the potential jurors if they felt he was guilty of murder. seems like a fair question that should be asked before picking that person to sit on a jury.
The lawyers were barred from asking that question -- but the judge mentioned it repeatedly during his comments to the jury pool and if anyone had a problem with OJ because of the first case they would have had the opportunity to say something. And OJ beat a road-rage case a few years back so I doubt it is not impossible for him to get a fair trial.
And the civil case hit for $33.5 million, which included a punitive damages award of $25 million, which required clear and convincing evidence not merely preponderance, per Civil Code 3294(a): In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
Prosecutors can nimbly get around dismissing Black jurors without setting up reversible error in the jury selection process (voir dire). All they have to do is establish some other basis for the exclusion of the juror, however feeble. Batson challenges are routinely thrown out if the appeals court can find any possible reason for the exclusion of minority jurors and believe me any prosecutor worth his salt has poured over the decisions and knows exactly how to do it...
...was can he get a fair trial with an all-white, and potentially biased jury. With few exceptions, as a relative sample, I think the responses here show that the bias against him continues to be pervasive to this day.
I lurk here and post once in a while but I have never met any of the board members. Is it just being assumed that all who have responded to this post are white or is that, in fact, the case?
I had hoped we would stay away from this topic. The judge in the case is Mrs. Jackie Glass. My aunt. She is as tough as they come and as fair as all get out. After a very successful career in a large defense firm in Las Vegas (with her husband Steve Wolfson, now city councilman of Las Vegas) defending some very important and interesting nationally recognized cases, she ran for a judgeship. She won her seat by beating a long standing incumbent running on a ticket of fair, tough, and strict law. She did not want this case. She was assigned the case and has been tough on all sides of the case. She revoked his bail when he broke the rules. She has held the press at bay and has been on point in every part so far. The jury was sat from an original pool of 500. A jury of his peers is correct for this case. OJ may be black but peers do not just include race. He has more in common with a white middle aged upper middle class person than anyone else. I do think my aunt will keep this trial and jury under control.
As to the two people he allegedly robbed...I am fairly certain one has passed away. Neither of the "victims" were wonderfully respected memorabilia dealers. Both had run ins and problems in the industry. Does that make them any less victims? Nope...does it make OJ any more guilty? We shall see.
I have obviously known my aunt for a wonderfully long time and honestly would just like this case (and OJ for that matter) to go away...Thanksgiving at my household this year should be rather interesting.
She has not been on point. If she were on point, two third parties would not have appealed one of her rulings before the trial even began. If she is such a great lawyer and jurist, please help us understand why the First Amendment does not apply in her courtroom.
Attorneys Colby Williams and Donald Campbell, representing AP and the Review-Journal, said Thursday that they filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to review Glass' decision.
Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.
"Prohibiting access to the completed questionnaires runs afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of access to voir dire proceedings in criminal trials and precludes the media from reporting newsworthy events in a timely manner," the document said.
Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."
"She's saying she's going to abide by a promise she never should have made," Mitchell said. "What is the reason for the secrecy anyway? We're supposed to have public trials."
---
As for her being fair, allowing people who perjure themselves to get out of jury service into the jury pool is, well, criminal. She should have locked the guy up.
Defense attorneys clashed with the judge in the final hours of four days of jury questioning when she refused to remove a retired policeman who repeatedly said Simpson was a murderer. He said he filled his questionnaire with such statements for shock value.
"I wanted to scare you so I wouldn't have to be here," he told defense attorney Gabriel Grasso. "I was hoping they would say, 'Oh, this guy is crazy,' and they would move on."
But the man said he later decided he wanted to serve and would put his opinions about Simpson aside and give him a fair trial.
"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."
The potential juror had written that co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart was a murderer, too, but said he made a mistake. Stewart's lawyer unsuccessfully challenged him for cause.
The man also said a friend of his took a photo with Simpson after his 1995 murder acquittal and sent it out as a Christmas card.
"I thought it was funny," the man said.
Asked if he stood by his statement that Simpson got away with murder, he said, "I did mean it. It was an honest answer. But it was used to get out of serving. Now is now. Today is today. Everyone is starting with a clean slate."
Judge Glass approved his inclusion in the jury pool. District Attorney David Roger told protesting defense lawyers that if they didn't like the man, they could use a peremptory challenge to remove him.
The one thing I haven't heard much about is what OJ planned to do with "his" stuff after he "retrieved" it. It's not as if the memorabilia that he was taking was his Heisman trophy or the final football from his 2000 yard season -- things that he might genuinely want to keep. No, what he was taking was stacks and stacks of autographed photos and other marketable items.
Even OJ doesn't want hundreds of autographed OJ photos. Obviously, his plan was to sell the stuff. But he is under a court order to give his income to the Goldmans. So, presumably, he was planning on selling his stuff and violating the court order to hand the cash over to the Goldmans. Even if you think the stuff he took was really his, and that he is innocent of the current charges, the best thing that you can say about him is that his "retrieval" of "his" property was part of his plan to violate the court order to pay the Goldmans -- for the millionth time.
Cheech & Chong performed tonight at the Warner, a grand, old, run-down theater in downtown Washington, D.C., before a raucous and appreciative sell-out crowd.
The show is a series of skits, almost exclusively pot and sex humor, with a couple shots at Bush stemming from Chong's prosecution and imprisonment for manufacturing bongs. I enjoyed the show, as much for the nostalgia as anything.
i understand you don't like OJ. but i don't understand why you are so against a person being judged by their peers, of which includes their race and gender. i can totally understand if you're happy its happening to OJ, but if it can happen to one person it can happen to you too.
Ali, my feelings about OJ have zero impact on my thoughts about this case. I'm just pointing out that your conclusion is not necessarily the correct one. Did you fail to note that I wrote that I thought the case would never have been brought if the defendant were not OJ? Do you know what I do for a living?
This message has been edited by calvindog on Sep 13, 2008 11:55 PM
I'm sure you cried a river for OJ during his murder trial when 75% of the jurors were black -- significantly more than the population of the county in which the trial took place.
you don't have a problem with OJ not having members of his race on the jury and you don't care much for the fact that his lawyers were barred from asking a crucial question when it comes to assessing a person's ability to rule impartially on this particular case. i'm not crying a river for OJ. the question was whether or not i felt OJ could get a fair trial. i don't believe he will receive the fairest trial he could.
This message has been edited by ali_lapoint on Sep 14, 2008 12:04 AM
Look, the lawyers picked the jury. If you have a beef with the fact that there are no blacks on the jury it very well may be his attorneys' fault. Hard to imagine the prosecutors got away with knocking off every African American without raising a Batson problem. So blame OJ's lawyers, not the system.
