Verdict is in

[Reckless]

CNN is reporting that the jurors in the OJ case have reached a verdict, but it hasn't been announced yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html

KVBC is saying the verdict should be read shortly.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9123156

[Reckless]

Watch the verdict live: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/ starting "shortly."

[Reckless]

OJ guilty on all counts!! He was taken into custody immediately with no bail. Sentencing is on December 5, 2008.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m140/ImSun/aCapture.jpg

[One2Snoop]

Thanks for the updates Reckless!

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[One2Snoop]

O.J. Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were tried on the following charges and faced these possible penalties in a Sept. 13, 2007, confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel:

-- Two counts of first-degree kidnapping, felony: life in state prison or a definite term of 15 years, depending on the sentencing judge's discretion. Parole eligibility begins after five years. Use of a deadly weapon during a kidnapping can add an additional 1-20 years, depending on the circumstances.

-- Two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, felony: mandatory 2-15 years in prison, plus a possible additional 1-15 years for use of a weapon.

-- Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon: felony, probation or up to 2-15 years.

-- Two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon, felony: probation or up to 2-12 years in prison.

-- Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony: probation or up to 1-6 years.

-- Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, felony: probation or up to 1-6 years.

-- Conspiracy to commit robbery, felony: probation or up to 1-6 years.

-- Conspiracy to commit a crime, gross misdemeanor: probation or up to 1 year in county jail.

Sources: Nevada Revised Statutes, Clark County district attorney's office

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9123156

[Reckless]

Justice at last! Bet the Goldman Family is smiling tonight!
:beer:

[odette]

Jury Finds O.J. Simpson Guilty On All Charges

Former Football Star Faces Up to Life in Prison

. . . . . http://i34.tinypic.com/30j3ccg.jpg
O.J. Simpson is taken into custody after being found guilty on all 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery and conspiracy at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Friday, Oct. 3, 2008. The verdict comes thirteen years to the day after he was acquitted of double murder charges. (AP Photo/Daniel Gluskoter, Pool)

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7577633&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

[odette]

O.J. Simpson, meet the slammer

. . . . . http://i38.tinypic.com/288cf8i.jpg

It was 13 years ago to the day -- since Vegas never sleeps, not even in the courts, O.J.'s latest verdict was read just before 11 p.m. their time Friday -- that Simpson was found not guilty in L.A. County Superior Court in the brutal murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Continued @ Link ...

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/bridget/archives/2008/10/oj-simpson-meet-the-slammer.html

[odette]

Simpson guilty on all charges in robbery trial

. . . http://i37.tinypic.com/11kjh1w.jpg
O.J. Simpson reacts as he is found guilty on all 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery and conspiracy at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Friday, Oct. 3, 2008. The verdict comes thirteen years to the day after he was acquitted of double murder charges. (AP Photo - Daniel Gluskoter, Pool)

Continued @ Link ...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUNgbOr-2bnpFUX0MiII6je2CkRAD93JHU3O0

[odette]

O.J. Simpson convicted of armed robbery-kidnapping

LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson is going to prison.

After a 13-hour deliberation, jurors found Kendall resident Simpson and a co-defendant guilty on all charges, including armed robbery, kidnapping and conspiracy. A Las Vegas judge will mete out their prison sentences in December -- both will serve mandatory time and face life with parole.

. . . .http://i37.tinypic.com/209lthi.jpg
O.J. Simpson speaks with his sister, Carmelita Durio, center, as daughter Arnelle, right, stands in the background following the conclusion of closing arguments Thursday in his trial in Las Vegas. JAE C. HONG POOL

Simpson, 61, showed little emotion as he was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs, his bail immediately remanded. Simpson's sister Carmelita Durio collapsed on the on the courtroom's floor and was attended to by medics.

''I love you, man,'' a visibly distraught Thomas Scotto said as marshals led Simpson out of the courtroom. Scotto, a North Miami Beach auto-shop owner, was Simpson's key defense witness.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/712849.html

[odette]

The law catches up with O.J. Simpson

THIRTEEN years after being cleared of the horrific murder of his ex-wife and her friend in a verdict that shocked the world, the long arm of the law has finally caught up with OJ Simpson.

The 61-year-old American football legend was convicted of robbery and kidnapping today, charges that stemmed from his ill-judged bid to retrieve personal items from two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel room.

. . . . . http://i35.tinypic.com/whazxz.jpg

Now Simpson -- who in the court of public opinion got away with murder at his circus-like trial in Los Angeles in 1995 -- faces years behind bars after being convicted by an all-white jury in the gambling haven known as Sin City.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24446644-5006301,00.html

[odette]

. . . . . . http://i37.tinypic.com/22hj4y.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/law-finally-catches-up-with-oj-simpson/2008/10/04/1223013849047.html

[Johnielee333]

yes, guilty ! oj is going down.

[William Anthony]

The verdict is in and I think the jury rendered the correct verdict in line with the state of the law in Nevada.

[William Anthony]

yes, guilty ! oj is going down.

I understand how you feel
but I think there will be an appeal
how far the appeal will go
I do not know
I guess we wait to see
If the Supreme court will grant certiorari.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***Jury Finds O.J. Simpson Guilty On All Charges
O.J. Simpson is taken into custody after being found guilty on all 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery and conspiracy at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Friday, Oct. 3, 2008. The verdict comes thirteen years to the day after he was acquitted of double murder charges. (AP Photo/Daniel Gluskoter, Pool)

SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RIP RON :rose:
RIP NICOLE :rose:

[soccermom]

:beer:

[William Anthony]

How and why does this verdict do anything to vindicate the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? I think that to suggest it does supports an argument that Simpson did not receive a fair trial based on the charges he faced. I anticipate that there will be a denial that those, who imply such sentiments, were not on the jury. However, such feelings reflect a sentiment that may have been shared by the vast majority to include those jury members.
It is exactly those type of words that may tend to make the verdict suspect but I believe that the jury reached the right verdict on the charges in the instant case based on the law and we should be careful not to dimish the character of their verdict.

[weezer]

''He's extremely upset, extremely emotional,'' said Simpson's Miami attorney, Yale Galanter, adding that the last thing he said to his client was ``good luck.''

ROFLMAO that ole yale -- such a silver tongued devil. LOL

[weezer]

''Whenever you defend someone and they're found guilty it's not happy news,'' Galanter said. ``This is not a happy day for anybody.''

uh - WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tv]

''He's extremely upset, extremely emotional,'' said Simpson's Miami attorney, Yale Galanter, adding that the last thing he said to his client was ``good luck.''

ROFLMAO that ole yale -- such a silver tongued devil. LOL

That kind of sounds like 'see ya' to me. I wonder how Yale got paid? If OJ had to write a book just to feed his kids I don't know how he squeezed out money for Yale.

How about his sister collapsing? At least she can visit him in jail instead of in a cemetery.

[weezer]

That kind of sounds like 'see ya' to me. I wonder how Yale got paid? If OJ had to write a book just to feed his kids I don't know how he squeezed out money for Yale.

How about his sister collapsing? At least she can visit him in jail instead of in a cemetery.

yale rode that horse a long time -- and it looks like he can still squeeze more with the appeals, etc. I've wondered about the payment but figured it was 'under the table' like the rest of orenthal's business dealings. heck, maybe yale and arnelle will end up splitting the house and stuff in florida! :eek::D

I'm betting his sister didn't feel any worse than the Goldmans and Browns did the day orenthal walked the murder charges.

[tv]

yale rode that horse a long time -- and it looks like he can still squeeze more with the appeals, etc. I've wondered about the payment but figured it was 'under the table' like the rest of orenthal's business dealings. heck, maybe yale and arnelle will end up splitting the house and stuff in florida! :eek::D

I'm betting his sister didn't feel any worse than the Goldmans and Browns did the day orenthal walked the murder charges.

She might be riding the gravy train too. I don't remember them collapsing like she did but it was kind of hard to tell with all the hugging and backslapping at the defense table that day.

BTW, is OJ Simpson crying in the picture where he's being handcuffed?

[weezer]

SNIPPED** ". . .BTW, is OJ Simpson crying in the picture where he's being handcuffed? . . ."

LOL -- I was wondering the same thing. I sure hope so.

arnelle appears to be uneffected -- guess it was just another day in the life of orenthal and arnelle.

[tv]

LOL -- I was wondering the same thing. I sure hope so.

arnelle appears to be uneffected -- guess it was just another day in the life of orenthal and arnelle.

Have you noticed how much he and his sister look alike? Put a wig on OJ and you couldn't tell them apart. Just an observation.

Yale said OJ was expecting the verdict but you know he had hope that the old charm would serve him well once again. I bet it's times like this he wishes he had never slipped on those Bruno Maglis that night. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Have you noticed how much he and his sister look alike? Put a wig on OJ and you couldn't tell them apart. Just an observation.

Yale said OJ was expecting the verdict but you know he had hope that the old charm would serve him well once again. I bet it's times like this he wishes he had never slipped on those Bruno Maglis that night. :rolleyes:

where he's going we might get a chance to see him in a wig! ;)

Love the Bruno Maglis sentence! It made me laugh out loud.

I have been wondering about something though. orenthal has been such an obsessive/possessive person -- whether it was people or things. I wonder how he feels knowing that his 'stuff' is out there unprotected.

[tv]

where he's going we might get a chance to see him in a wig! ;)

Love the Bruno Maglis sentence! It made me laugh out loud.

I have been wondering about something though. orenthal has been such an obsessive/possessive person -- whether it was people or things. I wonder how he feels knowing that his 'stuff' is out there unprotected.LOL, you know he hated those ugly-a** shoes! I'd say he's devastated that he's lost control of his life and his stuff but I'm sure Arnelle has her instructions.

I wonder if Fred Goldman has gotten the contents of the storage units yet?

[weezer]

LOL, you know he hated those ugly-a** shoes! I'd say he's devastated that he's lost control of his life and his stuff but I'm sure Arnelle has her instructions.

I wonder if Fred Goldman has gotten the contents of the storage units yet?

judging from the altercation (didn't someone say she 'bonked' his head?) that took place between arnelle and orenthal, he may not be all that comfortable knowing she's got access to his 'stuff'. especially when you consider she's forty and still living off daddy. hey, she may write that book now without orenthal -- now, if karma will only catch up to her, I'll be happy.

[WarmNCozy]

How and why does this verdict do anything to vindicate the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? I think that to suggest it does supports an argument that Simpson did not receive a fair trial based on the charges he faced. I anticipate that there will be a denial that those, who imply such sentiments, were not on the jury. However, such feelings reflect a sentiment that may have been shared by the vast majority to include those jury members.
It is exactly those type of words that may tend to make the verdict suspect but I believe that the jury reached the right verdict on the charges in the instant case based on the law and we should be careful not to dimish the character of their verdict.

I just wonder in retrospect whether OJ feels getting his memorabilia back was worth facing a lifetime in jail. :confused:

[weezer]

I just wonder in retrospect whether OJ feels getting his memorabilia back was worth facing a lifetime in jail. :confused:

I believe orenthal thought that if HE wasn't carrying the gun and if HE didn't carry the boxes out, then HE couldn't be charged with the crime. thank goodness he was dealing with the type of people he surrounded himself with or we wouldn't have had the tapes to prove his involvement.

[William Anthony]

I just wonder in retrospect whether OJ feels getting his memorabilia back was worth facing a lifetime in jail. :confused:

Thank you. I had to give some thought to that question. I think there would be nothing I would stop at, if someone had taken the portrait of my father. I do not know that I would feel the same, if the took memorabilia (from my understanding of the word). I think that there are values placed on objects differently. However, the value placed on people or things we love comes from God's mercy and grace, imho. With that same thought in mind, God teaches us that it is wrong to place any graven image before him and to forgive is divine. Your question has caused me to rethink my position on my father's portrait. They may steal his image but they can never take the love he showed me during that portion of his lifetime i was blessed to share with him and my beloved mother. I am sorry I don't have a portrait of her but can have one made. Thank you again not only for the post but also for the insight. My recognition came during my response.

[WarmNCozy]

Thank you. I had to give some thought to that question. I think there would be nothing I would stop at, if someone had taken the portrait of my father. I do not know that I would feel the same, if the took memorabilia (from my understanding of the word). I think that there are values placed on objects differently. However, the value placed on people or things we love comes from God's mercy and grace, imho. With that same thought in mind, God teaches us that it is wrong to place any graven image before him and to forgive is divine. Your question has caused me to rethink my position on my father's portrait. They may steal his image but they can never take the love he showed me during that portion of his lifetime i was blessed to share with him and my beloved mother. I am sorry I don't have a portrait of her but can have one made. Thank you again not only for the post but also for the insight. My recognition came during my response.

With or without a portrait, your parents images will forever be etched in your heart. God Bless:rose:

[William Anthony]

With or without a portrait, your parents images will forever be etched in your heart. God Bless:rose:

Misty watered colored memories, like the corners of our mind. May God shower you and yours with his love.

[Redmama]

I just wonder in retrospect whether OJ feels getting his memorabilia back was worth facing a lifetime in jail. :confused:

WarmNCozy - that has been exactly what I've been thinking throught this whole trial. Since the way he went about this, doesn't follow my thought process, I have wondered how he could think it would be ok. We all think differently, I understand that, but this is so far away from the way I think it is very difficult for me to understand.

I do truly hope that this trial stood on its own. I know there are alot of people that may/may not believe that it did. Others that were involved were not charged/were given other deals...I think that is how many trials go - they do whatever they can do go after the principal.

My hope is that this what he deserves for this situation - and the sentence will be fair in that way too.

Anything else he deserves will be decided by God, not us.

Redmama

[tv]

I believe orenthal thought that if HE wasn't carrying the gun and if HE didn't carry the boxes out, then HE couldn't be charged with the crime. thank goodness he was dealing with the type of people he surrounded himself with or we wouldn't have had the tapes to prove his involvement.

