Nevada Case Discussion Only

[William Anthony]

I absolutely understand and appreciate the difference -- it seems the problem lies in YOUR comprehension and understanding. 'claim of right' was NOT a defense and is NOT a part of the appeal in this CASE.

Since the appeal has not been filed to my knowledge, I would suggest that any thing we discuss that is on firm legal grounds may be part of the appeal as with the conflict with Nevada's burglary and robbery statue as they pertain to intent, as I have previously discussed.

[martin II]

the memorabilia wasn't 'alledgedly' stolen -- the memorabilia WAS stolen by orenthal james simpson as he committed -- and was found guilty of -- the felony offense of ARMED ROBBERY.

you can rattle on all day about how unfair Judge Glass was to the convicted felon orenthal james simpson -- the fact is, there has been no charge of corruption -- just a bunch of whining by a losing lawyer and his convicted felon client.

there's no need for you to be concerned about speculation with regard to orenthal's prison facilities or roommate(s). I'm sure the REAL moderator will inform us if we go too far afield.

wEEZER

Considering the morerators direct directive i think that all posters should be concern about not posting OT and obviously reminders are in order.

We are discussing possible appeal issues and Glass's actions are fair game for discussion.

[William Anthony]

I've grown tired of your nonsense and baiting. :seeya:

There is a famous line from Rambo about drawing first blood. :seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya:

[weezer]

wEEZER

Considering the morerators direct directive i think that all posters should be concern about not posting OT and obviously reminders are in order.

We are discussing possible appeal issues and Glass's actions are fair game for discussion.

doh -- I know what we're discussing -- I was here, remember?

william has accused Judge Glass of corruption when none has been charged. that makes his post inaccurate at best.

[martin II]

I absolutely understand and appreciate the difference -- it seems the problem lies in YOUR comprehension and understanding. 'claim of right' was NOT a defense and is NOT a part of the appeal in this CASE.

Since the appeal has not been filed,how do you know what the issues will be.
imo

[William Anthony]

doh -- I know what we're discussing -- I was here, remember?

william has accused Judge Glass of corruption when none has been charged. that makes his post inaccurate at best.

Here is the post that started the discussion and there is no accusation that judge J. Glass is corrupt only that the possibility should be considered given other facts and the defense may be looking into the possibility before filing an appeal.

"Corruption can occur as a result of a violation of an ethical code. Because none has been alleged does not mean that none has happened, and judging from judge J. Glass' demeanor, actions and statements that might show bias and that it is rumored to be part of the appeal, I think it is very relevant to consider information about corruption and how it occurs in Vegas in regard to the judicial system is a relevant consideration for those that question judge J. Glass' actions, demeanor and statements, while it may not be relevant to those that do not.

I do not think who, if any one, is Simpson's roommate has any bearing on the CASE. However, others may see it differently and care to contemplate the issue. I think that, unless his roommate is Stewart, it is not a part of the CASE."

[martin II]

Co-defendant who went free in OJ Simpson case jailed on probation violation in Las VegasBy KEN RITTER | Associated Press Writer
4:51 PM EST, January 8, 2009
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former O.J. Simpson co-defendant who was given probation after testifying against the fallen football star has been jailed and could be sent to state prison for failing a drug test, his lawyer said Thursday.

Charles Cashmore, 41, was taken into custody on New Year's Eve and faces a hearing before the judge who let him and three other men remain free after sentencing Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to prison.

"He violated probation," attorney Edward Miley said, citing a state Division of Parole and Probation report that he said showed Cashmore had methamphetamine in his system. "The state intends to impose the suspended sentence."

In December, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass handed Cashmore a suspended one-to-three-year sentence, allowing him to remain free on three years' probation if he abided by strict behavioral rules.



A hearing before the judge had was not immediately scheduled, Miley said.

Cashmore, a journeyman laborer, was the first of four accomplices to take a plea deal in the case. He pleaded guilty in October 2007 to a reduced charge, felony accessory to robbery.