As for the "crucial" question that you mentioned, as stated above, the judge repeatedly and emphatically covered this during her own comments and questions to the jury. Believe it or not, the lawyers are not always allowed to do the questioning of jurors, sometimes judges get involved -- like in most federal cases. Somehow defense attorneys manage to represent their clients without ever getting the chance to question the jury directly or to get every question they desire put to the jury.
As for your concern that OJ may not get the "fairest" trial he could, I hate to break it to you but almost no defendant gets the fairest trial he could. OJ received a lot more breaks than the average defendant during his first trial. You should be more concerned with the average African American defendant in American courtrooms that is not a cult figure to many communities, that does not have the resources to pay for Johnnie Cochran and a team of lawyers and experts. The average African American defendant gets crushed in courtrooms every day in our country. Yet all anyone cares about is poor OJ Simpson.
This message has been edited by calvindog on Sep 14, 2008 12:16 AM
Is anyone covering the OJ trial on TV. Court TV did such a great job on high profile cases in the past and I was wondering if there were any cameras in the courtroom now that the trial is starting.
BTW, when the OJ case came up it was supposed to be tried in the West district, in the Santa Monica courthouse. Santa Monica is a coastal community near the murder scene that would have drawn jurors from an affluent area known as the "Westside" of LA. Odds are the jury pool would have looked pretty much like the OJ civil trial (which was held in Santa Monica) did; 3/4 white with a few Hispanic and Asian jurors. Instead, the case was transferred downtown to the criminal courts there, where the jury pool tended at the time to be mostly poor and minority, drawn from East LA and South Central (all the jury pools have changed somewhat since the 1990s owing to changes in the jury process that now pool jurors from all over the place downtown, but I digress). At the time of the OJ case, among the civil lawyers in LA downtown was known as "The Bank" for the propensity of its juries to stick it to perceived powerful, rich or corporate defendants, and my colleagues who practiced criminal defense also liked their odds downtown with a black defendant as compared to a wealthier, whiter community.
I remember having a conversation with the other attorneys at the firm where I was working when the venue change was announced and the first thing all of us said when we heard was that the fix was in, OJ was not going to be convicted, because getting a downtown jury to convict him would have been next to impossible in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. Personally, I don't see that the officials conspired to throw the case but I certainly think part of the idea behind the transfer of venues was a political play designed to make sure the faces judging OJ would mostly be black, so that there would not be anothe race riot if he was convicted. You may recall that the Rodney King beating case was transferred out of Los Angeles County to a distant bedroom community called Simi Valley, that at the time was also known as "Copland" because it was very white and heavily populated with law enforcement personnel families, and the ensuing verdict was the trigger for the riots.
why are you reading it Jim? BTW, I don't recall Ali instructing on the nuances of jury selection. I do see a couple of people expressing their opinions and discomfort with the jury makeup in OJ's pending trial. Should they be allowed to have an opinion?- or should you and the few others who make their snide comments and add nothing to the discussion effectively squelch them and tell them to go back and sit in their corner?
1.)I guess, technically, by the rules of the board, we shouldn't be having an OJ Simpson discussion on a vintage baseball card board. You ask: "Should they be allowed to have an opinion?" Sure. But not here.
2.) I never mentioned ali, or anyone else by name. That's your inference.
3.) There was nothing snide in my original post. (Can't promise the same for this one.)
beg to differ pretty much all the way around. Why not object to the topic being discussed at all, since this a vintage baseball card forum? That wasn't your point at all.
Second, to whom were you referring as having "instructed on the nuances of jury deliberation" if not Ali? Whoever it was, substitute his name and my remark stays the same.
You were not trying to be snide? What then--funny?
IMHO, there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time.
who said I hated this board? I do dislike what I perceive to be a downturn in quality and increases in what I perceive as cliques and uncivility, and I am registering my opinion toward that end. As I mentioned to you in another thread, I've been around, and I have seen this forum in a variety of conditions. I will opine that there are others who post less frequently or not at all because of what they see as the personalities and direction of the board, myself included. Disregard my opinion if you wish. I will leave or post as I see fit.
When I first posted, was coming off the the discussion on Mastro of those who damage the hobby (reporters or those who try to scam). Yes, I led with the question about OJ getting a fair trial, but followed up with he question about the 'dealers' who he is accused of kidnapping and robbing [sic].
You're right that this is not a forum about vintage football, but it does seem to be the place to out unscrupulous people who really do damage the hobby by trying to take advantage of others. Was hoping people would have some insight into who these folks are/were as that seems to have been completely bypassed by the DA, judge, and media, save for the nephew of the the judge who briefly acknowledged they were not good folks, but that didn't make them any less victims.
From his treatise on what a super jurist his aunt is, and his assertion that OJ will get a fair trial since his aunt is so on point (regardless of being challenged in the Nevada Supreme Court and letting perjurists into the jury pool), I couldn't disagree more. I think the fix is in, these people are looking to grab headlines (the circus is in full swing in Vegas) and the issue of the thieves who were fencing stolen goods is almost completely ignored. Shame on the DA, Judge Glass, and the media for ignoring the issue of what thieves these folks are.
And just one more question, seriously, what is the race/color of the "victims"?
Dave, I agree with your sentiment about how bad the 'victims' are; however, this kind of situation plays out all the time in court. I can't tell you how many murderers I've cross-examined who have spent a total of 2 years in prison for their crimes but suddenly are presented as decent, law-abiding folk when testifying for the government. Witnesses get caught lying on the stand every day and are never charged with perjury if they cooperate with the government. This is just how the system unfortunately is.
As I stated above, I find it hard to believe OJ would have been charged in this case if not for his past transgressions. For what it's worth, however, none of this suggests that the judge is crooked; she's presented the case that the prosecutors brought.
Not sure how I missed this: "Personally, I would rather have Col. Sanders expound on those eleven uber-mysterious herbs and spices. I'm finger-lickin' curious, damnit!"
I remember vividly my disbelief when the prosecution agreed to the change of venue in the murder trial -- that they could be so naive to believe that the evidence was so rock solid that any jury would convict him. I agree that the rationale behind the venue change was to avoid another race riot if he was convicted, but my feeling at the time was that the prosecution lost the case the moment they agreed to it.
I also am amazed at how stupid Simpson was to have taken the actions he did in Las Vagas. If there was any current of electrical activity going on between his ears, he had to know that he was a marked man and that law enforcement would be looking for any opportunity for payback. After all, in his murder trial didn't he forcefully argue that the LAPD was biased against him, that despite the likelihood that over the years they probably bent over backwards to give him special celebrity privileges. It still blows my mind the absolute dumb luck of the defense that the guy (Mark Fuhrman?) who found the bloody glove on Simpson's property was a documented racist. Talk about a dream situation for the defense.