I don't think for one moment that this was all about family pictures. If there are people that want to think he was doing an unselfish thing and just happened to violate Nevada law in the process then so be it.

[weezer]

I don't think for one moment that this was all about family pictures. If there are people that want to think he was doing an unselfish thing and just happened to violate Nevada law in the process then so be it.

I think it's obvious when you read the transcripts that it was about HIS 'sh*t' -- it's always about what's HIS. I'm of the very strong opinion that if he believed he had stolen stuff out there, he could have reported to the police and/or pursued through civil court. Of course, like the tapes report, he knew the stuff was out there because he had arranged for the stuff to be taken from Rockingham and hidden. Once again, he was after what HE believed belonged to HIM. Thank God this time it was only a robbery. imo

[socaldiva]

What a joyous, beautiful day. Orenthal is once again behind bars where he belongs. I hope he's there for a long, long time :D:beer:

[weezer]

What a joyous, beautiful day. Orenthal is once again behind bars where he belongs. I hope he's there for a long, long time :D:beer:

:beer::beer:

[susie31023]

With or without a portrait, your parents images will forever be etched in your heart. God Bless:rose:

William I will echo WNC's comments. Your memories can never be taken away. I have those of my brother, father and mother and I can see them clearly in my mind even though it has been many, many years since I have had the honor of touching their faces on this earth..Sometimes that is the solace that we get in losing our loved ones.:rose:

[BigBrat]

I could not be happier.
Justice is alive and well in Las Vegas, NV.
If OJ believed his "sh*T" was stolen, he should have alerted LE. But, no he could not ask for their help. He knew the items in question rightly belonged to the Goldman's from the verdict in the civil trial.
Looks like OJ outsmarted himself. Strike up the Band!:hat:

[William Anthony]

WarmNCozy - that has been exactly what I've been thinking throught this whole trial. Since the way he went about this, doesn't follow my thought process, I have wondered how he could think it would be ok. We all think differently, I understand that, but this is so far away from the way I think it is very difficult for me to understand.

I do truly hope that this trial stood on its own. I know there are alot of people that may/may not believe that it did. Others that were involved were not charged/were given other deals...I think that is how many trials go - they do whatever they can do go after the principal.

My hope is that this what he deserves for this situation - and the sentence will be fair in that way too.

Anything else he deserves will be decided by God, not us.

Redmama

I have a tendency to act from my heart and then think with my head. This is why it is said that the lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client. I had to learn to detach myself emotionally from things and do what was best. I think I have relearned that lesson today and it is a shame that Simpson did not learn it sooner. I agree that his true reward and punishment will come from God. However, he will be punished, rightly or wrongly, for breaking man's law.

[William Anthony]

William I will echo WNC's comments. Your memories can never be taken away. I have those of my brother, father and mother and I can see them clearly in my mind even though it has been many, many years since I have had the honor of touching their faces on this earth..Sometimes that is the solace that we get in losing our loved ones.:rose:

It is the joy and peace that comes from realizing that you have been loved and have given love that makes life on earth possible. One of my favorite lines from a song is "in visions that won't erase, I still see your lovely face." I think that love is the key that makes us all eternal. My father is alive in the words that you all speak about him. I know your brother is eternal and that he was a special person by the way you speak of him. I wish that I had the opportunity to have met him. We would do well to attempt to emulate, "For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son..." I pray that all find the love and understanding and the compassion that has been displayed on this board today. Thank you and I apologize for being so long-winded. :)

[odette]

For O.J. Simpson: A different time, place and verdict

. . . . . http://i38.tinypic.com/2yjwjfc.jpg
. . . . . (Daniel Gluskoter, Associated Press)

The verdict in the most recent O.J. Simpson trial came and went in the dark of night in a Las Vegas courtroom. The proceedings may not have been breathlessly awaited, but the outcome still provoked strong emotions through Los Angeles, a city indelibly marked by the first Simpson trial 13 years ago.

This latest verdict was seen by many as a sad epilogue: either Simpson is getting what he deserves or he can't figure out how to stay out of trouble. Or both.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-react5-2008oct05,0,3994405.story

[odette]

Simpson verdict an emotional moment for Goldman family

LAS VEGAS -- The father and sister of Ronald Goldman greeted O.J. Simpson's conviction here on armed robbery and kidnapping charges with tears, laughter and a firm belief that their persistent efforts to collect a civil judgment from the former NFL star paid off, a family spokesman said this morning.

"It was the civil suit that brought him down," the representative quoted Goldman's father, Fred, as saying Saturday morning.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-goldmans5-2008oct05,0,6510122.story

[odette]

OJ Jurors: He Was Guilty In 1995

Almost half of the jurors in OJ Simpson's robbery trial disagreed with his murder acquittal 13 years ago, it has emerged.

Continued @ link ...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/OJ-Simpson-Robbery-Jurors-Believed-He-Was-Guilty-Of-Murder-In-1995-At-The-Trial-Of-The-Century/Article/200810115113497?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Regi on_9&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15113497_OJ_Simpson_Robber y_Jurors_Believed_He_Was_Guilty_Of_Murder_In_1995_ At_The_Trial_Of_The_Century

[odette]

O.J. jury: Verdict no payback

Conviction on 12 felony counts puts Simpson at risk for life term

LAS VEGAS — Was it what he did in a $39-a-night hotel room in Las Vegas last year or what many people think he did on a dark sidewalk in Los Angeles 14 years ago?

A day after a jury convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery, kidnapping and 10 other charges, an attorney for the former NFL star dismissed the guilty finding as "payback" from a largely white jury for Simpson's 1995 murder acquittal.

But jurors insisted that they were focused on the case at hand.

"We went out of our way not to mention that," juror Fred Jones said, referring to Simpson's racially charged "trial of the century" in which a mostly black jury found him not guilty of killing his wife and her friend.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-simpson_suboct05,0,6270053.story

[Super Volcano]

For O.J. Simpson: A different time, place and verdict

. . . . . http://i38.tinypic.com/2yjwjfc.jpg
. . . . . (Daniel Gluskoter, Associated Press)

The verdict in the most recent O.J. Simpson trial came and went in the dark of night in a Las Vegas courtroom. The proceedings may not have been breathlessly awaited, but the outcome still provoked strong emotions through Los Angeles, a city indelibly marked by the first Simpson trial 13 years ago.

This latest verdict was seen by many as a sad epilogue: either Simpson is getting what he deserves or he can't figure out how to stay out of trouble. Or both.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-react5-2008oct05,0,3994405.story

For the Goldman's, and Nicole's family's sake, I am glad they at least got the justice that they have been wanting. After the verdict was read, I was surprised at myself, for feeling sorry for O.J. It was weird to see him sort of go from cocky, and sure of himself, to a broken down man. This was a case that I thought was all wrong, in so many ways. Seemed like a set up, to put him in the slammer. I believed he was guilty 13 years ago, during the murder trial, and he should have gone to prison then. But in this case, I think he was only trying to get his stuff back, and is innocent. Kind of all turned around, topsy turvy with this guy. I feel bad for his poor kids. First they lose their mom, now they are losing their dad. Sad.

[odette]

5 O.J. Simpson jurors disagreed with 1995 acquittal

• Story Highlights
• 11 jurors in O.J. Simpson trial knew about 1995 acquittal on murder charges
• Jury finds Simpson guilty of all counts in 2007 sports memorabilia heist
• Seven jurors said a family member had spent time in jail
• Eleven jurors were white; one Hispanic

(CNN) -- Jury questionnaires released Saturday revealed five of the jurors in O.J. Simpson's Las Vegas, Nevada, robbery trial said they disagreed with the 1995 verdict where he was found not guilty of two murders.

All 12 jurors had previously heard about Simpson and all but one knew about his acquittal 13 years ago in the Los Angeles, California, stabbing deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

One juror said he agreed that Simpson was not guilty while four said they were unsure. Another said she had "no feelings. It is history." One juror did not answer the question.

The nine women and three men on the jury said in the questionnaire they would give Simpson, 61, a fair trial on his latest charges

Continued @ link ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/simpson.jury/?iref=mpstoryview

[Super Volcano]

5 O.J. Simpson jurors disagreed with 1995 acquittal

• Story Highlights
• 11 jurors in O.J. Simpson trial knew about 1995 acquittal on murder charges
• Jury finds Simpson guilty of all counts in 2007 sports memorabilia heist
• Seven jurors said a family member had spent time in jail
• Eleven jurors were white; one Hispanic

(CNN) -- Jury questionnaires released Saturday revealed five of the jurors in O.J. Simpson's Las Vegas, Nevada, robbery trial said they disagreed with the 1995 verdict where he was found not guilty of two murders.

All 12 jurors had previously heard about Simpson and all but one knew about his acquittal 13 years ago in the Los Angeles, California, stabbing deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

One juror said he agreed that Simpson was not guilty while four said they were unsure. Another said she had "no feelings. It is history." One juror did not answer the question.

The nine women and three men on the jury said in the questionnaire they would give Simpson, 61, a fair trial on his latest charges

Continued @ link ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/simpson.jury/?iref=mpstoryview


I just love reading your threads, Odette. You are VERY informative!!!! Thanks for being there for us!!!!!:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:

[odette]

Ron Goldman's dad elated by O.J. Simpson verdict, will squeeze every cent from Juice

. . . . . http://i36.tinypic.com/2weargg.jpg
. . . . . Gluskoter/Pool
. . . . . O.J. Simpson reacts at the reading of his verdict Friday night.

It may be hard to imagine now, but there was a time when O.J. Simpson was the image of success, a sports hero turned actor. Those days, however, are long gone.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/10/04/2008-10-04_ron_goldmans_dad_elated_by_oj_simpson_ve.html

[odette]

I just love reading your threads, Odette. You are VERY informative!!!! Thanks for being there for us!!!!!:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:

Awwww SV .. No thanks necessary but ty!

I have never posted on any forums relating to O.J. Simpson but I have read many books about his previous case and there is no doubt in my mind that he murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. IMO

Regarding this most recent case .. I haven't read much about it at all so really can't comment on it.

[odette]

O.J.'s neighbors unmoved by verdict

With O.J. Simpson moving from his Kendall home to a Nevada prison to face a possible life sentence, South Florida is losing one of its most storied residents -- but few of his neighbors seem heartbroken.

LAS VEGAS -- The O.J. Simpson era in South Florida ended this weekend off the glittering Las Vegas Strip when a judge's clerk repeated the word ''guilty'' 12 times on the 13th anniversary of his double-murder acquittal.

The armed-robbery verdicts -- read while Simpson kept his eyes locked on the jurors -- brought the former football star's sister buckling to the courtroom floor, reduced his best friend to tears and will uproot Simpson from his 4,200-square-foot spread in Kendall to an 8-by-10-foot prison cell in Nevada.

YEARS FOR APPEAL

Simpson's Miami attorney promises an appeal, on grounds that the jury's biases and racial mix were stacked against his client, but that could take two years or longer.

Simpson -- the Hall of Fame running back, airport-dashing Hertz pitchman, comedic actor, sports commentator, murder defendant and, now, convicted felon -- will remain locked up in a Clark County jail until December, when a judge sends the 61-year-old to a state prison, possibly for the rest of his life.

''This isn't justice, this is ridiculous,'' said the best friend, Thomas Scotto, the owner of a North Miami Beach auto shop. He called the verdict "a public lynching.''

Continued @ link ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/713626.html

[odette]

Truth catches O.J. Simpson from behind

It wasn't a sports story on Friday when a jury in a criminal case finally found a punk named O.J. Simpson guilty of something, tried to send him away to jail for a good long time. It was just one of those mob stories where some boss or cheap killer finds out he can't stay a step ahead of the law - the way Simpson once stayed ahead of tacklers - forever.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2008/10/04/2008-10-04_truth_catches_oj_simpson_from_behind.html

[odette]

Juror in Simpson Case Says the Past Was Never Discussed

LAS VEGAS — O. J. Simpson’s lawyers said his convictions on Friday were at least partly the result of juror opinions of his controversial acquittal of a 1994 double murder, but jurors said Saturday that the matter never came up and did not factor in their decision.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05juror.html

[William Anthony]

O.J. jury: Verdict no payback

Conviction on 12 felony counts puts Simpson at risk for life term

LAS VEGAS — Was it what he did in a $39-a-night hotel room in Las Vegas last year or what many people think he did on a dark sidewalk in Los Angeles 14 years ago?

A day after a jury convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery, kidnapping and 10 other charges, an attorney for the former NFL star dismissed the guilty finding as "payback" from a largely white jury for Simpson's 1995 murder acquittal.

But jurors insisted that they were focused on the case at hand.

"We went out of our way not to mention that," juror Fred Jones said, referring to Simpson's racially charged "trial of the century" in which a mostly black jury found him not guilty of killing his wife and her friend.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-simpson_suboct05,0,6270053.story

Things understood don't have to be explained.

[William Anthony]

O.J. jury: Verdict no payback

Conviction on 12 felony counts puts Simpson at risk for life term

LAS VEGAS — Was it what he did in a $39-a-night hotel room in Las Vegas last year or what many people think he did on a dark sidewalk in Los Angeles 14 years ago?

A day after a jury convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery, kidnapping and 10 other charges, an attorney for the former NFL star dismissed the guilty finding as "payback" from a largely white jury for Simpson's 1995 murder acquittal.

But jurors insisted that they were focused on the case at hand.

"We went out of our way not to mention that," juror Fred Jones said, referring to Simpson's racially charged "trial of the century" in which a mostly black jury found him not guilty of killing his wife and her friend.

Continued @ link ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-simpson_suboct05,0,6270053.story

Here is a case, which cites much legal reasoning on the appellate issue of racially discriminatory juries.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/79/case.html

I found this portion of Justice Marshall's opinion very persuasive in which he relied on the argument of a Louisiana case.