He testified that he met Simpson for the first time minutes before joining Simpson and four other men in the ill-fated hotel room confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007. He said two other men in the group brought guns.

That undercut Simpson's insistence that no one brought guns. Simpson said he was only trying to retrieve personal mementos and family heirlooms that had been stolen from him after his acquittal on murder charges in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles.

The Las Vegas jury found Simpson and Stewart guilty Oct. 3 of all 12 charges against them, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

Glass sentenced 61-year-old Simpson to nine to 33 years in state prison. Stewart, 54, was sentenced to 7½ to 27 years.

Three other admitted accomplices who turned the state's evidence in the case — Michael McClinton, Walter Alexander and Charles Ehrlich — each pleaded guilty to felony charges and were sentenced to probation.


He was a prosecution snitch that turned on oj. his friend.

[William Anthony]

He was a prosecution snitch that turned on oj. his friend.

The jury did not believe him, according to them, but relied on the tapes that may or may not have been properly admitted. That is sound basis for an appeal to me.

[RayStar]

Thanks for the accurate information.Ditto as I add my two cents. Judge Glass was only thinking of the CA case. IMO

[weezer]

Since the appeal has not been filed,how do you know what the issues will be.
imo

because martin, the appeal has to be based on errors in law. 1) orenthal's claim that he believed the stuff was his is not a defense to armed robbery/burglary in Nevada. 2) there has not been any charges or allegations of corruption by Judge Glass.

nobody knows exactly what the appeal will consist of but it is up to the defense to prove it and I would think the best convicted felon orenthal james simpson could hope for would be a new trial -- my guess is with the same outcome.

[martin II]

the memorabilia wasn't 'alledgedly' stolen -- the memorabilia WAS stolen by orenthal james simpson as he committed -- and was found guilty of -- the felony offense of ARMED ROBBERY.

you can rattle on all day about how unfair Judge Glass was to the convicted felon orenthal james simpson -- the fact is, there has been no charge of corruption -- just a bunch of whining by a losing lawyer and his convicted felon client.

there's no need for you to be concerned about speculation with regard to orenthal's prison facilities or roommate(s). I'm sure the REAL moderator will inform us if we go too far afield.
Cashmore was the one that walked out of the room with boxes of the stuff
and did not return some items when he was told to do so.

[William Anthony]

because martin, the appeal has to be based on errors in law. 1) orenthal's claim that he believed the stuff was his is not a defense to armed robbery/burglary in Nevada. 2) there has not been any charges or allegations of corruption by Judge Glass.

nobody knows exactly what the appeal will consist of but it is up to the defense to prove it and I would think the best convicted felon orenthal james simpson could hope for would be a new trial -- my guess is with the same outcome.

The theory is that the claim of right defense is applicable to burglary. Burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime, if I am correct and haven't the time to read the case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=121NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2 However, without the intent to commit another crime, then there can be no burglary. If the statute on burglary allows a claim of right defense and the property that was taken was ancillary to the burglary then it is only logical that the claim of right should apply to the robbery in order to show there was no intent to commit burglary. This is where there may have been clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law that deprived Simpson of his Due Process rights.

[martin II]

because martin, the appeal has to be based on errors in law. 1) orenthal's claim that he believed the stuff was his is not a defense to armed robbery/burglary in Nevada. 2) there has not been any charges or allegations of corruption by Judge Glass.

nobody knows exactly what the appeal will consist of but it is up to the defense to prove it and I would think the best convicted felon orenthal james simpson could hope for would be a new trial -- my guess is with the same outcome.

If the appeals is written correctly you have no idea what a appeals court will latch on to as a issue, so be careful.

[weezer]

If the appeals is written correctly you have no idea what a appeals court will latch on to as a issue, so be careful.

LOL -- okay.

[martin II]

The theory is that the claim of right defense is applicable to burglary. Burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime, if I am correct and haven't the time to read the case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=121NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2 However, without the intent to commit another crime, then there can be no burglary. If the statute on burglary allows a claim of right defense and the property that was taken was ancillary to the burglary then it is only logical that the claim of right should apply to the robbery in order to show there was no intent to commit burglary. This is where there may have been clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law that deprived Simpson of his Due Process rights.