This message has been edited by benjulmag on Sep 15, 2008 1:24 PM
There are reams of data to show that blacks do not get a fair shake from all white juries -- even when they are the victims. Just ask Medgar Evers widow.
What crime?! They were fencing stolen goods.
No, not every judge is appealed... only the ones who don't follow the law. Nice generalization though.
And of course no mention of her letting people who purjure themselves into the pool. Yeah, she's really on point on that one.
But I will acknowlege that the real fault lies with the DA in this case. Your aunt is just an enabler. She should be going out of her way to be FULLY transparent, not hiding the info the prejudiced folks wrote in the questionaires. I served on a jury in Manhattan last year and some clown who lied on his application got to spend a night in jail for perjuring himself -- and he wasn't even a cop. That's how it's supposed to work. The court is supposed to be above reproach.
And OJ is a dope for using self-help -- he should have called the police. But kidnapping and armed robbery?
Regardless of how you feel about the case or the judge's actions, it would be kind of everyone to keep in mind that she's the fellow's aunt. Thanks for reading.
I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, have never picked a jury, and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. Your observations are completely inaccurate in almost every respect.
First, every judge is appealed. Sometimes they are wrong, more often they are right, at least according to the appellate courts. When you start dissing a judge, whether they are appealed is absolutely NOT the issue. I am far more concerned with their reversal rate.
As for picking a jury, prospective jurors routinely say things that you would think should cause them to be removed for cause (i.e., that they should be removed because they can't be fair), then they reverse themselves upon further questioning. Lawyers call that "rehabilitating" the juror and it happens in almost every case that's tried.
Whether or not the "rehabilitation" has been successful is the question that the judge has to decide when the challenge for cause is made. Lots of time, the judge decides that the juror has been rehabilitated and denies the challenge for cause. Then the lawyer can decide whether or not to strike the juror by use of a peremptory challenge, which more or less means that you kick them off because you still think he or she won't be favorable to your side. While there are some constitutional limits to the use of peremptory challenges in theory, as TBob noted earler, there aren't too many in practice.
You may not like it, but that's the way it works. The composition of the jury that was seated in OJ's case is almost certainly not the fault of the judge. Nor does the fact that the news services appealed the judge's ruling on their right to get the jury questionnaire mean anything about her ability as a jurist. In fact, I fervently hope that they lose that appeal because there is NO institution I am aware of that is more able to influence the result of a jury deliberation than the press. If you are truly concerned about OJ getting a fair shake, IMO you should applaud the judge's decison not to allow the press access to the questionnaires before the start of trial, not claim that it shows how wrong she is.
Last on this from me...I cannot believe people emailed me some hate filled notes and essentially called my aunt (and as an extension) myself a racist.
Let me thank Kenny, Jeff, Adam, and Jodi for being the voices of reason and support.
I am not a judge or lawyer and get my news the same way as everyone else (not from my aunt). I really just wanted to point out that she really did not want this case and that she will do her best. If you disagree with her rulings, decisions, or the way she runs her court...move to Vegas and vote or run for her judgeship (I will tell you she ran unopposed in the last election).
Do not send me emails, write on here that she is wrong, misguided, or a fool. I will no longer respond. I love cards but I love my family more.
I'm sorry to hear that people have hate spammed you -- that is a bummer -- and uncalled for.
WRT your aunt, she's a civil servant and she ran for office, so there is no sympathy that did not want the case. I can tell you about a number of cops I know that did not want to go into drug infested neighborhoods and get shot at, but that's the job. No one made her run for a seat on the bench. I don't need to move to a frontier town to have that opinion or to state it.
My original question, again, was can OJ get a fair trial from an all-white jury, not can he get a fair trial from your aunt. Sadly, based on the fact that she allowed that ex-cop and others into the jury pool, the perception is that he will not get a fair trial. You opened the door when you expounded on what a great lawyer and fair judge she is and based on what has been reported, I think quite the opposite. Call me crazy, my opinion, which I am entitled to. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.
BTW, if you get your news from the regular media outlets, how do you know that she didn't want the case? Josh, I've been dinging you on your inconsistencies, but certainly not for being a racist.
Kenny, if you have ever tried a case in NYC or been on a jury in what is surely one of the most liberal districts in the USA, you know that lying on a jury questionaire is not tolerated for two seconds. And it shouldn't be. It taints the jury pool and is not in the spirit of jury service. The courts have enough trouble getting people to empanel juries w/o having to deal with jackasses who think they can game the system. I don't think he was trying to game the system though, I suspect he was being honest on the questionaire and lied when he was called out -- hence the perjury.
Maybe in whatever court you practice in that is tolerated, but when someone's life is at stake, it's shameful to allow that kind of behavior. This is a high profile case and it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of media coverage. That is not a bad thing, unless you live in Russia or China where the media is controlled.
No one wants to come right out and say it, but the truth is the deck is totally stacked against OJ, and it doesn't look good for him. And maybe in Karma World, he does have it coming... but in the America, justice is supposed to be blind, and for that I would like to see the DA and the courts act accordingly so that if it is me, or you, or one of your family members or Bill Mastro one day in the dock you at least know you will get a fair and impartial trial by a jury of your peers.
Forgive me for being so idealistic as to expect that in the 21st century.
Fine with you not reponding, I have no problem with whatever cards you like and believe you are standing up for your family, however misguided.
O.J. Simpson accuser says he had football star's family heirlooms
Fromong said he called "Inside Edition" shortly after he was allegedly robbed at gunpoint by Simpson and his associates.
Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong's testimony appears to support the defense argument in the robbery-kidnap case.
By Ashley Powers and Harriet Ryan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 17, 2008
LAS VEGAS -- Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong testified today that he considered some of the items taken from him by O.J. Simpson to be the former football star's family heirlooms.
"I believed these items belonged to Mr. Simpson's family," he said. "They should go to his kids."
Full coverage: O.J. Simpson trial Alleged O.J. Simpson robbery victim...Though Fromong estimated the value of the items taken at up to $100,000, he said he and Simpson "could have come to some arrangement" regarding their return.
Fromong was not asked to reconcile this belief with his attempt to sell the items at Palace Station Hotel & Casino, where he was expecting to meet a wealthy buyer. Instead, he was confronted by an angry Simpson and five associates.
Fromong's statements appeared to support the defense argument that Simpson was simply trying to retrieve stolen mementos, including pictures of his children and his late parents, on Sept. 13, 2007. In fact, Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso intimated that Simpson had no use for the Pete Rose baseballs and Joe Montana lithographs taken from the room.