"In Duncan v. Louisiana, decided after Swain, the Court concluded that the right to trial by jury in criminal cases was such a fundamental feature of the American system of justice that it was protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 391 U.S. at 391 U. S. 147-158. The Court emphasized that a defendant's right to be tried by a jury of his peers is designed "to prevent oppression by the Government." Id. at 391 U. S. 155, 391 U. S. 156-157. For a jury to perform its intended function as a check on official power, it must be a body drawn from the community. Id. at 391 U. S. 156; Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 316 U. S. 86-88 (1942). By compromising the representative quality of the jury, discriminatory selection procedures make

"juries ready weapons for officials to oppress those accused individuals who by chance are numbered among unpopular or inarticulate minorities."

I do not think that there is any dispute that Simpson was an accused individual numbered among the unpopular.:) Seriously, I do not think there is solid ground for this appeal since it is relatively easy to articulate a race neutral reason for the exclusions but I was not present for the process and the defense may have good grounds for the appeal.

[martin II]

When some prespective jurors said they believe oj got away with murder or was a murderer from the prievious case, Judge glass asked them can you put your feeling aside, juror said yes jusge said ok you in.

[William Anthony]

I have pondered the admissibility of the tapes and found this link.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/877/877.F2d.1083.88-1486.html

It appears that the testimony of others will allow for their admissibility because it was not harmful error to admit them. However, there may be an additional element to this as the tapes were not authenticated, as they could not say they were not doctored.
Since an appellate court can not theoretically judge credibility, that issue may also be moot.

[martin II]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162449

[martin II]

I have pondered the admissibility of the tapes and found this link.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/877/877.F2d.1083.88-1486.html

It appears that the testimony of others will allow for their admissibility because it was not harmful error to admit them. However, there may be an additional element to this as the tapes were not authenticated, as they could not say they were not doctored.
Since an appellate court can not theoretically judge credibility, that issue may also be moot.

You may be correct as appeals court rarely overturn a lower courts ability to
judge credibility.The trying judge rules on credibility unless there was judicial
error. I was not able to keep up with all of judge Glass's rulings.
The defense requested mistrial several times on some issues but i am not sure what that means.

[martin II]

I have pondered the admissibility of the tapes and found this link.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/877/877.F2d.1083.88-1486.html

It appears that the testimony of others will allow for their admissibility because it was not harmful error to admit them. However, there may be an additional element to this as the tapes were not authenticated, as they could not say they were not doctored.
Since an appellate court can not theoretically judge credibility, that issue may also be moot.


If the tapes could not be authenticated by fbi and others, how were they used by the prosecution as evidence.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

If the tapes could not be authenticated by fbi and others, how were they used by the prosecution as evidence.:shrug:

It may have been error to admit them but the standard for not allowing them is harmful error. The court will probably rely on testimony to say there was substantial evidence upon which the jury could rely to find guilt and therefore their admission was not harmful error.

[weezer]

If the tapes could not be authenticated by fbi and others, how were they used by the prosecution as evidence.:shrug:

Two FBI forensic audio experts have testified that they couldn't say whether recordings made in the hotel room had been edited or tampered with.

"The tape is the tape," Riccio said. "It's exactly what happened."

Judge Jackie Glass settled disputes on whether to let the jury hear the recordings while using the police transcripts to help them sift through the noise and chatter with a ruling that the recordings were evidence in the case, but the line-by-line transcriptions of who said what were not. - Sapa-AP

[martin II]

Navada, Florida and Texas are states that this retrieval effort should not have been tried.

[William Anthony]

Was Riccio working for LE?

[socaldiva]

For O.J. Simpson: A different time, place and verdict

. . . . . http://i38.tinypic.com/2yjwjfc.jpg
. . . . . (Daniel Gluskoter, Associated Press)

The verdict in the most recent O.J. Simpson trial came and went in the dark of night in a Las Vegas courtroom. The proceedings may not have been breathlessly awaited, but the outcome still provoked strong emotions through Los Angeles, a city indelibly marked by the first Simpson trial 13 years ago.

This latest verdict was seen by many as a sad epilogue: either Simpson is getting what he deserves or he can't figure out how to stay out of trouble. Or both.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-react5-2008oct05,0,3994405.story

It looks like the smirk has finally been wiped from his face. :tongue: I'm off to the movies & Orenthal is NOT! HAHAHAHAH :seeya:

[martin II]

Two FBI forensic audio experts have testified that they couldn't say whether recordings made in the hotel room had been edited or tampered with.

"The tape is the tape," Riccio said. "It's exactly what happened."

Judge Jackie Glass settled disputes on whether to let the jury hear the recordings while using the police transcripts to help them sift through the noise and chatter with a ruling that the recordings were evidence in the case, but the line-by-line transcriptions of who said what were not. - Sapa-AP

Beadsley testimony
"There are large parts of what was said in the room missing from Rizzios tape.
I cannot verify/agree with that tape because he had it 8 days and sold it for money before le asked him to turn it over"

[martin II]

Was Riccio working for LE?

From th start to the finish it certainly looks that way.

[socaldiva]

I see the conspiracy theorists are up & runnning. Geesh, anytime Orenthal is guilty of something, it must be someone else's faulty. Gimmme a break.....the man is just evil. Period.

[William Anthony]

From th start to the finish it certainly looks that way.

I think you understood that my question was rhetorical. The point being that, absent his working with LE, he may have placed himself in some liability as it relates to the surreptitious tapes.

[martin II]

I am wondering if oj had not been involved and the person going to get his stuff had been james jones a nobody and james had taken the same guys to help him that oj did and Mcclinton and Alexander had pulled out guns, everyone in the room would have been arrested and given 12 charges and be on their way to jail.imo

[William Anthony]

I hope that he finds the faith in God to believe that he can be forgiven and that his burdens will be lightened, regardless of his sins and his current conditions and also the knowledge that some will always see him in a negative light, whether or not he is the murderer, or the degree of abuser they believe him to be, or whether or not he had the intent to commit robbery. In short I pray that God will allow him to know that his condition is temporary caused by his conduct and that he must have faith in order to make the best of the situation.

[martin II]

I think you understood that my question was rhetorical. The point being that, absent his working with LE, he may have placed himself in some liability as it relates to the surreptitious tapes.

Normally he may have had some legal libility for taping everyone including the detectives,but i have seen no idicatuion that the prosecution has any plans to charge him.If there was a conspiricy it seems that Rizzio was the master leader of it as he is the one that rented the room and made sure both groups were brought togeather for the "PLANNED CRIME" to take place.:shrug:

[weezer]

Normally he may have had some legal libility for taping everyone including the detectives,but i have seen no idicatuion that the prosecution has any plans to charge him.If there was a conspiricy it seems that Rizzio was the master leader of it as he is the one that rented the room and made sure both groups were brought togeather for the "PLANNED CRIME" to take place.:shrug:

martin, before you continue to embarrass yourself with this theory, please, please read the transcripts of the tapes while you listen.

[martin II]

I hope that he finds the faith in God to believe that he can be forgiven and that his burdens will be lightened, regardless of his sins and his current conditions and also the knowledge that some will always see him in a negative light, whether or not he is the murderer, or the degree of abuser they believe him to be, or whether or not he had the intent to commit robbery. In short I pray that God will allow him to know that his condition is temporary caused by his conduct and that he must have faith in order to make the best of the situation.

I agree with your statement.
I think it is a sad day when any individual has to spend the remainder of his life in a jail.

martin II

[William Anthony]

Normally he may have had some legal libility for taping everyone including the detectives,but i have seen no idicatuion that the prosecution has any plans to charge him.If there was a conspiricy it seems that Rizzio was the master leader of it as he is the one that rented the room and made sure both groups were brought togeather for the "PLANNED CRIME" to take place.:shrug:

It is my understanding that Nevada decided not to prosecute him in exchange for the tapes. However, there may still remain a civil cause of action for damages related to an invasion of property. The plea deal that he arranged could theoretically be prima facie evidence of his culpability. I do not think he will be able to show that it was negligent intent, since he confessed to intending to sell the tapes. I do not know whether the Goldman's are able to attach that money. In any event, there looms the possibility that we may be again seeing some of these cast of characters. The saga may well continue.

[martin II]

martin, before you continue to embarrass yourself with this theory, please, please read the transcripts of the tapes while you listen.


Weezer

Listen, Posting facts from the case can never be embarrassing.

Has Rizzio been charged with any crime for his taping of everyone without their knowledge?

[martin II]

It is my understanding that Nevada decided not to prosecute him in exchange for the tapes. However, there may still remain a civil cause of action for damages related to an invasion of property. The plea deal that he arranged could theoretically be prima facie evidence of his culpability. I do not think he will be able to show that it was negligent intent, since he confessed to intending to sell the tapes. I do not know whether the Goldman's are able to attach that money. In any event, there looms the possibility that we may be again seeing some of these cast of characters. The saga may well continue.

If the room tape was evidence of a crime why would le have to ask for it and make a deal to get it. What would keep them from taking him in an demanding the tape as evidence.That is how it was used.As evidence of a crime.

[William Anthony]

I agree with your statement.
I think it is a sad day when any individual has to spend the remainder of his life in a jail.

martin II

If Simpson has done nothing more, he has done much to heighten awareness to a myriad of destructive emotions. May we all learn from this tragedy.

[weezer]

Weezer

Listen, Posting facts from the case can never be embarrassing.

Has Rizzio been charged with any crime for his taping of everyone without their knowledge?

but you're not posting facts -- that's all I'm trying to say to you.

why would riccio be charged for taping his own conversation?

[William Anthony]

Riccio should have been a ventriloquist. :)

[martin II]

but you're not posting facts -- that's all I'm trying to say to you.

why would riccio be charged for taping his own conversation?

Weezer
Are you suggesting that Riccio was only taping his own conversations?
Did you hear Riccio utter one word on the hotel room tapes. If so what did he say? Riccio taped everyone including the investigating detectives without their knowledge.

Riccio found the people that had ojs stuff . Told Oj he knew who had his stuff and offered to assist oj in getting his stuff back. He Negoited with Besdsley for about a month in order to arrange the 'SALE' lied about who the buyer was and then arranged for the meetings at the palm hotel. He had already rented the hotel room in his name, parked the sellers in his room and brought that oj crew to the room.
He stood in the corner of the room to watch as his tape maching was running.
He led the 'Conspiracy' he taped everyone and then sold it for money.
So i don't think it is fair to say he was only taping his conversation.imo

[weezer]

Weezer
Are you suggesting that Riccio was only taping his own conversations? yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Did you hear Riccio utter one word on the hotel room tapes. Yes

If so what did he say? hmmm, you STILL have not listened to the tapes have you?

Riccio taped everyone including the investigating detectives without their knowledge. the taped conversation of LE was inadvertent since the tape recorder was left in the room and he was not able to retrieve it. riccio did not sell the part of the tape with LE conversation.

Riccio found the people that had ojs stuff. Told Oj he knew who had his stuff and offered to assist oj in getting his stuff back. He Negoited with Besdsley for about a month in order to arrange the 'SALE' lied about who the buyer was and then arranged for the meetings at the palm hotel. He had already rented the hotel room in his name, parked the sellers in his room and brought that oj crew to the room.
He stood in the corner of the room to watch as his tape maching was running.for goodness sakes martin -- listen/read the audio tapes. orenthal set up the time, place, etc.

He led the 'Conspiracy' he taped everyone and then sold it for money. there was no conspiracy against orenthal. there was a conspiracy by orental against the two dealers -- he also was hoping to catch mike gilbert but alas that didn't work out for him.

So i don't think it is fair to say he was only taping his conversation.imo and, yes, he did tape his conversations.

[martin II]

but you're not posting facts -- that's all I'm trying to say to you.

why would riccio be charged for taping his own conversation?


weezer

I found this on laws on recording devices.

States that require all party consent to a conversation being taped whether an electronic communication system or a personal encounter are, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington State.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_way_of_recording_a_conversation_on_a_ce ll_phone_or_home_phone_without_the_other_party_kno wing

[martin II]

and, yes, he did tape his conversations.

Yes i have listened to the room tapes

I am not going to argue you on this but it is my understanding from Riccios testimony he rented the room at the Palace Station not oj and then informed oj that he had done so.He also told Besdsley where to bring the goods to.
He brought Beadsley and Fumong to the room, helped them set up the stuff then walked down to the lobby and brought oj and the others to the room.
He used his room key to open the door and allowed all to entrer.
If you dissagree it is ok with me.imo:cool:

[weezer]

weezer

I found this on laws on recording devices.

States that require all party consent to a conversation being taped whether an electronic communication system or a personal encounter are, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington State.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_way_of_recording_a_conversation_on_a_ce ll_phone_or_home_phone_without_the_other_party_kno wing

then you should have looked further:

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.650 - Crimes and Punishments

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

Last modified: February 25, 2006

[weezer]

Yes i have listened to the room tapes

I am not going to argue you on this but it is my understanding from Riccios testimony he rented the room at the Palace Station not oj and then informed oj that he had done so.He also told Besdsley where to bring the goods to.
He brought Beadsley and Fumong to the room, helped them set up the stuff then walked down to the lobby and brought oj and the others to the room.
He used his room key to open the door and allowed all to entrer.
If you dissagree it is ok with me.imo:cool:

let me recommend you listen to the tapes from the poolside conversation where orenthal is clearly setting up the robbery. orenthal got his 'boys' together and told riccio how it would be. if you listen to the mcclinton tape (after the robbery) you will hear/read orenthal laughing and talking about the robbery, making fun of riccio and beardsley, and asking mcclinton about the gun.