Some pretend to understand but in reality don't.Sad

[weezer]

The theory is that the claim of right defense is applicable to burglary. Burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime, if I am correct and haven't the time to read the case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=121NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2 However, without the intent to commit another crime, then there can be no burglary. If the statute on burglary allows a claim of right defense and the property that was taken was ancillary to the burglary then it is only logical that the claim of right should apply to the robbery in order to show there was no intent to commit burglary. This is where there may have been clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law that deprived Simpson of his Due Process rights.

on the date and time that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary/armed robbery/kidnapping/assault, Nevada law did not have a statute that allowed 'claim of right' as a defense. in other words, TDB for convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

[martin II]

on the date and time that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary/armed robbery/kidnapping/assault, Nevada law did not have a statute that allowed 'claim of right' as a defense. in other words, TDB for convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

Weezer
if you can prove your above statement, just go on and prove it for all posters.

[weezer]

Weezer
if you can prove your above statement, just go on and prove it for all posters.

oh for pete's sake martin --

[William Anthony]

on the date and time that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary/armed robbery/kidnapping/assault, Nevada law did not have a statute that allowed 'claim of right' as a defense. in other words, TDB for convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

In fact, Nevada law did have a claim of right defense.

Although we refuse to adopt the natural and probable consequences doctrine in general, our decision is limited to vicarious coconspirator liability based on that doctrine for specific intent crimes only.� The mental state required to commit a general intent crime does not raise the same concern as that necessary to commit a specific intent crime.� General intent is "the intent to do that which the law prohibits.� It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result which eventuated."[51]� On the other hand, specific intent is "the intent to accomplish the precise act which the law prohibits."[52]� To hold a defendant criminally liable for a specific intent crime, Nevada requires proof that he possessed the state of mind required by the statutory definition of the crime.[53]� Although we affirm Bolden's conviction for the general intent crimes of home invasion and robbery, we conclude that in future prosecutions, vicarious coconspirator liability may be properly imposed for general intent crimes only when the crime in question was a "reasonably foreseeable consequence" of the object of the conspiracy.� We caution the State that this court will not hesitate to revisit the doctrine's applicability to general intent crimes if it appears that the theory of liability is alleged for crimes too far removed and attenuated from the object of the conspiracy.

Perhaps, this will explain it for you and before you allude to the general intent of robbery, consider that the object of the conspiracy was to reclaim property Simpson believed was his and note the caution that they can revisit the general intent factor under circumstances were the object of the conspiracy is too far removed and attenuated from the crime (burglary), which we do not have in this instance.

This is from the Bolden case and the Nevada court has not adopted the standard set forth in the case you mentioned, Pinkerton.

[William Anthony]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=121NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2

����������� Pinkerton applies to federal criminal proceedings and thus federal courts have employed the rule.[26]� The individual states, however, are not obligated to follow Pinkerton.� The Nevada Legislature has not adopted the Pinkerton rule, but a number of states have addressed the issue by judicial decision.� Several states have embraced the rule and permit defendants to be held liable for the criminal acts of a coconspirator so long as the crime was foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.[27]� Nonetheless, the Pinkerton rule has garnered significant disfavor.� Concerns respecting the ramifications of the rule arose shortly after the opinion issued:

[weezer]

In fact, Nevada law did have a claim of right defense.

Although we refuse to adopt the natural and probable consequences doctrine in general, our decision is limited to vicarious coconspirator liability based on that doctrine for specific intent crimes only.� The mental state required to commit a general intent crime does not raise the same concern as that necessary to commit a specific intent crime.� General intent is "the intent to do that which the law prohibits.� It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result which eventuated."[51]� On the other hand, specific intent is "the intent to accomplish the precise act which the law prohibits."[52]� To hold a defendant criminally liable for a specific intent crime, Nevada requires proof that he possessed the state of mind required by the statutory definition of the crime.[53]� Although we affirm Bolden's conviction for the general intent crimes of home invasion and robbery, we conclude that in future prosecutions, vicarious coconspirator liability may be properly imposed for general intent crimes only when the crime in question was a "reasonably foreseeable consequence" of the object of the conspiracy.� We caution the State that this court will not hesitate to revisit the doctrine's applicability to general intent crimes if it appears that the theory of liability is alleged for crimes too far removed and attenuated from the object of the conspiracy.