"Has O.J. ever talked to you about what a big Joe Montana fan he is?" Grasso asked this morning.
"He's a Barry Sanders fan," Fromong said, to laughter.
Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence Stewart, 54, are accused of robbing Fromong and another collectibles dealer at gunpoint. They face a dozen charges -- including kidnapping, which carries a potential life sentence.
In his second day of testimony at the robbery-kidnap trial here, Fromong acknowledged trying to sell sports collectibles on eBay by advertising them as "the same as the ones stolen from me" by Simpson. He also admitted phoning the TV show "Inside Edition" shortly after the incident.
"You wanted big money," charged Grasso. Fromong initially denied it, but the attorney confronted him with an audiotape in which he said of his call to the tabloid program, "I told them I want big money."
Simpson's attorneys are expected to accuse multiple witnesses -- including former codefendants now cooperating with the prosecution -- of seeking media attention, book deals and money after the alleged robbery.
Grasso also tried to point out apparent inconsistencies in Fromong's account of the confrontation. Fromong's testimony was cut short Monday after he complained of feeling dizzy and lightheaded.
Fromong had also testified that Simpson and five associates -- two of them carrying guns -- rushed into the hotel room. During the six-minute encounter, Fromong said, Simpson waved an arm up and down while someone yelled "put the gun down."
Under questioning, Fromong admitted that he never mentioned those details during statements to police or in his preliminary hearing testimony.
Fromong also conceded that the initial description he gave police of the perpetrators' race was incorrect. He told a detective all the men accompanying Simpson were African Americans. Two were actually white.
Fromong's turn on the stand also provided additional insight into what prosecutors say is a connection between the alleged robbery and Simpson's attempts to avoid paying a civil judgment.
Simpson was acquitted in the slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995. Two years later, a civil jury ordered him to pay $33.5 million.
"Grasso also tried to point out apparent inconsistencies in Fromong's account of the confrontation. Fromong's testimony was cut short Monday after he complained of feeling dizzy and lightheaded."
I wonder if this would work with my wife next time she confronts me. Why didn't I take out the garbage? Er...Emmm....I feel lightheaded.
Jeff, I think you may be right by virtue of the fact of how lame the prosecution and their witnesses were today. KTLA.com is streaming the trial live and I had it on in the background for a while this afternoon. I think he was feeling dizzy and lightheaded from having his ass handed to him by defense council -- there were a couple Law and Order moments, the only thing missing was the gong-gong and cut to commercial...
I believe it is the judge's call except for the imposition of the death penalty.
Personally, I hope they throw away the key...anything that makes his autograph harder to get so mine goes up in value. What? Don't pretend you didn't sell NASA short the day the Challenger exploded?
Will be interesting to see what the judge does; I mean, he robbed his own stuff from a bunch of lowlifes (like him). How much time does that deserve? Will the judge punish him more because he got away with murder? Or will the judge bend over backwards to give the appearance of fairness by only punishing him for the robbery/kidnapping?
I remember after his murder case thinking, "this is not going to be good for future criminal defendants in America" as every time a defense lawyer made an argument before a jury, the jury would think they were having one put over on them.
This message has been edited by calvindog on Oct 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Barry, there were more counts than breaking into the hotel room, but I
agree with the sentiment. I'd think OJ will be back out while most of us
are still around. But that might take some time...
J Levine doesn't deserve emails and such. Email and fuss with me if you
want to verbally spar.
And for a judge, being appealed is kinda neat, it gives you a chance at
seeing if a higher court thought you got it right or not. Otherwise, it
would be like taking bunches of tests that were never graded. An appeal
gives you a chance to see how you did.
Realistically, it might have been a sly prosecutorial move to try to
leave one black juror on the panel, just to make appeals less problematic.
That wasn't done. Obviously it will be appealed. And the results of that
will take a while. Someone needs to revive this thread when that happens.
Jeff L, add in to your opinion of what happened that he planned with and
organized others to use deadly force to do the 'rob his own stuff', not
exactly the lawful way to go about it.
This message has been edited by Greatwake on Oct 4, 2008 4:11 PM
The 1st degree kidnapping could have a life sentence. The robbery with use
of a deadly weapon charge is quite serious, too.
1: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime
2: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping
3: Conspiracy to Commit Robbery
4: Burglary while in Possession of a Deadly Weapon
5: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
6: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
7: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
8: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
9: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
10: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
11: Coercion with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
12: Coercion with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
From what I've been able to gather just from reading online, OJ is facing a 5 year minimum on one charge and 2 year minimum on another -- with a potential for a life sentence. I'm unsure whether the 5 and 2 year sentences can be run concurrently. Frankly, 5 years is plenty for what he was convicted of in my mind as he really should not be punished at sentencing for killing his wife.
Edited to add: the 5 year minimum reflects the earliest he can be released on parole on the kidnapping with a deadly weapon charge.
This message has been edited by calvindog on Oct 4, 2008 5:15 PM This message has been edited by calvindog on Oct 4, 2008 5:15 PM
Barry, it's hard to imagine that he will anytime soon, however, being away from the general population is very hard on an inmate due to the isolation. Of course, OJ deserves (finally) exactly what he gets.
I think this is a sad day for the justice system in general. Take a minute to think about all the black people in this country who have been executed and locked away forever by all-white juries. All of the lynchings, beatings by police while in custody, and everything else that caused that jury to let him go 13 years ago. Try to see this world through the eyes of a minority and then tell us all how amazing this verdict is.
The DA, the Judge, and the jury are a disgrace.
Shame on the state of Nevada for allowing this farce to proceed in the first place.
This message has been edited by goodyauctions on Oct 4, 2008 6:48 PM
In the end, O.J. Simpson comes up a loser in Vegas By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
38 minutes ago
LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.
He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.
And then, as only the sobs of Simpson's sister broke the silence late Friday, the lights went out.
Court marshals flipped on flashlights and shouted for everyone to stay seated. Only the judge knew what had happened. It was 11 p.m. and the courthouse lights had shut down automatically.
"Timed out," Judge Jackie Glass said in a fitting epitaph for the story of O.J. Simpson, which has long haunted America.
The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering five men a year ago and storming a room at a hotel-casino to seize Simpson sports mementos — including game balls, plaques and photos — from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one said Simpson had asked him to bring a gun.
After the verdict, Simpson, the sports-idol-turned-celebrity-pariah, was handcuffed and led from the room with his co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart. They could spend the rest of their lives in prison.
"There is justice," said attorney Gloria Allred, who has represented the family of his slain ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. "Justice was delayed, but in this case it was not denied. Now that he may spend the rest of his life in prison, the law, and not O.J. Simpson, will have the last word."