[William Anthony]

"States that require all party consent to a conversation being taped whether an electronic communication system or a personal encounter are, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington State." Provided from a link by martin II

[weezer]

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.650 - Crimes and Punishments

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

Last modified: February 25, 2006

from the link:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec650

and I'm thinking that trumps WIKI Answers everytime!

[William Anthony]

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

Last modified: February 25, 2006

It matters not that the person doing the taping was engaged in the conversation, unless others were not. Sort of like talking loud and saying nothing except to yourself.

[martin II]

then you should have looked further:

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.650 - Crimes and Punishments

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

Last modified: February 25, 2006

So this means that Riccio the person doing the recording does not have to inform the person or persons he is recording THEM as long as HE KNOWS HE IS DOING THE RECORDING IN YOUR OPINION

[weezer]

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.650 - Crimes and Punishments

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

Last modified: February 25, 2006

from the link:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec650

and I'm thinking that trumps WIKI Answers everytime!

and guess who was part of the conversations? duh, riccio.

[weezer]

So this means that Riccio the person doing the recording does not have to inform the person or persons he is recording THEM as long as HE KNOWS HE IS DOING THE RECORDING IN YOUR OPINION
anyone he is taping as long as he knows he is doing the recording?

not my opinion martin -- Nevada Statute so states.

yep

[weezer]

So this means that Riccio the person doing the recording does not have to inform the person or persons he is recording THEM as long as HE KNOWS HE IS DOING THE RECORDING IN YOUR OPINION

I'm telling you that if you would listen/read the audio tapes, you will see that riccio even talked to orenthal about taping it. orenthal didn't say no --but that doesn't matter -- Nevada statute says riccio could. and, thank goodness, he did.

[martin II]

let me recommend you listen to the tapes from the poolside conversation where orenthal is clearly setting up the robbery. orenthal got his 'boys' together and told riccio how it would be. if you listen to the mcclinton tape (after the robbery) you will hear/read orenthal laughing and talking about the robbery, making fun of riccio and beardsley, and asking mcclinton about the gun.

You seem to be changing the subject again.
MY original concern was about the recording Riccio did of the Palace Station hotel room.

Absent Riccios voice on this recording Now you are trying to switch it to another recording.
I am not interested any more.imo

[odette]

Former Prosecutor Marcia Clark speaks out about O.J. Simpson Verdict

. . . . . http://i34.tinypic.com/33lcfav.jpg (http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/10/66293/)

Entertainment Tonight special correspondent Marcia Clark exclusively tells ET her candid thoughts on O.J. Simpson's recent guilty verdict, saying justice has finally been served.

"I was surprised by the verdict," Marcia admits. "[Simpson] has been getting away with it, so to speak, for a long time."

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/10/66293/

[odette]

O.J. Simpson jurors say secret recordings were key

Seven members of the jury say they didn't rely only on witness testimony.

LAS VEGAS -- In the end, O.J. Simpson did himself in.

Jurors who convicted the football great and his codefendant, Clarence Stewart, of 12 counts each said Sunday that hours of secret recordings convinced them that the men had robbed two memorabilia dealers at gunpoint last year.

Though Simpson's attorneys, for example, said he never saw a weapon or asked anyone to bring one to a Palace Station hotel room, he was secretly taped afterward talking about "the piece."

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oj6-2008oct06,0,2907911.story

[odette]

OJ lonely in jail after conviction

OJ Simpson's lawyer said the disgraced actor and former American football star was being isolated from other prisoners for his own safety while focusing on a motion for new trial and appeal against his conviction for kidnapping and robbery.

Continued @ Link ...

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWh-5KIBtwgqRDQW4ifqFNqeSikg

[odette]

Simpson jurors discounted witness testimony

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Jurors who convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery and kidnapping said Sunday they did not trust witness testimony in the case, and instead relied on audio and video recordings and other documented evidence to convict him.

Jury foreman Paul Connelly said it was perhaps a waste for prosecutors to have given plea deals to several Simpson co-defendants in exchange for their testimony, since the jury did not rely on it.

Juror Michelle Lyons said the jury listened over and over again to the recordings made by collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio and felt they heard things that had not been fully transcribed by police.

But Lyons said the jury felt they could not trust the credibility of the cooperating witnesses who were given plea deals to testify.

"We felt we could not rely on that witness testimony," Lyons said.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=467728

[odette]

Even on ice, O.J. Simpson senses a conspiracy

LAS VEGAS - The Juice can't believe he's bottled up in jail.

O.J. Simpson is in "shock" over his conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping - a verdict that could put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

"I can't believe I'm in here for this nothing incident," he said.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/05/2008-10-05_even_on_ice_oj_simpson_senses_a_conspira.html

[odette]

O.J. Appeal Not Looking Good

A reversal of a conviction must be based on legal error. While the media reports posturing and strong promises from O.J.'s attorney, the reality is grim for Mr. Simpson.

If his strongest claim is that the Judge abused her discretion in allowing jurors who felt that Simpson was guilty of murder in another case, he will have an uphill fight. Each juror that was allowed onto the jury seems to, at least for now, be adamant that his double murder acquittal didn't come up during deliberations, and that it was not a consideration.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.examiner.com/x-813-Law-Practice-Examiner~y2008m10d5-OJ-Appeal-Not-Looking-Good

[odette]

. . . . . http://i34.tinypic.com/t0ixvo.jpg (http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9127932)

[odette]

PALACE STATION ROBBERY: Audiotapes convicted O.J.

Seven Simpson trial jurors explain verdicts, say tapes persuaded them

In a trial marked by a parade of characters on the witness stand, it was the secret audiotapes that ultimately convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery and kidnapping, jurors said Sunday night.

"We honestly felt we could not rely on that witness testimony," juror Michelle Lyons said.

. . . . http://i38.tinypic.com/2j3ia7c.jpg
O.J. Simpson trial juror Sherian Eckart, front, answers questions about Friday's guilty verdicts at a news conference Sunday with six other jurors. They said Simpson's past played no role in their decision to convict him on 12 counts, including armed robbery and kidnapping, in the Sept. 13, 2007, holdup of two sports memorabilia dealers at Palace Station. - Photos by Jason Bean/Review-Journal

Continued @ Link ...

http://media.lvrj.com/images/3040210.jpg

[odette]

Thanks white swan for what you're posting. Good to read.

. . . . http://i33.tinypic.com/f4e5iw.jpg

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

So this means that Riccio the person doing the recording does not have to inform the person or persons he is recording THEM as long as HE KNOWS HE IS DOING THE RECORDING IN YOUR OPINION

I think that opinion is an over expansive interpretation of the statute.

[William Anthony]

If the jury keeps talking they may help the defense in the appeal process. I am sure that the defense is considering filing an appeal based on their statements. While it is the jury's domain to give weight to the evidence, the question now remains whether or not the secretly taped audios should have been admitted without being properly authenticated. I do not think Riccio's word is enough to authenticate the tapes. However, an appellate court may rule differently. Additionally, I do not think that the murder acquittal did not cross the minds of the jurors, however briefly during their deliberations, which did not mean that it played a part in those deliberations. I think that based on the law of Nevada they reached the correct verdict.

[martin II]

O.J. Appeal Not Looking Good

A reversal of a conviction must be based on legal error. While the media reports posturing and strong promises from O.J.'s attorney, the reality is grim for Mr. Simpson.

If his strongest claim is that the Judge abused her discretion in allowing jurors who felt that Simpson was guilty of murder in another case, he will have an uphill fight. Each juror that was allowed onto the jury seems to, at least for now, be adamant that his double murder acquittal didn't come up during deliberations, and that it was not a consideration.

Continued @ Link ...

http://www.examiner.com/x-813-Law-Practice-Examiner~y2008m10d5-OJ-Appeal-Not-Looking-Good

What i am wondering is if the tapes could not be authenticated by prosecution experts (fbi) why were they entered into evidence?
Are the words 'did you bring your piece" enough to answer the question that oj knew there was a gun? Or was it a question?

[William Anthony]

What i am wondering is if the tapes could not be authenticated by prosecution experts (fbi) why were they entered into evidence?
Are the words 'did you bring your piece" enough to answer the question that oj knew there was a gun? Or was it a question?

I don't know enough about Nevada law as to who bears the burden of proof on challenges to the authenticity of that evidence.

[martin II]

I don't know enough about Nevada law as to who bears the burden of proof on challenges to the authenticity of that evidence.

The prosecution has the authority to select normal charges or the most severe charges to charge a defendant with. There are always very severe charges on the law books to choose from. I think they charged oj with the most severe infractions of law to get the results they got.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution has the authority to select normal charges or the most severe charges to charge a defendant with. There are always very severe charges on the law books to choose from. I think they charged oj with the most severe infractions of law to get the results they got.

I agree that is a common practice. However, it is more damaging that all the charges stuck, imho.

[martin II]

I think that opinion is an over expansive interpretation of the statute.

I agree.

Riccio invades the privacy of all people in the room by making a secrete recording without notifying anyone in the room. Riccio tells himself i am recording all conversations and that means he is not invading the privacy of all of the others.hahaha

[tv]

I hope that he finds the faith in God to believe that he can be forgiven and that his burdens will be lightened, regardless of his sins and his current conditions and also the knowledge that some will always see him in a negative light, whether or not he is the murderer, or the degree of abuser they believe him to be, or whether or not he had the intent to commit robbery. In short I pray that God will allow him to know that his condition is temporary caused by his conduct and that he must have faith in order to make the best of the situation.

Why would he seek forgiveness when he doesn't think he's done anything wrong? I agree that his condition has been caused by his conduct...maybe he'll take this time to reflect...or maybe not. I think his current situation is temporary because he'll either be out on appeal or he will get the lightest sentence possible and be out early for good behavior. I see him using his "juice" personality to try to charm everyone in jail.

[martin II]

I agree that is a common practice. However, it is more damaging that all the charges stuck, imho.

My small point is has every armed robber say at a fast food place been charged with multiple charges of kidnapping for every worker also.Or has the charge been simple robbery with a gun with exposure of say 5 years or were these multiple charges reserved for people LIKE oj.IMO

[tv]

I agree with your statement.
I think it is a sad day when any individual has to spend the remainder of his life in a jail.

martin II

Why is it a sad day when ANY individual has to spend their life in jail? Does that mean you don't think anyone should ever receive a life sentence?

[William Anthony]

My small point is has every armed robber say at a fast food place been charged with multiple charges of kidnapping for every worker also.Or has the charge been simple robbery with a gun with exposure of say 5 years or were these multiple charges reserved for people LIKE oj.IMO

I understood your point and I do not think it was a small one. I do not think that the charges would have stuck had it not been Simpson. There has been much commentary on trutv about the jurors' statements and the tapes.

[martin II]

Why would he seek forgiveness when he doesn't think he's done anything wrong? I agree that his condition has been caused by his conduct...maybe he'll take this time to reflect...or maybe not. I think his current situation is temporary because he'll either be out on appeal or he will get the lightest sentence possible and be out early for good behavior. I see him using his "juice" personality to try to charm everyone in jail.

I think everyone in jail will use what they have to survive not just oj.
If he behaves correctly and gets out on good behavior whats wrong with that.

Why do you believe this judge will give him a light sentence?

[William Anthony]

Galanter has enumerated four causes for appeal, detective Caldwell's testimony, the restrictions placed on cross examination, the limitation of juror questions on bias during the voire dire process and the exclusion of Blacks from he jury. I think they have mentioned a motion for a new trial for Stewart.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9128463]Why is it a sad day when ANY individual has to spend their life in jail? Does that mean you don't think anyone should ever receive a life sentence?[/QUOTE

Regardless of who it is and what the crime is i believe it is a sad day that a person has to spend his life locked in a jail.

[William Anthony]

Why would he seek forgiveness when he doesn't think he's done anything wrong? I agree that his condition has been caused by his conduct...maybe he'll take this time to reflect...or maybe not. I think his current situation is temporary because he'll either be out on appeal or he will get the lightest sentence possible and be out early for good behavior. I see him using his "juice" personality to try to charm everyone in jail.

Forgiveness from God is for sin. I do not think there are any among us who will truthfully say that we are without sin. I am not a criminal but I ask God for forgiveness. Whether he charms everyone in jail or not has nothing to do with his loss of liberty or quality of life. That loss of liberty and not being able to contact his family and other loved one as he desires is part of the burden he must undergo and realize that his conduct, be it criminal or not in his mind, is what caused him to be in that position.

[martin II]

I understood your point and I do not think it was a small one. I do not think that the charges would have stuck had it not been Simpson. There has been much commentary on trutv about the jurors' statements and the tapes.

There is much discussion on the same issues on my local tv.Tapes.No blacks on jury. jury comments about guilt of oj.

[William Anthony]

There is much discussion on the same issues on my local tv.Tapes.No blacks on jury. jury comments about guilt of oj.

The Batson challenge may have its strongest argument in the fact that the percentage of Blacks called for jury duty did not reflect the percentage of Blacks in the population.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9128463]Why is it a sad day when ANY individual has to spend their life in jail? Does that mean you don't think anyone should ever receive a life sentence?[/QUOTE

Regardless of who it is and what the crime is i believe it is a sad day that a person has to spend his life locked in a jail.

I look at it differently. I think it's a sad day when anyone is a victim of a crime.

[tv]

Forgiveness from God is for sin. I do not think there are any among us who will truthfully say that we are without sin. I am not a criminal but I ask God for forgiveness. Whether he charms everyone in jail or not has nothing to do with his loss of liberty or quality of life. That loss of liberty and not being able to contact his family and other loved one as he desires is part of the burden he must undergo and realize that his conduct, be it criminal or not in his mind, is what caused him to be in that position.

My point is that to seek forgiveness he has to believe he did something wrong and be sorry for it.

[tv]

There is much discussion on the same issues on my local tv.Tapes.No blacks on jury. jury comments about guilt of oj.