Perhaps, this will explain it for you and before you allude to the general intent of robbery, consider that the object of the conspiracy was to reclaim property Simpson believed was his and note the caution that they can revisit the general intent factor under circumstances were the object of the conspiracy is too far removed and attenuated from the crime (burglary), which we do not have in this instance.

This is from the Bolden case and the Nevada court has not adopted the standard set forth in the case you mentioned, Pinkerton.

you are wrong -- on the date that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault, Nevada law did NOT have a statute that recognized a 'claim of right' defense.

[William Anthony]

you are wrong -- on the date that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault, Nevada law did NOT have a statute that recognized a 'claim of right' defense.

Did you forget that I posted the Nevada statute on burglary? Did Simpson get convicted of burglary after 2005? Link to where the Bolden decision has been overturned?

[weezer]

Did you forget that I posted the Nevada statute on burglary? Did Simpson get convicted of burglary after 2005? Link to where the Bolden decision has been overturned?

your misinterpretation of Nevada law does not change it - :shrug:

on the date that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault, Nevada law did NOT have a statute that recognized a 'claim of right' defense.

[William Anthony]

your misinterpretation of Nevada law does not change it - :shrug:

on the date that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault, Nevada law did NOT have a statute that recognized a 'claim of right' defense.

I get so tired of posting the same thing but I hope you can grasp what the law says.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-205.html

“NRS 205.065 Inference of burglarious intent. Every person who unlawfully breaks and enters or unlawfully enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car may reasonably be inferred to have broken and entered or entered it with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or a felony therein, unless the unlawful breaking and entering or unlawful entry is explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without criminal intent.

[1911 C&P § 370; RL § 6635; NCL § 10320]—(NRS A 1959, 19; 1983, 718; 1989, 1207)”

The defense is that he entered the hotel room to reclaim property that was his, negating any criminal intent, which judge J. Glass denied the defense and possibly made clearly erroneous harmful error of law. The defense is inseparable, imho, from the robbery charge, which only requires a general intent. I don't think any rational judge would consider the logic that once Simpson entered the room, he only needed to ask the alleged thieves to return his property or that calling LE, who had allegedly previously declined to become involved would do any good.

This is the definition of burglary.

NRS 205.060 Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

"1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

Without the intent to commit a felony/robbery there can be no burglary or intent to commit burglary but judge J. Glass' ruling prevented the jury from considering this, imho, and that is the argument for a Due Process violation.

[William Anthony]

your misinterpretation of Nevada law does not change it - :shrug:

on the date that convicted felon orenthal james simpson committed burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault, Nevada law did NOT have a statute that recognized a 'claim of right' defense.

There is no need for me to change Nevada law only that the posters understand it.

[weezer]

I get so tired of posting the same thing but I hope you can grasp what the law says.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-205.html

“NRS 205.065 Inference of burglarious intent. Every person who unlawfully breaks and enters or unlawfully enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car may reasonably be inferred to have broken and entered or entered it with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or a felony therein, unless the unlawful breaking and entering or unlawful entry is explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without criminal intent.

[1911 C&P § 370; RL § 6635; NCL § 10320]—(NRS A 1959, 19; 1983, 718; 1989, 1207)”

The defense is that he entered the hotel room to reclaim property that was his, negating any criminal intent, which judge J. Glass denied the defense and possibly made clearly erroneous harmful error of law. The defense is inseparable, imho, from the robbery charge, which only requires a general intent. I don't think any rational judge would consider the logic that once Simpson entered the room, he only needed to ask the alleged thieves to return his property or that calling LE, who had allegedly previously declined to become involved would do any good.