Some observers said the Las Vegas case paled in comparison to the "trial of the century" in 1995, a yearlong opus in which Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman.
A rapt nation followed the Los Angeles trial. Tales of a gruesome murder and a bloody glove, as well as the celebrity defendant, drew a media frenzy.
In Las Vegas, Simpson's fate played out in a small courtroom dotted with empty seats. Even the stunning verdict came as most of America slept, oblivious to the irony that Simpson might spend the rest of his life in prison for what most perceived as a petty crime, a tussle among dysfunctional middle-aged men.
Simpson's Las Vegas defense tried to tell the jury that the two cases had nothing to do with each other, but it was a losing battle.
"I don't know that one trial cancels out the other," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, who attended Simpson's murder trial. "People will always be troubled by O.J. For the people troubled by the Los Angeles acquittal, this case will make small amends. Saying finally there is justice, at least from a legal perspective, is very crude way of looking at justice."
She predicted that Stewart, 54, will have a strong chance for reversal on appeal because he was forced to stand trial beside Simpson.
"O.J. was toxic, and he has been toxic since 1994, and this jury was just ready to clean up the mess," Levenson said.
Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter said Saturday he felt bad for Simpson but even worse for Stewart, who got dragged along in a campaign to convict Simpson.
"This was just payback," he said of the verdict. "They were on an agenda."
Galanter and Stewart's lawyers promised to appeal, in part because unlike the predominantly black jury that decided Simpson's murder case, this panel included no African-Americans. Neither Simpson nor Stewart testified.
Simpson friend Tom Scotto, who wept in court, called it "a public lynching."
"Was this something to put someone in jail for the rest of their life for? It's a total injustice. There was no justice served in that courtroom," Scotto said.
It was Scotto's wedding that had brought Simpson to Las Vegas on that fateful week in 2007, and details of wedding plans, flowers, a cake and parties formed an ironic counterpoint to testimony about Simpson gathering up a posse that included two gun-toting men to confront memorabilia dealers who were peddling Simpson's personal property to the highest bidder.
The case was set in motion by Thomas Riccio, a collectibles broker who tried to bring in the FBI when he heard that two memorabilia dealers were planning to sell a trove of Simpson artifacts. Failing to get their attention, he helped set up a "sting" by promoting an anonymous buyer who turned out to be Simpson.
Riccio, who has peddled goods including video of Anna Nicole Smith's breast implant surgery, saw a chance to profit by recording the confrontation between Simpson and collectibles dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong.
He rented a cramped hotel room away from the Las Vegas Strip for the meeting and planted a digital recorder atop an armoire. Riccio then sold the recordings of the six-minute confrontation for $210,000 before turning them over to police eight days later. Although they couldn't be authenticated, the recordings became the heart of the prosecution's case, along with audio recorded by gunman Michael McClinton at two wedding parties.
The recordings were sometimes garbled, but Simpson's voice came through loud and clear: "Don't let nobody out of this room." The words formed the basis of the prosecution's kidnapping charge.
The former football hero also was heard accusing the men of stealing his possessions. His lawyer would argue that Simpson was on a recovery mission to reclaim the artifacts of his life.
But District Attorney David Roger argued that ownership was not a defense to robbery.
Kidnapping is punishable by five years to life in prison. Armed robbery carries a sentence of at least two years behind bars and could bring as much as 30.
Simpson and Stewart were taken to the Clark County jail, where the football star will live in a 7-by-14-foot cell, far removed from his ranch-style home in the lush Miami suburbs. It will be his home until at least Dec. 5, when he and Stewart are scheduled to be sentenced.
Even before the verdict, Simpson appeared resigned that his luck had run out.
He had been prepared for the worst, his lawyer said.
And in a conversation with The Associated Press on Thursday, Simpson implied as much, saying, "I'm afraid that I won't get to go to my kids' college graduations after I managed to get them through college."
I agree that 5 years sounds about right and that O.J. shouldn't be punished for the murders. Nevertheless, a sweet moment for the Browns and Goldmans. Mark
Barry, I have to agree with Dave on this one regarding the claim that 'justice was served' re the Nicole murder. I suspect the fact that everyone hates OJ so much (deservedly so) that we tend to believe that Nicole's murder was avenged here; it wasn't. While I don't shed a tear for OJ, the truth is that it is inconceivable that anyone else but OJ would have been taken to trial in Vegas for what went down especially considering how ridiculous the state's witnesses were.
Dave- I can't read the minds of the jurors and explain why they convicted him. Maybe it was based purely on the facts, maybe it was retribution. I can't even tell you if it was biased or not. I don't know.
And while I understand the social implications of all the years that blacks have suffered in this country, I am also thinking about the Browns and Goldmans who both lost a child. That counts for a lot in my book.
Edited to add my statement was based solely on what the Browns and Goldmans have gone through. In no other way do I feel that the case should have been anything but fairly decided.
This message has been edited by barrysloate on Oct 4, 2008 7:14 PM
Do you believe Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman? He was found not guilty, but that is not the same as innocent. I'm curious how that factors into your statements.
I agree with you about much of what you say regarding minorities, but I believe O.J. is guilty of murdering two people. Therefore, in my opinion, justice will be served if he is "unjustly" sentenced in this case. I hope the system fails him just like it did for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and their respective families.
I respect the opinions of Jeff and others with legal expertise and am actually glad they disagree. Hopefully, all lawyers will disagree with me because they need to evaluate each case on its own merits. I, on the other hand, will have MORE faith in the judicial system if I see more cases where actual justice is served, as opposed to technical justice.
I think the dates of the jury verdict of this Las Vegas case and the California murder trial have the verdicts being returned on October 4th of 1995, and on October 4th of 2008.
That is unfortunate, inasmuch as it smacks of makeup in 2008 for what didn't happen in 1995. Hopefully, whatever happened in Nevada today should be based on what was proven to have happened in Nevada, and have nothing to do with 13 years ago in California.
I don't recall ever hearing if OJ was offered a plea deal similar to the other co-defendants. Jeff, doesnt that make it look like he was a target if all other offered deal so they will turn on him? I agree with the statement that it seems justice might fail OJ like it failed the Browns and Goldmans. I have seen him around enjoying his celebrity status over the last 10 years here in Miami and when the pretty blonde girls want pictures with him, its not because he won the Heisman or set rushing records. He should have been a choir boy for the rest of his life and this never would have happened.
Mike, I suspect it was because OJ was deemed to be the ringleader that he was not offered a cooperation deal to testify against his purported underlings. If that was the case, I don't have a problem with it; however, if he wasn't offered a non-cooperation plea deal that is just unfair. And you're right about his conduct; after getting away with murder you'd think he would have been the most careful, law-abiding guy in the world. Unfortunately, the same bad part of him that led him to kill his wife surfaced again in Vegas. Pitiful.