Why did Yale Galanter approve of the jurors during selection?

[William Anthony]

My point is that to seek forgiveness he has to believe he did something wrong and be sorry for it.

I understand your point. My point is that we can be wrong or sin without being a criminal. For instance, I became verbally combative with a coworker. Although I thought I was right in what I said and did nothing criminal, I asked God for forgiveness for my conduct. He may very well reflect and still not think his actions were criminal but his conduct violated God's rules and seek forgiveness.

[Kate Sachel]

I understand your point. My point is that we can be wrong or sin without being a criminal. For instance, I became verbally combative with a coworker. Although I thought I was right in what I said and did nothing criminal, I asked God for forgiveness for my conduct. He may very well reflect and still not think his actions were criminal but his conduct violated God's rules and seek forgiveness.

My personal impression of OJ is that he does not believe that his actions are wrong, let alone criminal.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

How and why does this verdict do anything to vindicate the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? I think that to suggest it does supports an argument that Simpson did not receive a fair trial based on the charges he faced. I anticipate that there will be a denial that those, who imply such sentiments, were not on the jury. However, such feelings reflect a sentiment that may have been shared by the vast majority to include those jury members.
It is exactly those type of words that may tend to make the verdict suspect but I believe that the jury reached the right verdict on the charges in the instant case based on the law and we should be careful not to dimish the character of their verdict.

I think it's fair to say that there are probably people whose thought process works in the manner mentioned above. I find it insulting however that payback is always the theme when it comes to OJ Simpson, regardless the way the pendulum swings.

Only five of the twelve jurors disagreed with his aquittal in 1995, which leaves the majority of the jury believing that the verdict was correct. People are allowed, and actually do have the ability, to focus on one case at a time.

Kate

[William Anthony]

My personal impression of OJ is that he does not believe that his actions are wrong, let alone criminal.

Kate

Which is why I suggested that he may reflect upon his conduct and then seek forgiveness. I think once he faced the charges he knew he had done something wrong. :)

[William Anthony]

I think it's fair to say that there are probably people whose thought process works in the manner mentioned above. I find it insulting however that payback is always the theme when it comes to OJ Simpson, regardless the way the pendulum swings.

Only five of the twelve jurors disagreed with his aquittal in 1995, which leaves the majority of the jury believing that the verdict was correct. People are allowed, and actually do have the ability, to focus on one case at a time.

Kate

I did not mean to imply that the verdict was payback. What I did mean was that there should be no mention of this verdict in some manner as vindicating the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. There were two trials with two verdicts, each standing on its own legs. To suggest that this verdict vindicates the deaths distracts from the validity of the verdict based on the charges and the law, imho. I believe this was the correct verdict to the charges he faced during that trial.

[William Anthony]

Stewart's lawyer is basing part of his appeal on the tapes being played in the issue of severance.

[martin II]

Why did Yale Galanter approve of the jurors during selection?

I think it was the judge that quesitoned these 4-5 jurors on their previous statement about ojs guilt. She asked each if they could put their personal comments aside in this case. Those that said yes, the judge accepted them.imo

[weezer]

I think it's fair to say that there are probably people whose thought process works in the manner mentioned above. I find it insulting however that payback is always the theme when it comes to OJ Simpson, regardless the way the pendulum swings.

Only five of the twelve jurors disagreed with his aquittal in 1995, which leaves the majority of the jury believing that the verdict was correct. People are allowed, and actually do have the ability, to focus on one case at a time.

Kate

I don't believe this was payback -- I don't believe it had to be -- the case fell on its own merits. I think some folks misinterpret the statements about there being some kind of justice for Ron and Nicole because of orenthal's guilty verdict. Personally, I believe in karma and this time karma wore the number 13 and lived in Vegas.

[martin II]

Based on the jury's comments about the prosecutions star witnesses i believe none should have been given pleas and all should have been charged the same if fairness was a issue and oj was not the target.:cool:

[weezer]

Based on the jury's comments about the prosecutions star witnesses i believe none should have been given pleas and all should have been charged the same if fairness was a issue and oj was not the target.:cool:

martin, I'm starting to think you don't respect this jury's decision -- please tell me it ain't so.

[martin II]

I think that any juror that after 13 years still felt so strong about ojs guilt in that 13 year old trial when asked to fill out the current jury form and said he got awaty with murder, etc should have just been dismissed by the judge and the next person added to the pool.They did have more people in the pool.
imo

[William Anthony]

How is being convicted of armed robbery in Nevada vindication of two murders that happened in California?

[martin II]

martin, I'm starting to think you don't respect this jury's decision -- please tell me it ain't so.

weezer

I would go nuts if i concerned myself with what you are starting to believe.

i have stated that the jurys verdict if final unless overturned on appeal. I have not said i dissagree with it.
I believe the jury dealt with what the judge gave them.I don't know if ojs previous trials had anything to do with it as i don't know what was in the jury members minds.

[weezer]

weezer

I would go nuts if i concerned myself with what you are starting to believe.

i have stated that the jurys verdict if final unless overturned on appeal. I have not said i dissagree with it.
I believe the jury dealt with what the judge gave them.I don't know if ojs previous trials had anything to do with it as i don't know what was in the jury members minds.

I bet we can guess what was in their minds: "Hey, that's orenthal saying, "I told CJ to get the boys together." and "Nobody leaves this room." and "You didn't take the gun out in the hall did you?"

[martin II]

I just wonder in retrospect whether OJ feels getting his memorabilia back was worth facing a lifetime in jail. :confused:

Hi lady
Glad to see you dropping in. I have missed your contributions.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't believe this was payback -- I don't believe it had to be -- the case fell on its own merits. I think some folks misinterpret the statements about there being some kind of justice for Ron and Nicole because of orenthal's guilty verdict. Personally, I believe in karma and this time karma wore the number 13 and lived in Vegas.


I don't believe that this is payback either, what I meant is that it seems that whenever something happens involving OJ Simpson there is always someone saying that it's the result of payback and I find it insulting. It's as though can ever stand on it's own merits (as you said) or not stand, there always has to be some hidden agenda.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think that any juror that after 13 years still felt so strong about ojs guilt in that 13 year old trial when asked to fill out the current jury form and said he got awaty with murder, etc should have just been dismissed by the judge and the next person added to the pool.They did have more people in the pool.
imo

We ourselves after thirteen years still feel strongly enough to post on this topic.

I feel that he got away with murder; the question is whether or not I have the capability to recognize that a 1995 criminal trial verdict has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Kate

[Redmama]

Based on the jury's comments about the prosecutions star witnesses i believe none should have been given pleas and all should have been charged the same if fairness was a issue and oj was not the target.:cool:

I have heard of many cases where pleas were offered in order to ensure that the prinipal is convicted of a crime.

[weezer]

I don't believe that this is payback either, what I meant is that it seems that whenever something happens involving OJ Simpson there is always someone saying that it's the result of payback and I find it insulting. It's as though can ever stand on it's own merits (as you said) or not stand, there always has to be some hidden agenda.

Kate

orenthal's defense only works IF there is someone else to blame. that's the story of his life -- from the beating of Nicole to his road rage to the robbery.

hey, did you hear him talk about the road rage on the tapes? lol -- he was mad because the guy was following him honking his horn!

[martin II]

I have heard of many cases where pleas were offered in order to ensure that the prinipal is convicted of a crime.

That is true. Sammy the bull admited to 19 murders on the stand and the prosecution used him to convict J Gotti.The jury believed Sammy.

The prosecution in this case gave away a lot to their witnesses to get their target and the jury did not beleive any of them. which is why i say they should have used the tapes for the conviction of all and charged all of the their witnesses.Who comitted crimes.imo.

[Redmama]

That is true. Sammy the bull admited to 19 murders on the stand and the prosecution used him to convict J Gotti.The jury believed Sammy.

The prosecution in this case gave away a lot to their witnesses to get their target and the jury did not beleive any of them. which is why i say they should have used the tapes for the conviction of all and charged all of the their witnesses.Who comitted crimes.imo.

I agree - unfortunately, hindsight is twenty-twenty.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe that this is payback either, what I meant is that it seems that whenever something happens involving OJ Simpson there is always someone saying that it's the result of payback and I find it insulting. It's as though can ever stand on it's own merits (as you said) or not stand, there always has to be some hidden agenda.

Kate

That is exactly why I warned against such statements about vindication for their deaths, so that no one would make the claim of payback. I think the verdict in the armed robbery case reflects the correct application of the law to the evidence admitted.

[martin II]

I agree - unfortunately, hindsight is twenty-twenty.

It appears that many people never believed that even a smart jury would be able to untangle the selfserving lies of these witnesses and therefore all should have been charged equally.That is everyone but the prosecution.:cool:

[Redmama]

It appears that many people never believed that even a smart jury would be able to untangle the selfserving lies of these witnesses and therefore all should have been charged equally.That is everyone but the prosecution.:cool:

I disagree, from what I know and have learned, this is pretty normal process.

[weezer]

It appears that many people never believed that even a smart jury would be able to untangle the selfserving lies of these witnesses and therefore all should have been charged equally.That is everyone but the prosecution.:cool:

everyone was charged -- two of them decided to roll the dice (pun intended) and lost.

[deicer]

This conviction is bogus. Anyone else in this country doing exactly what O.J. did would have gotten a slap on the wrist. It was obviously a murder conviction. There are so much reasonable doubt it was laughable. If i was on the jury we would still be deliberating, because there is no way anyone could convince me of all 12 counts. (If any) I watched a ton of the trial on tru tv.

[William Anthony]

It took me some time to figure out what it was about the exclusion of the one Black juror from the panel by the prosecution that bothered me, after it was represented that she was excused because of her religious beliefs and they were afraid she would be too forgiving. I have heard of some, who were able to forgive someone after the accused was convicted of killing their loved one. They did not serve on the jury but they were both glad for the conviction and still forgiving. I think this is too great a leap to make that, because someone is taught to forgive, they could not do their duty to uphold the law. I am not sure that this is a valid race neutral reason for exclusion.

[martin II]

It took me some time to figure out what it was about the exclusion of the one Black juror from the panel by the prosecution that bothered me, after it was represented that she was excused because of her religious beliefs and they were afraid she would be too forgiving. I have heard of some, who were able to forgive someone after the accused was convicted of killing their loved one. They did not serve on the jury but they were both glad for the conviction and still forgiving. I think this is too great a leap to make that, because someone is taught to forgive, they could not do their duty to uphold the law. I am not sure that this is a valid race neutral reason for exclusion.

William

When i first hear about the black woman was tossed from the jury because she was religious, i had never heard of this as a reason and i thought the jury would end up all white and with people that thought oj was guilty of murder.

[martin II]

I disagree, from what I know and have learned, this is pretty normal process.

I dissagree with you. I don't believe that most prosecution witnesses are of the low quality of those in this case.imo

[martin II]

everyone was charged -- two of them decided to roll the dice (pun intended) and lost.

The truth in my post was confirmed by the jury after verdict comments.No one had the option to rool any dice as far as i know.

[martin II]

This conviction is bogus. Anyone else in this country doing exactly what O.J. did would have gotten a slap on the wrist. It was obviously a murder conviction. There are so much reasonable doubt it was laughable. If i was on the jury we would still be deliberating, because there is no way anyone could convince me of all 12 counts. (If any) I watched a ton of the trial on tru tv.

There is truth in your comment.

[tv]

There is truth in your comment.

Which part? That there was reasonable doubt or that it was a murder conviction?

[martin II]

When mcclinton and alexander decided at mcclintons house to bring guns,was that a decision these two adults made on their own?Alexander said on the stand that actually he brought his gun because he wanted to have protection for himself. Are they to be held responsible for their individual adult decisions. Did oj force them to make this decision at mcclintons house?

[weezer]

William

When i first hear about the black woman was tossed from the jury because she was religious, i had never heard of this as a reason and i thought the jury would end up all white and with people that thought oj was guilty of murder.

it appears to me that the only people associating orenthal's armed robbery conviction with his double murder trial are the NG's. let me be the first to say to those folks what they said to the G's after orenthal walked free of murder conviction: GET OVER IT.

[tv]

When mcclinton and alexander decided at mcclintons house to bring guns,was that a decision these two adults made on their own?Alexander said on the stand that actually he brought his gun because he wanted to have protection for himself. Are they to be held responsible for their individual adult decisions. Did oj force them to make this decision at mcclintons house?

martin, I just don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. It means that they are all responsible. Tom Riccio can say what he wants but I believe that OJ Simpson knew about the guns but even if he didn't he was the ring leader.

[tv]

it appears to me that the only people associating orenthal's armed robbery conviction with his double murder trial are the NG's. let me be the first to say to those folks what they said to the G's after orenthal walked free of murder conviction: GET OVER IT.

Exactly. It's considered off-limits to say the double murder trial jury was biased but I see now the accusations are starting to fly around about this jury. The two juries are alike in one way -- they both saw a mountain of evidence against Simpson.

[William Anthony]

William

When i first hear about the black woman was tossed from the jury because she was religious, i had never heard of this as a reason and i thought the jury would end up all white and with people that thought oj was guilty of murder.

I still believe there was enough and sufficient evidence to convict Simpson of armed robbery based on the state of the law in Nevada. I am hesitant to say that the all White jury convicted Smpson because they believed he committed murder. What I am saying is that there seemed to be a systematic exclusion of Blacks and that the reason that I have heard for this woman's exclusion may not survive a Batson challenge on appeal. Is the prosecution's position that the jury should not be able to convict and forgive Simpson or that they were not as religious as this woman? I do not know if they excused her for cause or used a preemptory challenge. I simply heard why she was excused. I do not know how a Batson challenge would work on a preemptory exclusion but it may not be a done deal as some would like it to be. My interest is in the fairness of the process.