One thing I find interesting is that oftentimes the very same liberal voices that cry out everytime George Bush pulls an extrajudicial move have no problem voicing their delight over the fact that OJ may have been convicted due to inadmissible, prejudicial matters, i.e., the murder tiral.
This message has been edited by calvindog on Oct 5, 2008 12:17 PM
Jeff you're right about the murder trial of 13 years ago having NOTHING to do with the Vegas trial. At least it should have been a non-factor. And I'd like to think that the attorneys and judge got a jury panel that would discount that, then be vigilant about keeping any reference to it out of the trial.
OJ hasn't gotten life yet. And I doubt if that will be the sentence. Still, you have to figure that after living through the California murder trial, OJ would have been avoiding anything that might land him back in court. It is a mess...
" Simpson's voice came through loud and clear: "Don't let nobody out of this room." "
Reality check: Who here thinks you have the right to bust into a stranger's hotel room and ransack it while you forcibly hold its occupants under your control, and not go to jail for it? What if it happened to you at teh National? Say you bought some cards from a walk-in and later that evening five guys with guns busted into your hotel room and held you while they ransacked it, on the basis that the cards were stolen? You'd be dialing 911 to report an armed robbery the instant they left. Let's also get real about what the heart of the controversy was over. It isn't like they were holding his kids or his wife (Ok, bad example) for ransom in that room; they had some stuff that might have been his. You don't use violence and threats of violence to get your stuff back from someone, only to prevent bodily harm or death to yourself or someone else. Nor did they take the law really into their own hands and make a citizens' arrest on these guys; they just went gangsta on them.
If someone comes to me and tells me that a couple of guys have my stolen stuff in a hotel room, I am on the phone to hotel security and the police, not rounding up a posse of thugs, storming the room, and having my thugs hold them at gunpoint while I ransack their room to retrieve it. If I decide to make that rotten judgment call and go vigilante, I deserve what I get.
Regardless of what you think happened in LA all those years ago, this man was recorded committing a violent assault on strangers in their hotel room.
Adam, agreed. All that being said, however, 5 years of prison time is a fair sentence in my mind for what he did (in Vegas). My problem with the handling of the case has more to do with the bizarre nature of the witnesses and evidence. How often do you see the main piece of evidence -- the purported tape of the incident -- sold to a tabloid TV program before it being given to the police? And how often do you have witnesses heard on tape claiming they'd be willing to change their testimony for money? I guess only in an OJ case....
Jury: O.J. not guilty
A jury in O.J. Simpson's Florida road rage trial found the football legend not guilty of battery and auto burglary in the Dec. 4, 2000, incident.
Just evidencing more bad conduct and decision making that landed him in his current predicament.
Former football great O.J. Simpson was sentenced today to at least 15 years in prison for his role in a confrontation in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007. Simpson told the judge before the sentence was read that did not mean to hurt anyone and did not know he was doing anything illegal. "I didn't mean to steal anything from anybody."
Does anyone think that the Cowboys or Raiders will give OJ a shot at resuming his NFL career when he gets out? That's of course presuming he can get by the commissioner's inevitable suspension.
This message has been edited by kcohen_gaohong on Dec 5, 2008 1:56 PM
Now this is a good example of when a thread can be brought back.
If this was a federal crime, or counted as a 2nd offense, I doubt seriously that OJ gets out in less than half his sentence. My guess is he will do close to 10yrs on it, with time served.
I think I would have a better chance of playing pro football than OJ by the time he gets out...
After getting away with murder, OJ must have thought he was invinceable.
It's a shame really because I have many fond memories of the Juice when he played. My memory is pretty bad but if I recall correctly, OJ was the first athlete that I liked and cheered for who didn't play for my Team.
marty
This message has been edited by martyogelvie on Dec 5, 2008 9:21 PM
I watched the entire sentencing procedure yesterday. The comments by OJ's attorneys, was IMO pathetic. Had OJ found a bit less hubris early on and pled guilty, he wouldn't have been slammed as he was. It became very obvious that the judge had her mind made up regardless of OJ's almost tearful begging for forgiveness. Ever the arrogant, bullet-proof thinking psycho, OJ thought he could get away with just about anything on this planet. He'll now have at least 9 years to think about his recent actions and undoubtedly will ponder the events on Bundy with his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.
I will never, never forget watching the jury verdict with about 30 co-workers from the murder trial. To a man/woman, all the blacks cheered, all the whites were in disbelieve. NO jury on this planet could have reviewed the abundance of evidence in such a short period of time as that jury did. That jury was merely trying to send a message to the "white" community and allowed a murderer to go free and mock the system. If you care to see more about OJ, I would suggest you watch the Geraldo Rivera presentation I think tonight on FoxNews as OJ gleefully drives Geraldo past Gil Garcetti's home in LA and hollers bleeped out seconds long obsenities at his house. OJ then laughingly tells Geraldo, I did this for about 2 years.
OJ is where he belongs, hopefully he never sees freedom again! What is mind-boggling is the fame, fortune, and beautiful family he let slip through his hands...not to mention the ton of good things this man could have done to help God knows how many inner city kids and those less fortunate to reach for the stars. Truly an incredible waste.
I often feel this way also. In the fairness of our system, some get off on techinicalities. However, if one did actually do the crime, you should pay. If you dont, you will never change, and you will likely do it again or similar
Not only that, in the end, YOU WILL PAY. By paying for your crime now, you may live in the long run.
According to the articles I have read today, OJ will not be eligible for parole until he serves 9 years (not 5 or 6) and it appears that he may not make parole the first go round, so I look for him to serve 10 years.
The judge can say all she wants about the murder trial not affecting her decision but that is a joke. She is human and like all of us, I believe it did play a part in sentencing.
I did feel some sympathy for OJ, watching him on tv, but in the words of Baretta, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." They guy was a ticking time bomb and it was just a matter of time before he went off...
He got a proper sentence. Even at the end he could not admit he was wrong. Doing a "yes, but" with a judge is not the way to curry favor, regardless of context. "I am so sorry, I made a terrible decision, I hope you can find it in your heart to show me some mercy here" is about all a judge wants to hear. Ever.
As far as the L.A. case, my colleagues and I all called the not guilty the moment we heard the case was to be tried downtown instead of in Santa Monica. Different (at the time) jury pools; the case was over the moment it became South-Central and East LA's to decide. The result was total payback for the Rodney King verdicts. Unless you lived here, you just have no idea how racially polarized the whole city was at that point. Plus, watching Ito's feckless handling of the courtroom...my favorite was when he sanctioned Cochran $950. The law at the time provided that you did not have to report a sanction to the Bar if it was under $1,000; $950 was a popcorn fart to the $2 million defense--nothing but air.
OJ GOT WHAT WAS COMING TO HIM AND COULD HAVE AVOIDED IT IF HE DIDNT FEEL HE WAS G-DS GIFT TO THE EARTH AND WAS MADE OF TEFLON. HE WILL ADAPT TO PRISON WELL AS HE IS ONE OF THE MOST CHARISMATIC FIGURES AND WILL BE LOVED BY THE FELLOW INMATES. HIS NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY WILL HELP HIM THROUGH THE NEXT DECADE AND HE WILL GET A TON OF LETTERS FROM BEAUTIFUL BLONDES
Considering that he was facing a 5 year minimum and ended up with 9, OJ didn't do too badly. I had set an under/over of 10 years.
In retrospect, I'm not certain whether or not he received a fair trial or sentence; however, I still maintain that had he been anyone but OJ he wouldn't have faced such serious charges for his conduct. In the end, it's very hard to defend yourself when the whole world wants you to fry (case in point: Plaxico Burress. NYC Mayor Bloomberg publicly demanded that he receive 3 1/2 years in prison yet stood silent when former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer received a pass for his criminal behavior).
Plaxico was just a repeat offender who like OJ couldnt walk a straight line. Jeff, I am not sure if you will agree with this analogy but when my 8 year old breaks something her first reaction is it was an accident and I always say to her if you weren't jumping on the sofa, you wouldnt have "accidently" knocked over the vase.
I was talking to a retired DC cop friend who believes that the same situation in
DC would have resulted in a one-year suspended sentence. That may or may not be
the case - I've no idea. OJ's saga seems to defy the axiom that "two wrongs don't
make a right." It appears in OJ's case that two injustices resulted in justice.
Maybe this is the exception that proves the rule.
OJ freshly squeezed---Mike- I don't think OJ will be "loved " by his fellow inmates in the way you think. In fact, he will be in a Nevada state prison and I suspect he will be under constant threat and therefore he will spend a great deal of time alone and considering his free lifestyle beforehand I think prison life will be very hard on him. Prison justice doesn't require a jury.
It sounds like most of the people here are glad OJ is going to prison because he is a black celebrity and is perceived to be guilty of having gotten away with murder of a couple white people.
One has to wonder if you all held similar outrage for Byron De La Beckwith getting away with the murder of Medgar Evers for over 30 years. Did you cheer when he was finally convicted in 1994 after a third trial and having boasted about the committing the murder at a KKK rally?
That's shooting a little low. I will tell you this: any proper-thinking white person is likely ashamed of the Evers incident, with good reason. The majority of our race would not have cheered if De La Beckwith had been found innocent. That's truly a terrible and unfair comparison. For many, this is a celebrity-driven case, not a race-driven one.
Dave,
You are right...you figured out the dirty little secret of this board - aside from containing the occasional vintage baseball card discussion it is also a hotbed of racial hatred. I'm surprised that it took you so long to figure out that other than hunting down obscure caramel card back variations, my second favorite hobby is oppressing minorities.
Your above post is purely inflammatory and a steaming pile of crap.
Talk about a steaming pile of crap... all of the above posts tell the story. A small minority of people cared more about the integrity of our legal system than hoping that OJ goes to jail for the murder charges. As an underscore, there is a headline on Yahoo right now stating, "Goldman family: Simpson prison time is karma for a 'monster'"
Once again, the original question posed was can OJ get a fair trial from an all-white jury? The question has been answered and to top it off most people wanted to see him burn for being found not-guilty at his murder trial in Los Angeles. That sentiment was strongly echoed here. Shovel that Greg.
Dave,
If you're going to fly the "racial discrimination" banner at least find a place where it is justified. There are enough legitimate cases of discrimination out there that for you to waste your energies defending a murderer who had the world on a silver platter and then threw it all away is simply foolish.
You seem obsessed to a ridiculous degree with racial injustices of the past, which would lead you to retard justice in the present by presenting "Get Out of Jail Free" cards and turning every jury into a racial headcount. History does not have a rewind button or a TiVO...nobody can undo lynchings, police beatings, or unfair trials of the past that made a mockery of the word justice. Rather than worrying about what we cannot change we need to worry about what we can, and that means striving to give everyone a fair trial regardless of color and appropriately punishing the guilty.
We are, of course, not all the way to equality yet, and every day there are examples of injustice in our courtrooms whether because of color or lack of means. This is a worthy cause to champion, but by making such an obvious cold blooded killer a poster boy for your cause you do it more harm than good.
This would never have happened if he just let lawyers handle the memorabilia mess from beginning. Even though he was found innocent in the court of law, with his notorierty, I would have kept as far as from any trouble as possible. I guess he thought he must have been invinsible.
"Dave S spewed, It sounds like most of the people here are glad OJ is going to prison because he is a black celebrity and is perceived to be guilty of having gotten away with murder of a couple white people.
One has to wonder if [YOU ALL] all held similar outrage for Byron De La Beckwith getting away with the murder of Medgar Evers for over 30 years. Did you cheer when he was finally convicted in 1994 after a third trial and having boasted about the committing the murder at a KKK rally?
Some things will never change in this country."
Okay, I fell for your trolling; I know you typed 'most' but even that was a poor choice... To label a community, of whom you know nothing about, as racist. Your last statement, IS the epitome of hipocracy. You sir, are without question, the real dinosaur here. Either you've been living under a rock or still wet behind the ears.
Realizing race is still a barrier for some, it's a work in progress... I see more and more white folks sickened by prejudice and speak out against it, when just a few decades ago, "we" just turned a blind eye in fear of being shunned. I suggest you compare recent history with today and perhaps you won't continue to make the mistake of stereotyping the two!
Incidentally, I'm CERTAIN everyone here is repulsed by that monster Beckwith. I'll also add, I understand your passion, but your tone is accusatory and confrontational. When trying to make a point, try a little tact. Those of us that frequent this board know the score and DO give a damn. Stick around, you'll see for yourself. If I appear PO'd, then good. -Steve F
My sincere apologies to all of good people here who take up the cause for truth, justice, and the American way and baseball cards. Especially the BB cards part.
The YOU ALL I was referring to are the people who posted things like:
Anonymous
(Login EricPugh) Re: O.J. on ice September 13 2008, 1:51 PM
i hope he serves many many years in prison. where are all the attornies on this board? would love to hear their opinions on the murderer's outlook now.
Ken McMillan
(Login kmac32) Re: O.J. on ice October 4 2008, 1:30 PM
he deserves life in prison.