[martin II]

Which part? That there was reasonable doubt or that it was a murder conviction?

O.J. Simpson walked away from the murder trial of his ex-wife and her friend a free man 13 years ago. But legal experts and others said that case followed Simpson into a Las Vegas courtroom and played a role in his conviction Friday night on kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges


Dr. Philip K. Anthony, a trial consultant from Los Angeles, said even jurors who start out thinking they can be fair or impartial were likely swayed by the negative publicity surrounding Simpson since he was acquitted of murder.

"People cannot help but allow those factors to creep into their decision-making process," said Anthony, who advised the prosecution on jury selection during Simpson's murder trial and later for Ronald Goldman's family during the wrongful-death lawsuit. He has been involved in more than 1,000 civil cases but had no involvement in the latest Simpson case.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/30483134.html

[tv]

O.J. Simpson walked away from the murder trial of his ex-wife and her friend a free man 13 years ago. But legal experts and others said that case followed Simpson into a Las Vegas courtroom and played a role in his conviction Friday night on kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges


Dr. Philip K. Anthony, a trial consultant from Los Angeles, said even jurors who start out thinking they can be fair or impartial were likely swayed by the negative publicity surrounding Simpson since he was acquitted of murder.

"People cannot help but allow those factors to creep into their decision-making process," said Anthony, who advised the prosecution on jury selection during Simpson's murder trial and later for Ronald Goldman's family during the wrongful-death lawsuit. He has been involved in more than 1,000 civil cases but had no involvement in the latest Simpson case.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/30483134.htmlI think he's guilty of the murders but if I had been on this jury I would have bent over backwards to be fair because of my feelings about the criminal trial. I think a lot of people would feel that way.

[William Anthony]

O.J. Simpson walked away from the murder trial of his ex-wife and her friend a free man 13 years ago. But legal experts and others said that case followed Simpson into a Las Vegas courtroom and played a role in his conviction Friday night on kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges


Dr. Philip K. Anthony, a trial consultant from Los Angeles, said even jurors who start out thinking they can be fair or impartial were likely swayed by the negative publicity surrounding Simpson since he was acquitted of murder.

"People cannot help but allow those factors to creep into their decision-making process," said Anthony, who advised the prosecution on jury selection during Simpson's murder trial and later for Ronald Goldman's family during the wrongful-death lawsuit. He has been involved in more than 1,000 civil cases but had no involvement in the latest Simpson case.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/30483134.html

I agree with the Dr.'s position. However, I still believe that, even if it played a part, based on my understanding of the Nevada law, the jury reached the correct conclusion. I do not think that the acquittal was discussed during deliberations and I do not believe that the acquittal did not cross their mind. Out of respect for the jury and the Nevada law, I think that there was evidence to reach the verdict of guilty. The question remains, which Stewart's lawyer, according to my understanding, is pursuing is whether or not those tapes should have been admitted and was there harmful error due to their admission. Galanter was not opposed to their admission, according to my understanding. It will be interesting if Stewart's lawyer wins the appeal. Can Simpson's lawyer then ask for a new trial even though he did not oppose their admission, since the jury has now stated they relied solely, according to my understanding, on the tapes?

[martin II]

martin, I just don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. It means that they are all responsible. Tom Riccio can say what he wants but I believe that OJ Simpson knew about the guns but even if he didn't he was the ring leader.

I understand how consoiracy was used in this case. What i think is that Riccio was the grand leader of this action as oj would have never been at that hotel if not for Riccio schemming to bring both sides togeather and provide a place for the incident to take place. Riccio was the one that brought the whole thing togeather for the purpose of tapping and making money.

When oj asked mcclinton "did you bring your piece"? or something like that, Was that a question or was that saying " did you bring the piece i asked you to bring?"

If oj saw mcclinton with the gun in the room,why would he have to ask him later 'did you bring your piece?":shrug:

[tv]

I understand how consoiracy was used in this case. What i think is that Riccio was the grand leader of this action as oj would have never been at that hotel if not for Riccio schemming to bring both sides togeather and provide a place for the incident to take place. Riccio was the one that brought the whole thing togeather for the purpose of tapping and making money.

When oj asked mcclinton "did you bring your piece"? or something like that, Was that a question or was that saying " did you bring the piece i asked you to bring?"

If oj saw mcclinton with the gun in the room,why would he have to ask him later 'did you bring your piece?":shrug:

martin, maybe OJ Simpson has never heard of "just say NO". No one twisted his arm. He's a grown man and made his own decision just as you say the other guys made theirs. I suppose if Riccio had jumped off the roof Simpson would have jumped off too. ;)

[William Anthony]

Another basis for an appeal is the judge's ruling and the demeanor she displayed to members of the defense, according to the defense. There will be a video of the trial and this may be used to support or deny the defense position, as opposed to reliance upon inanimate transcripts. I would like all trials to be videoed for that reason but am not sure whether the legal community would share my desire.

[martin II]

I agree with the Dr.'s position. However, I still believe that, even if it played a part, based on my understanding of the Nevada law, the jury reached the correct conclusion. I do not think that the acquittal was discussed during deliberations and I do not believe that the acquittal did not cross their mind. Out of respect for the jury and the Nevada law, I think that there was evidence to reach the verdict of guilty. The question remains, which Stewart's lawyer, according to my understanding, is pursuing is whether or not those tapes should have been admitted and was there harmful error due to their admission. Galanter was not opposed to their admission, according to my understanding. It will be interesting if Stewart's lawyer wins the appeal. Can Simpson's lawyer then ask for a new trial even though he did not oppose their admission, since the jury has now stated they relied solely, according to my understanding, on the tapes?


The defense made big arguments about the tapes. and i do remember them'RESERVING' some kind of right about admitting the tapes. Don't know what this means. When the fbi experts could not authenticate the transcrip, judge Glass allowed the jury to use them as a aid. How does that work. Giving the jury something that can not be authenticated even as a aid.

[martin II]

martin, maybe OJ Simpson has never heard of "just say NO". No one twisted his arm. He's a grown man and made his own decision just as you say the other guys made theirs. I suppose if Riccio had jumped off the roof Simpson would have jumped off too. ;)

Did oj force mcclinton and Alexander to bring guns was the focus of my post.
Or did they make this decision on their own.

[martin II]

I think he's guilty of the murders but if I had been on this jury I would have bent over backwards to be fair because of my feelings about the criminal trial. I think a lot of people would feel that way.

I think that the 5 people that stated they believed oj was guilty in the criminal trial should have been dismissed by the judge and replaced by 5 other
potential jurors to avoid obvious bias, with those that had not shown such bias. If this had happened we would not be discussing their statements.imo

[tv]

Did oj force mcclinton and Alexander to bring guns was the focus of my post.
Or did they make this decision on their own.

martin, I get what you're saying but I think most people feel he knew about the guns. IMO, those guys wouldn't have had the nerve to bring guns if they weren't sure it was okay with him. There were other charges besides the gun charges, btw.

[tv]

I think that the 5 people that stated they believed oj was guilty in the criminal trial should have been dismissed by the judge and replaced by 5 other
potential jurors to avoid obvious bias, with those that had not shown such bias. If this had happened we would not be discussing their statements.imo

You mean 5 people that thought he was innocent? That's just as biased. You're the one discussing their statements. The rest of us accept the verdict.

[martin II]

it appears to me that the only people associating orenthal's armed robbery conviction with his double murder trial are the NG's. let me be the first to say to those folks what they said to the G's after orenthal walked free of murder conviction: GET OVER IT.

The basis for dismissing a woman juror because she was religious is what?

[William Anthony]

The defense made big arguments about the tapes. and i do remember them'RESERVING' some kind of right about admitting the tapes. Don't know what this means. When the fbi experts could not authenticate the transcrip, judge Glass allowed the jury to use them as a aid. How does that work. Giving the jury something that can not be authenticated even as a aid.

First, let me say that my own words come back to haunt me as I have talked about Darden not being able to pronounce cumulative. I have always thought that they were called preemptory challenges but they are peremptory challenges and it appears that Darden and I are on equal footing. In any event, to research the issue on the peremptory challenge, I found this from Batson v. Kentucky,

("b) The same equal protection principles as are applied to determine whether there is discrimination in selecting the venire also govern the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike individual jurors from the petit jury. Although a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise [p80] peremptory challenges for any reason, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant. Pp. 88-89.'

I do not know what the judge meant if she said aid. I thought the transcripts were an aid, or, if you will, an exhibit. I do not think the transcripts were admitted into evidence. Exhibits are admitted in to evidence sometimes. It could have been evidence used to aid in their deliberations.

[martin II]

You mean 5 people that thought he was innocent? That's just as biased. You're the one discussing their statements. The rest of us accept the verdict.

NO that is not what i mean. I mean replace those 5 with obvious bias with 5 that had not shown that bias. There were many potential jurors waiting to be questioned. I don't think any potential juror stated bias in favor of oj.
I have stated that the verdict is final unless overturned on appeal and that they made the best decision based on nevada law and what they were allowed to consider. The jury verdict is being discussed by more that people on this forum.imo

[William Anthony]

The defense made big arguments about the tapes. and i do remember them'RESERVING' some kind of right about admitting the tapes. Don't know what this means. When the fbi experts could not authenticate the transcrip, judge Glass allowed the jury to use them as a aid. How does that work. Giving the jury something that can not be authenticated even as a aid.

I remember that Glantar had objected to the use of the tapes during the prosecution's opening, since they had not yet been admitted into evidence. Thanks for making me remember that. I think the judge had no choice but to later admit them, because to not allow them, would have been grounds for a mistrial. This may explain why they were admitted even thought the basis for their admission was weak.

[martin II]

First, let me say that my own words come back to haunt me as I have talked about Darden not being able to pronounce cumulative. I have always thought that they were called preemptory challenges but they are peremptory challenges and it appears that Darden and I are on equal footing. In any event, to research the issue on the peremptory challenge, I found this from Batson v. Kentucky,

("b) The same equal protection principles as are applied to determine whether there is discrimination in selecting the venire also govern the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike individual jurors from the petit jury. Although a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise [p80] peremptory challenges for any reason, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant. Pp. 88-89.'

I do not know what the judge meant if she said aid. I thought the transcripts were an aid, or, if you will, an exhibit. I do not think the transcripts were admitted into evidence. Exhibits are admitted in to evidence sometimes. It could have been evidence used to aid in their deliberations.


The judge told the jury she was giving them the prosecutions transcript as A AID when they listened to the tapes.That they could read the transcript as they listrened to the tapes as a AID in understanding what was said on the tapes. That i have not understood as i had thought that the jury would only be able to use authenticated evidence in their deliberations.:shrug:

[martin II]

I remember that Glantar had objected to the use of the tapes during the prosecution's opening, since they had not yet been admitted into evidence. Thanks for making me remember that. I think the judge had no choice but to later admit them, because to not allow them, would have been grounds for a mistrial. This may explain why they were admitted even thought the basis for their admission was weak.

Galanter objected when the tapes were played but was overuled by the judge.

[martin II]

martin, I get what you're saying but I think most people feel he knew about the guns. IMO, those guys wouldn't have had the nerve to bring guns if they weren't sure it was okay with him. There were other charges besides the gun charges, btw.

Alexander testified that the reason he brought his gun was for his own protection.

The jury said oj asking mcclinton the question about the gun is what convicted him.

[William Anthony]

The judge told the jury she was giving them the prosecutions transcript as A AID when they listened to the tapes.That they could read the transcript as they listrened to the tapes as a AID in understanding what was said on the tapes. That i have not understood as i had thought that the jury would only be able to use authenticated evidence in their deliberations.:shrug:

Was this during deliberations? I do not know whether the prosecution's transcripts were admitted into evidence. The defense made some and added and put things in bold.

[martin II]

martin, I get what you're saying but I think most people feel he knew about the guns. IMO, those guys wouldn't have had the nerve to bring guns if they weren't sure it was okay with him. There were other charges besides the gun charges, btw.

If oj had told mcclinton to slap the hotel waitress would he have done it.

[William Anthony]

Galanter objected when the tapes were played but was overuled by the judge.

I think the judge overruled the objection based on a conditional admission of them based on subsequent authentication.

[tv]

If oj had told mcclinton to slap the hotel waitress would he have done it.

Once again, you're missing the point. I don't expect you to budge on this so have it your way. :)

[martin II]

Was this during deliberations? I do not know whether the prosecution's transcripts were admitted into evidence. The defense made some and added and put things in bold.

I am thinking she told them to use it in deliberations as a aid but not sure.

[Kate Sachel]

I still believe there was enough and sufficient evidence to convict Simpson of armed robbery based on the state of the law in Nevada. I am hesitant to say that the all White jury convicted Smpson because they believed he committed murder. What I am saying is that there seemed to be a systematic exclusion of Blacks and that the reason that I have heard for this woman's exclusion may not survive a Batson challenge on appeal. Is the prosecution's position that the jury should not be able to convict and forgive Simpson or that they were not as religious as this woman? I do not know if they excused her for cause or used a preemptory challenge. I simply heard why she was excused. I do not know how a Batson challenge would work on a preemptory exclusion but it may not be a done deal as some would like it to be. My interest is in the fairness of the process.

Was she excluded because of her race or because it was felt that she could not be relied upon to be fair in that it was felt that her views would not allow her to believe that she had the right to determine a human being's punishment, as some religious beliefs hold that only God has the right to determine such?

If race was the factor then obviously it is a violation considering that the Supreme Court ruled in Batson v Kentucky in 1986 that race could no longer be used in peremptory challenges.

I know nothing regarding this particular woman or why she was excused from duty, but I believe I will take a look to see the reasons given behind her exclusion.

Kate

[a uo god]

O.J. Simpleson did it, now he has to pay for his crime so get over it and stop making excuses, i hope he never see's the light of day again, he should have went to prison thirteen years ago imo, the wheels of justice turn very slow it seems.