If OJ can't get a fair trial in this country, than who can? Ask someone like Jeff Lichtman what it's like for people of color and minorities who are not celebrities who go through the system -- innocent or guilty.
Greg, thank-you for making my point that you are convinced he is a murderer and should not be used as an example of racism in the this country. The guy was found not guilty and you still call him a murderer. Racism is racism regardless of what the person may or may not have done.
Steve, I think you are the naive one who thinks America has made so much progress... regrettably, most of this country is still stuck in the stone-age. I think people have just gotten better about being politcally correct in public and not being a brazen as they used to be.
For one last underscore, please contemplate Judge Jackie's decision to let the guy who pointed a loaded gun at Bruce Fromong walk out of her courtroom with probation along with the others who testified against OJ... She claims the L.A. case had nothing to do with her treatment of OJ. Really?! Than why the huge disparagement in how the defendants were treated?
-------
Luckiest guys in Vegas: Simpson's 4 accomplices
Linda Deutsch, AP Special Correspondent Wed Dec 10, 5:41 am ET AP
O.J. Simpson LAS VEGAS The luckiest guys in Las Vegas this week were four O.J. Simpson accomplices who walked out of court with probation while the former football star sits in prison for his role in an armed confrontation over memorabilia from his past exploits.
Sentencing of the man who wielded a gun during the robbery sparked a courtroom outburst Tuesday from one victim of the hotel room heist who said Michael McClinton should have been sent to prison.
"I'm just very disappointed," said Bruce Fromong, one of the two sports memorabilia dealers robbed by Simpson and the other men. "I agreed completely with probation for the two guys who were just there backing up O.J. But McClinton stood a couple of feet from me with a gun in my face and said, `I'll shoot your (expletive).'"
"Use a gun, go to jail. That's my theory," Fromong said.
The collectibles dealer was ejected from the courthouse during sentencing of four of the men who joined Simpson on Sept. 13, 2007, at a casino hotel room where he confronted Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, who were peddling mementoes of Simpson's career.
"You've got to be kidding me!" Fromong exclaimed after Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass sentenced McClinton to eight years' probation. She suspended a prison term of two to seven years.
The judge told McClinton: "You were the one that had a gun. You were the one that brandished a weapon." But Glass said she considered McClinton's cooperation in testifying and the fact that he had no criminal record in granting him probation.
She handed probation terms of six years to Charles Ehrlich, four years to Walter Alexander and three years to Charles Cashmore.
All three spoke of being lured into the plan by Simpson, who asked for help in retrieving his personal items.
"On that day, everybody was a snake. O.J. Simpson was the snake charmer," said Robert Dennis Rentzer, Alexander's attorney. "The man has charisma. There is something about him that captures individuals and draws them into his circle."
The sentencing was not the end of the seamy saga.
The judge scheduled a Dec. 19 hearing to discuss restitution for articles taken from the hotel room. Fromong has claimed he lost about $150,000 worth of memorabilia, while others have called that figure inflated. Simpson has said the items in the room were stolen from him.
Glass acknowledged the issue is complicated and will require testimony.
Simpson, whose presence dominated the hearing, was 45 miles away in prison, but his lawyer, Gabriel Grasso, attended the sentencing and said his client "has no hard feelings" against the former co-defendants who took deals and testified against him and Clarence "C.J." Stewart.
"You recall the jurors said they disregarded what these guys said on the stand," Grasso said. Jurors said they instead relied on secret recordings of the events and hotel surveillance video.
Attorney Brent Bryson, who represents Stewart, said: "I think he'll be happy for those defendants that they didn't get time. I'm sure he wishes he had been able to negotiate a satisfactory deal for himself early on."
Stewart was the only co-defendant to stand trial with Simpson. He received 7 1/2 to 27 years in prison. Simpson was sentenced to a minimum of nine years and maximum of 33 years.
Simpson's lawyers have said they will launch a vigorous appeal on his behalf and expect to file their notice before Christmas.
It's all about convictions, nothing more. There is no moral compunction about giving away the courthouse to a killer as long as prosecutors get a conviction. I can't tell you how many trials I've been on in which the cooperating witnesses have committed murder and are out free, roaming among the public -- and testifying against defendants not charged with as severe crimes.
I said I was going to stay away from this since I was flamed on my email for nonsense but I need to get a few things off my chest.
First off many people come on here and express their opinions about many things. I have zero problem with that as long as it is thought out and intelligent and not an attack.
Dave...just because someone is found innocent in a court of law does not make that person automatically innocent. The people who still call OJ a murderer are entitled to believe that he is a murderer. It is their belief. True or not. That is their belief. For you to tell them that they are racist because of this is flat wrong. On the flip side, many people believe OJ is innocent. The only person who knows for sure is OJ.
OJ was tried by a jury of his peers. Do you really believe that his peers are poor black men from the South? That is what you imply when you talk about the injustice of Evers.
Dave, I do not know you at all but I hope you are doing more than just whining on a baseball chat board. I belong to several organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center (a civil rights organization that champions civil rights, equal rights, tolerance, and diversity). I am the Diversity Chairperson in my district and I fight very hard for the rights of minorities in my district (we are a district that is now 90% white, affluent, christian), special education students, and others. I give money to every year to the SPLC, the Weisenthal Center, and others. Dave, I am curious when you call me and others a racist how much you are doing to change the world around you. I know Jeff, Adam, and others here who you have called out as racist by lumping all of us together do far more for the American ideal of equality for all than I do.
Are you someone who stands by the side of the road watching a black man being lynched and screams "look, that is racist!" or are you the person who actively stops or prevents these events?
Dave,
What does thinking OJ is guilty of murder have to do with his race? Is your mind so warped that you can't see anything without looking through the prism of race? I don't know you whatsoever and could be wrong but to me you sound like someone who has been educated beyond their intelligence.
Now Dave...you certainly don't know me either, so let me fill you in a little bit. I was recently engaged - it didn't work out but the woman I was engaged to had a young daughter, and this is her:
Must be tough for me to explain at those Klan meetings you seem to think I attend huh?
On the contrary, I would have been proud to call that little girl my daughter and I'm as white as snow - she remains to this day one of the greatest things to ever happen to me. I can guarantee you that had anyone in public ever called her anything but beautiful while she was with me they would not have liked the result.
So Dave...continue on if you must, tilting at your windmills and policing baseball card chat boards for perceived racial slights - just know that nobody is buying your Chicken Little BS because the sky isn't falling here.
Might I suggest a few bird watching or jogging message boards where you can dispense some racial justice?
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1228778168.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t192/SoliDeoGloria_2007/vegas-ad.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n82/Gecklund311/Mari2.jpg)