[weezer]

If oj had told mcclinton to slap the hotel waitress would he have done it.

oh I don't believe orenthal would have asked anyone else to hit a woman -- as I recall, that's something he likes to do himself. ;)

[William Anthony]

Was she excluded because of her race or because it was felt that she could not be relied upon to be fair in that it was felt that her views would not allow her to believe that she had the right to determine a human being's punishment, as some religious beliefs hold that only God has the right to determine such?

If race was the factor then obviously it is a violation considering that the Supreme Court ruled in Batson v Kentucky in 1986 that race could no longer be used in peremptory challenges.

I know nothing regarding this particular woman or why she was excused from duty, but I believe I will take a look to see the reasons given behind her exclusion.

Kate

I understand and I think that, if a reason was given, it would have been stated that she felt she could not punish anyone. The only reason I heard was because she said that she could forgive Simpson. I will look also.

[William Anthony]

I am thinking she told them to use it in deliberations as a aid but not sure.

I guess the question is were the prosecution's evidence admitted into evidence.

[weezer]

Alexander testified that the reason he brought his gun was for his own protection.

The jury said oj asking mcclinton the question about the gun is what convicted him.

there were 12 jurors -- I doubt seriously that all 12 used exactly the same reasons to convict orenthal. I do believe that orenthal's words planning, his words during, and his words after all helped to convict him.

like you've told me on many times: you need to get over it. orenthal james simpson was found GUILTY. period.

[William Anthony]

The seven jurors that were interviewed said the jury relied on the tapes.

[William Anthony]

Was she excluded because of her race or because it was felt that she could not be relied upon to be fair in that it was felt that her views would not allow her to believe that she had the right to determine a human being's punishment, as some religious beliefs hold that only God has the right to determine such?

If race was the factor then obviously it is a violation considering that the Supreme Court ruled in Batson v Kentucky in 1986 that race could no longer be used in peremptory challenges.

I know nothing regarding this particular woman or why she was excused from duty, but I believe I will take a look to see the reasons given behind her exclusion.

Kate

It seems there were two Black women excused and this is what I found for the reasons. Both seem to me weak reasons to excuse a juror.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421361,00.html

The fact that one is hesitant does not mean that they wouldn't, imho. I think all jurors should be hesitant until the prosecution has met its burden of proof.

[Kate Sachel]

It seems there were two Black women excused and this is what I found for the reasons. Both seem to me weak reasons to excuse a juror.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421361,00.html

The fact that one is hesitant does not mean that they wouldn't, imho. I think all jurors should be hesitant until the prosecution has met its burden of proof.

Thank you for the link.

While those reasons may appear to be weak, they are nonetheless legal in exercising peremptory challenges. I am curious if that is the only statement given by the prosecuting attorney or if a more in depth reason was given and this is only a small summary of the scenario.

Regardless, it would be unfair to assume that a defense attorney does not use peremptory challenges in the same manner in which prosecutors do. We are all aware that each side seeks jurors that they feel are predisposed to work in their favor.

Kate

[martin II]

there were 12 jurors -- I doubt seriously that all 12 used exactly the same reasons to convict orenthal. I do believe that orenthal's words planning, his words during, and his words after all helped to convict him.

like you've told me on many times: you need to get over it. orenthal james simpson was found GUILTY. period.

Are you suggesting that there should be no discussion on the case?

[William Anthony]

O.J. Simpleson did it, now he has to pay for his crime so get over it and stop making excuses, i hope he never see's the light of day again, he should have went to prison thirteen years ago imo, the wheels of justice turn very slow it seems.

A very enlightening post. I don't think anyone is making excuses but there are some of us that want to make sure that no matter how slowly the wheels of justice go round they will go around fairly. That encompasses such things as procedural and substantive due process. Simpson's trial, like every other trial, should be closely scrutinized, so that others, who may not know of those guarantees, are protected.

[martin II]

One man's angry outburst against Simpson led to a defense motion to dismiss the entire jury pool because everyone had heard it. But the judge refused.



The man, who had been waiting for three days to have his say, blurted out a comment that stunned the courtroom.

"I feel the case down in Los Angeles — if someone got away with that, you would keep yourself clean and you wouldn't come back and commit another crime," he said.

The judge quickly dismissed him and asked other jurors to disregard his words. She told them they would have to put aside negative feelings about Simpson's murder acquittal.

"Conversely, if you are a super O.J. fan and think Mr. Simpson is the best thing that ever happened in football, can you set that aside?" she said.

[weezer]

Are you suggesting that there should be no discussion on the case?

oh by no means do I think there should not be discussion of this case. in fact, I've been trying to figure out how to record the verdict reading of GUILTY just so I can play it on the hour. :D

[William Anthony]

Thank you for the link.

While those reasons may appear to be weak, they are nonetheless legal in exercising peremptory challenges. I am curious if that is the only statement given by the prosecuting attorney or if a more in depth reason was given and this is only a small summary of the scenario.

Regardless, it would be unfair to assume that a defense attorney does not use peremptory challenges in the same manner in which prosecutors do. We are all aware that each side seeks jurors that they feel are predisposed to work in their favor.

Kate

You are welcome. That was not my point as to the use of peremptory challenges being a valid exercise in the judicial process. I think we know why the Batson case came about in the historical sense and why the Supreme Court granted certiorari. With that in mind, the safeguards placed in Batson were designed to eradicate such excuses. I don't think that either presents a sufficient showing of bias on the part of the women to warrant exclusion based on the comments I was able to locate. I am sure that there will be more in depth statements made in opposition to the appeal. However, I think that the more germane statements are those made at or near the time of the exclusion.

I know that the judge stated that there was no showing that there was discriminatory exclusion and I am unaware of how to find the statements made during argument. I could find nothing on the jurors' particular religious denominations or whether or not their denominations believed that punishment by mankind was not permitted. I think, if that was the case, they would have so stated and been excused without questions, or simply asked to state their religious denominations. If religions are based on the Bible, then it is said in the Bible that vengeance is mine so saith the Lord. That would disqualify all Christians. I am sure you are aware that the theoretical purposes of legal punishment are protection of society, deterrence and rehabilitation. I think a proper question would have been to ask those women if they could separate those concepts from the concept of vengeance. They would be good grounds to exercise an exclusion for cause or a peremptory challenge based on the answer.

I think I would like to argue that appeal, if these are the only reasons given for the exclusion.

[William Anthony]

Try a dvd recorder. :)

[martin II]

A lawyer for Simpson co-defendant Clarence "C.J" Stewart raised the issue of race, arguing that the predominantly white Las Vegas jury pool had too few blacks to fairly deliberate the fate of the two black defendants.

"It is not representative of the county, in terms of a jury of your peers," Charles D. Jones, a former Louisiana state legislator, said before Glass rejected his request to dip deeper into the jury pool to enlist more black jurors.

The discussion happened outside the presence of the jury prospects. Jones argued that blacks make up about 10.2 percent of the population of Clark County, including Las Vegas. But he maintained that only about 5 percent of the 248 jurors remaining going into Monday were black.

[martin II]

Try a dvd recorder. :)

One could video ones self and pretend to be the judge.

[William Anthony]

Could this be the reason for the exclusions?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683610

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694226

[weezer]

One could video ones self and pretend to be the judge.

hmmmm, maybe -- naw. it just wouldn't be the same.

[martin II]

How did Riccio retreive his tape recorder from the top of the closet when the room was a sealed crime scene?

[WarmNCozy]

It seems there were two Black women excused and this is what I found for the reasons. Both seem to me weak reasons to excuse a juror.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421361,00.html

The fact that one is hesitant does not mean that they wouldn't, imho. I think all jurors should be hesitant until the prosecution has met its burden of proof.

I'm going to agree with you William. (bold/italics) And where does being religious play a part in this case. Were the jurors all atheists? JMO

[martin II]

hmmmm, maybe -- naw. it just wouldn't be the same.
I don't think it has to be real or factual for you to believe and enjoy.:cool:

[weezer]

I don't think it has to be real or factual for you to believe and enjoy.:cool:

oh but the fact that it is real and it is factual, makes it all the sweeter.

GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

[Kate Sachel]

Could this be the reason for the exclusions?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683610

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694226

I seriously doubt it.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm going to agree with you William. (bold/italics) And where does being religious play a part in this case. Were the jurors all atheists? JMO

Thank you. I thought you would see the broader implications. There seems to be an attack made on just more than being Black. Is Christianity different for Blacks and Whites? Were all jurors asked if they were religious and, if not, why not?

[martin II]

If the original demand to report for jury duty went to 400 people and only 50 blacks were included, what does this say about how the original demand was targeted. BY neighborhood?

[martin II]

Thank you. I thought you would see the broader implications. There seems to be an attack made on just more than being Black. Is Christianity different for Blacks and Whites? Were all jurors asked if they were religious and, if not, why not?

The media demanded that the judge release the jury questionair to the media/public.She refused.

[William Anthony]

I seriously doubt it.

Kate

I do not think it is unreasonable based on the notion that both sides want jurors that are favorable to their position to systematically exclude Blacks from a jury in a trial with two Black defendant's in a city having racial tensions, if you are the prosecution. Nor do I believe that the defense would not want as many Black jurors as possible in such a city and trial.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm going to agree with you William. (bold/italics) And where does being religious play a part in this case. Were the jurors all atheists? JMO

I don't believe it's been determined that it did.

The question at hand for me is, are you able to be fair on a jury if your belief is that you are not allowed to decide punishment of a human being because you believe that God is the only power holding the right to determine such.

If I believe that I cannot decide punishment, then I am more than likely going to aquit based on that belief even if I believe that the prosecution has proven its case and that makes me automatically biased and as such should mean that I have no place on a jury.

Kate

[martin II]

Thank you. I thought you would see the broader implications. There seems to be an attack made on just more than being Black. Is Christianity different for Blacks and Whites? Were all jurors asked if they were religious and, if not, why not?

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to dismiss a juror because of religion.

[weezer]

I don't believe it's been determined that it did.

The question at hand for me is, are you able to be fair on a jury if your belief is that you are not allowed to decide punishment of a human being because you believe that God is the only power holding the right to determine such.

If I believe that I cannot decide punishment, then I am more than likely going to aquit based on that belief even if I believe that the prosecution has proven its case and that makes me automatically biased and as such should mean that I have no place on a jury.

Kate

excellent!

[martin II]

One juror that stated that oj got away with murder was asked by the judge if she could put her belief aside. She said she did not know, when told by the judge that she was looking for people that could do this. The juror said she would try.she was accepted by the judge. Sound like she was hesitant also.

[William Anthony]

The media demanded that the judge release the jury questionair to the media/public.She refused.

I think they can be redacted for confidentiality and released, even though some of the jurors are on video.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe it's been determined that it did.

The question at hand for me is, are you able to be fair on a jury if your belief is that you are not allowed to decide punishment of a human being because you believe that God is the only power holding the right to determine such.

If I believe that I cannot decide punishment, then I am more than likely going to aquit based on that belief even if I believe that the prosecution has proven its case and that makes me automatically biased and as such should mean that I have no place on a jury.

Kate

You are reading a lot more into things than what has been reported as said. One said she could forgive Simpson and the other said she would be hesitant to send anyone to prison. The latter is a perfect example of the presumption of innocence and she never said she would not. There has been no report from anyone stating that they could not punish an accused.

[William Anthony]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to dismiss a juror because of religion.

I am not quite sure about that.

[Kate Sachel]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to dismiss a juror because of religion.

No, peremptory challenges based on religion have not been held unconstitutional.

Kate

[William Anthony]

No, peremptory challenges based on religion have not been held unconstitutional.

Kate

That is correct. The Supreme Court to my knowledge has not decided to answer that question. However, it is held that in California a juror can be excused because of religious beliefs. However, most religions believe in forgiveness and punishment. Without a sufficient showing of a potential bias, particularly as it relates to Blacks, then the race neutral excuse may not prevail. When you place the disproportionate selection of the jury from the population in connection wiith the reasons given for an exclusion there is a solid reason to believe that jurrors were systematically excused because of race, imho.

Here is the case I found on California law.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:iFmCuydWQXgJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a077646.doc+case+law+on+juror+exclusion+based+on+r eligion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[WarmNCozy]

I don't believe it's been determined that it did.

The question at hand for me is, are you able to be fair on a jury if your belief is that you are not allowed to decide punishment of a human being because you believe that God is the only power holding the right to determine such.

If I believe that I cannot decide punishment, then I am more than likely going to aquit based on that belief even if I believe that the prosecution has proven its case and that makes me automatically biased and as such should mean that I have no place on a jury.

Kate

In all my 66 years, I have been called to stand by for jury selection only once. The case was settled and I wasn't needed. That was ten years ago and I have never been called since.

I have no idea what questions are asked or if they are asked to swear on a bible before answering the questions. After all, they could say one thing and do another. JMHO

[Kate Sachel]

You are reading a lot more into things than what has been reported as said. One said she could forgive Simpson and the other said she would be hesitant to send anyone to prison. The latter is a perfect example of the presumption of innocence and she never said she would not. There has been no report from anyone stating that they could not punish an accused.

Please review the previous postings. After your comments regarding race and religion I asked;

Was she excluded because of her race or because it was felt that she could not be relied upon to be fair in that it was felt that her views would not allow her to believe that she had the right to determine a human being's punishment, as some religious beliefs hold that only God has the right to determine such?

You then responded with;

I understand and I think that, if a reason was given, it would have been stated that she felt she could not punish anyone.

I am clearly continuing the very discussion that you claimed to understand, and am further discussing how religious beliefs may play into being biased. I apologize if you do not understand the relevancy.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

In all my 66 years, I have been called to stand by for jury selection only once. The case was settled and I wasn't needed. That was ten years ago and I have never been called since.

I have no idea what questions are asked or if they are asked to swear on a bible before answering the questions. After all, they could say one thing and do another. JMHO

You are correct, people can and do lie in an effort to be selected for particular jury duty.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't believe it's been determined that it did.

The question at hand for me is, are you able to be fair on a jury if your belief is that you are not allowed to decide punishment of a human being because you believe that God is the only power holding the right to determine such.

If I believe that I cannot decide punishment, then I am more than likely going to aquit based on that belief even if I believe that the prosecution has proven its case and that makes me automatically biased and as such should mean that I have no place on a jury.

Kate

Was the question could they decide to punish a person if the evidence showed guilt asked of the jurors?

[William Anthony]

Please review the previous postings. After your comments regarding race and religion I asked;

Was she excluded because of her race or because it was felt that she could not be relied upon to be fair in that it was felt that her views would not allow her to believe that she had the right to determine a human being's punishment, as some religious beliefs hold that only God has the right to determine such?

You then responded with;

I understand and I think that, if a reason was given, it would have been stated that she felt she could not punish anyone.

I am clearly continuing the very discussion that you claimed to understand, and am further discussing how religious beliefs may play into being biased. I apologize if you do not understand the relevancy.

Kate

The discussion began with the race neutral requirements of Batson and whether of not under the circumstances based on what was reported as having been said was enough to satisfy the Batson requirements. You then added what you thought that the prosecution may have been thinking. That is irrelevant as the law is explicit in that the prosecution must "articulate" a race neutral reason. I do not think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. I understand both your position and the law. In short, I think that, if these are the only reasons given by the prosecution, I think there is solid grounds for appeal under Batson.

[William Anthony]

You are correct, people can and do lie in an effort to be selected for particular jury duty.

Kate

Some lie to avoid jury duty, although I will agree that these jurors selected may have had a particular reason to want to be selected.

[William Anthony]

I'm going to agree with you William. (bold/italics) And where does being religious play a part in this case. Were the jurors all atheists? JMO

Here is an interesting link on how clergy have been excused and it also shows the difference in the application based on race.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D6133AF930A25753C1A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

[Kate Sachel]

The discussion began with the race neutral requirements of Batson and whether of not under the circumstances based on what was reported as having been said was enough to satisfy the Batson requirements. You then added what you thought that the prosecution may have been thinking. That is irrelevant as the law is explicit in that the prosecution must "articulate" a race neutral reason. I do not think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. I understand both your position and the law. In short, I think that, if these are the only reasons given by the prosecution, I think there is solid grounds for appeal under Batson.

For the record, at the onset of the discussion we were not yet aware of what the excused jurors had said if you so kindly will recall. Furthermore, I believe we can be certain that simple juror quotes in the link that you provided does not provide for the entirety of the jurors and/or prosecutors comments and, as such, I am suprised that you so confidently make the statement that you don't think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. Do you even really know what was articulated? If so, can you share it with us?

I don't doubt that you understand the law to a degree, but I'm beginning to doubt how much you understand peremptory challenges and the fact that what the prosecutor may have been thinking is, in fact, quite relevant when a potential juror is questioned.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

Here is an interesting link on how clergy have been excused and it also shows the difference in the application based on race.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D6133AF930A25753C1A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Interesting! And how many people have faith just as strong as the clergy are sitting jurors?

So, IMHO, for me to be the perfect juror I would have to believe in the death penalty (Florida has the DP), be agnostic or an atheist & completely objective, and white. Right?

[William Anthony]

For the record, at the onset of the discussion we were not yet aware of what the excused jurors had said if you so kindly will recall. Furthermore, I believe we can be certain that simple juror quotes in the link that you provided does not provide for the entirety of the jurors and/or prosecutors comments and, as such, I am suprised that you so confidently make the statement that you don't think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. Do you even really know what was articulated? If so, can you share it with us?

I don't doubt that you understand the law to a degree, but I'm beginning to doubt how much you understand peremptory challenges and the fact that what the prosecutor may have been thinking is, in fact, quite relevant when a potential juror is questioned.

Kate

You seem to be overlooking certain things, such as my statement, "In short, I think that, if these are the only reasons given by the prosecution, I think there is solid grounds for appeal under Batson." My statement was based on the best evidence rule, which I am sure you understand to a degree. If you have any other evidence of anything else being said that supports what you think is in the prosecution's mind, then I respectfully, cordially and kindly ask that you share.

I am not sure of which professor you speak. However, in the last link I supplied it is indicated that the clergyman excuse is used more toward Blacks than Whites, which was one of the questions I asked, whether there is a difference between White and Black Christianity. The link I supplied also noted that the argument that a teacher should be struck because teachers tend to be liberal was not valid. I think this is analogous to the religious argument. I don't doubt that you understand the Batson challenge to a degree but can fully appreciate its value or applicable standard.

[William Anthony]

Interesting! And how many people have faith just as strong as the clergy are sitting jurors?

So, IMHO, for me to be the perfect juror I would have to believe in the death penalty (Florida has the DP), be agnostic or an atheist & completely objective, and white. Right?

Not everyone who wears a pastoral robe has faith. Beware of false prophets.

and pro prosecution. :)

[weezer]

the prosecution had and exercised the right to challenge potential jurors -- as did the defense.

[William Anthony]

The defense noted its objections to the particular selection of these jurors and, in so doing, preserved the issue for appeal, which is the subject of the ongoing discussion.

[WarmNCozy]

I googled and came up with this:

Jury of One's Peers Definition
a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal. " This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

http://www.bestonlinedictionary.com/...definition.htm

What "broad spectrum of the population" was on OJ's jury?

[Kate Sachel]

You seem to be overlooking certain things, such as my statement, "In short, I think that, if these are the only reasons given by the prosecution, I think there is solid grounds for appeal under Batson." My statement was based on the best evidence rule, which I am sure you understand to a degree. If you have any other evidence of anything else being said that supports what you think is in the prosecution's mind, then I respectfully, cordially and kindly ask that you share.

I am not sure of which professor you speak. However, in the last link I supplied it is indicated that the clergyman excuse is used more toward Blacks than Whites, which was one of the questions I asked, whether there is a difference between White and Black Christianity. The link I supplied also noted that the argument that a teacher should be struck because teachers tend to be liberal was not valid. I think this is analogous to the religious argument. I don't doubt that you understand the Batson challenge to a degree but can fully appreciate its value or applicable standard.

I understand the "best evidence rule" quite clearly as a matter of fact, it is rule number 1002 in the Federal Rules of Evidence. What I am unclear on is how you feel that relates to the topic of the jury pool at hand.

You first made the statement that you did not think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. I expressed, and continue to express, surprise that you would make that statement considering that we are not certain the full extent of what was articulated. Regardless of your add-on at the end, you made that statement and I responded to that statement accordingly.

It's not a matter of having evidence that supports what I think may be in the prosecution's mind; it is a matter of the fact that what is in a prosecutor's mind at the time of jury selection is quite relevant.

As to your final paragraph, what do you mean by "I am not sure of which professor you speak"?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I googled and came up with this:

Jury of One's Peers Definition
a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal. " This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

http://www.bestonlinedictionary.com/...definition.htm

What "broad spectrum of the population" was on OJ's jury?

Those that could not give forgiveness or hesitate to send someone to prison. I reiterate that based on the law I think the right verdict was reached. However, there may have been a violation of his procedural due process rights.

[WarmNCozy]

Those that could not give forgiveness or hesitate to send someone to prison. I reiterate that based on the law I think the right verdict was reached. However, there may have been a violation of his procedural due process rights.

I'm not sure of the "kidnapping" charges.

[weezer]

soooooooo, orenthal should have been judged by 12 NFL football players who beat their wives, stole cable, were charged with road rage, wrote a book about how they killed their ex-wife, didn't pay their bills, and had been accused of murdering two people? okay.

[WarmNCozy]

soooooooo, orenthal should have been judged by 12 NFL football players who beat their wives, stole cable, were charged with road rage, wrote a book about how they killed their ex-wife, didn't pay their bills, and had been accused of murdering two people? okay.

This is silly! 12 NFL football players would NOT fit the Jury of One's Peers definition.

No crime in writing a book. and being accused of murder does not make it so.

[William Anthony]

I understand the "best evidence rule" quite clearly as a matter of fact, it is rule number 1002 in the Federal Rules of Evidence. What I am unclear on is how you feel that relates to the topic of the jury pool at hand.

You first made the statement that you did not think that what they articulated is strong enough to meet the Batson requirement. I expressed, and continue to express, surprise that you would make that statement considering that we are not certain the full extent of what was articulated. Regardless of your add-on at the end, you made that statement and I responded to that statement accordingly.

It's not a matter of having evidence that supports what I think may be in the prosecution's mind; it is a matter of the fact that what is in a prosecutor's mind at the time of jury selection is quite relevant.

As to your final paragraph, what do you mean by "I am not sure of which professor you speak"?

Kate

The best evidence rule applies to what the prosecution articulated or is alleged to have articulated, if you will. I have not seen any other evidence of what they were alleged to have articulated and have asked you respectfully, cordially and kindly to share if you have any other source.

I understand that you took one of my statements our of context and did not look at what I was actually saying. That is sort of like what may have happened in jury selection in this case. :) I wish that you would respond to my posts in their entirety instead of nitpicking. :)

What is relevant, according to the law to survive a Batson challenge, which is what we were discussing is not what is in his mind, because his mind may be to exclude Blacks, but what he is able to articulate as a race neutral reason. This is why I say that you may not fully appreciate the applicable standard. One may intend to discriminate but so long as they are able to cover their intent with a race neutral reason, then the challenge will be overruled.

I thought you said professor but see that you said prosecutor. Please forgive (no pun intended) my sentence? :)

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure of the "kidnapping" charges.

I think that, according to Nevada law, they were able to charge and convict on it.

[William Anthony]

This is silly! 12 NFL football players would NOT fit the Jury of One's Peers definition.

No crime in writing a book. and being accused of murder does not make it so.

You've only just begun, :).

[WarmNCozy]

I think that, according to Nevada law, they were able to charge and convict on it.
I just think it was going a bit too far. Doesn't kidnapping come with a life sentence? For what, trying to get what was rightfully his. Granted he went about it the wrong way, but the charges were so pumped up.

[Kate Sachel]

The best evidence rule applies to what the prosecution articulated or is alleged to have articulated, if you will. I have not seen any other evidence of what they were alleged to have articulated and have asked you respectfully, cordially and kindly to share if you have any other source.

I understand that you took one of my statements our of context and did not look at what I was actually saying. That is sort of like what may have happened in jury selection in this case. :) I wish that you would respond to my posts in their entirety instead of nitpicking. :)

What is relevant, according to the law to survive a Batson challenge, which is what we were discussing is not what is in his mind, because his mind may be to exclude Blacks, but what he is able to articulate as a race neutral reason. This is why I say that you may not fully appreciate the applicable standard. One may intend to discriminate but so long as they are able to cover their intent with a race neutral reason, then the challenge will be overruled.

I thought you said professor but see that you said prosecutor. Please forgive (no pun intended) my sentence? :)

With all due respect, I am laughing at this point. It has become clear (to me) after reviewing all previous posts that each of us has apparently misunderstood the other which has resulted in confusion. What I was referring to is clearly not what you believe I was, and vice versa. I wasn't talking about what is necessary to survive a Batson challenge.

Although let me add that I apologize that you were unable to articulate yourself clearly and that, as a result of being unable to do so, you have chosen to deem my response to an actual statement that you made to be nitpicking.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I just think it was going a bit too far. Doesn't kidnapping come with a life sentence? For what, trying to get what was rightfully his. Granted he went about it the wrong way, but the charges were so pumped up.

From my understanding kidnapping carries a 15 year sentence. There is great fame in convicting Simpson and his conduct was criminal, according to the law. The charges were brought by the prosecution and they are allowed discretion on what the charges will be. I think there may have been some agenda in addition to justice-wait for the books, :). I saw your post about needing a good laugh. Stick around, you won't be disappointed. :)

[Kate Sachel]

This is silly! 12 NFL football players would NOT fit the Jury of One's Peers definition.

No crime in writing a book. and being accused of murder does not make it so.

We are all supposed to be one another's peers, and I don't believe that a jury that ends up being all black, all white, all hispanic, etc equates into not being a jury of peers.

I have sat in on many trials, and watched all white juries convict a white defendant, and watched all black juries convict a black defendant.

Kate

[William Anthony]

With all due respect, I am laughing at this point. It has become clear (to me) after reviewing all previous posts that each of us has apparently misunderstood the other which has resulted in confusion. What I was referring to is clearly not what you believe I was, and vice versa. I wasn't talking about what is necessary to survive a Batson challenge.

Although let me add that I apologize that you were unable to articulate yourself clearly and that, as a result of being unable to do so, you have chosen to deem my response to an actual statement that you made to be nitpicking.

Kate

You are aware that I have great respect for your honesty and civility, which is why I was taken aback. Your apology for my lack of clarity is accepted.:) I am glad we were able to clarify our misunderstanding.

[Kate Sachel]

You are aware that I have great respect for your honesty and civility, which is why I was taken aback. Your apology for my lack of clarity is accepted.:) I am glad we were able to clarify our misunderstanding.

I'm not certain that we have fully clarified it.

I was taken aback by your postings as well, which is what prompted me to take a moment to go back and thoroughly review the previous postings.

Kate

[William Anthony]

We are all supposed to be one another's peers, and I don't believe that a jury that ends up being all black, all white, all hispanic, etc equates into not being a jury of peers.

I have sat in on many trials, and watched all white juries convict a white defendant, and watched all black juries convict a black defendant.

Kate

I guess that fairness equates to convictions. I was just kidding-trying to lighten the mood.:)