This is the definition of burglary.

NRS 205.060 Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

"1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

Without the intent to commit a felony/robbery there can be no burglary or intent to commit burglary but judge J. Glass' ruling prevented the jury from considering this, imho, and that is the argument for a Due Process violation.

and I get so tired of reading nonsense. orenthal james simpson planned, recruited conspirators, and entered a room with the intent to commit armed robbery. orenthal james simpson entered that room, ordered that 'nobody leaves this room' and had his conspirators pack up everything -- including a cell phone, a pair of sunglasses, and memorabilia that he knew did not belong to him. all reasonable people believe orenthal had guns brought to the hotel bent on criminal intent. a jury of his peers found him guilty of all 12 counts. orenthal james simpson is a convicted felon.

there is no statute under Nevada law that allows for 'claim of right' defense.

[William Anthony]

and I get so tired of reading nonsense. orenthal james simpson planned, recruited conspirators, and entered a room with the intent to commit armed robbery. orenthal james simpson entered that room, ordered that 'nobody leaves this room' and had his conspirators pack up everything -- including a cell phone, a pair of sunglasses, and memorabilia that he knew did not belong to him. all reasonable people believe orenthal had guns brought to the hotel bent on criminal intent. a jury of his peers found him guilty of all 12 counts. orenthal james simpson is a convicted felon.

there is no statute under Nevada law that allows for 'claim of right' defense.

Well, it is up to you to deny what you read. Yes, he has been convicted and the discussion is will those convictions, all or part, hold up on appeal.

[weezer]

Well, it is up to you to deny what you read. Yes, he has been convicted and the discussion is will those convictions, all or part, hold up on appeal.

they will and convicted felon orenthal james simpson will remain in prison. :beer:

[William Anthony]

they will and convicted felon orenthal james simpson will remain in prison. :beer:

You may be right and you may be wrong. The one thing that isn't wrong is that there are those in the legal profession and scholars that believe judge J. Glass was not impartial and that is a good basis for an appeal. When you combine that with her rulings and statement, who knows?

[weezer]

You may be right and you may be wrong. The one thing that isn't wrong is that there are those in the legal profession and scholars that believe judge J. Glass was not impartial and that is a good basis for an appeal. When you combine that with her rulings and statement, who knows?

who knows? only the NG's at all cost and the folks who like to argue for the sake of argument try to foist the "Judge Glass was biased" argument off as feasible. All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

[William Anthony]

who knows? only the NG's at all cost and the folks who like to argue for the sake of argument try to foist the "Judge Glass was biased" argument off as feasible. All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

There may be some questions according to the law and legal professionals and scholars believe that the convictions may be overturned due to judge Glass' bias, but they may be folks that like to argue for the sake of argument or people who appreciate the value and importance of the law, depending on how one chooses to view it.

[William Anthony]

Here is a case that discusses Due Process, California law, Nevada law, harmful error and intent. The case acknowledges the difference in intent between the California statute on robbery and the Nevada statute and here is what I found most quizzical about, imho, a convoluted decision. If I am reading it correct, it seems to indicate that a violation of Due Process is harmless. I would argue that the right/privilege to liberty is an unalienable right and any infringement on that right is not harmless error.

“Defendant James McGee (McGee) was charged with two “strikes” arising from prior Nevada robbery convictions. Because Nevada’s robbery statute omits certain elements required under California law, the trial court decided whether McGee had acted with the intent required by California law, and thus whether the Nevada convictions counted as strikes. This deprived McGee of his due process right to have the issue of his intent decided by a jury.

Nevertheless, in this instance the error was harmless. Because any reasonable jury would have concluded, as the trial court did, that McGee’s conduct satisfied the elements of robbery under California law, we affirm.”

The California court limited the decision to the instant case. Therefore, the argument can be made that this case is not controlling on Nevada law and the issue of a violation of Due Process in the Simpson case should be decided separately to discover if any violation of Due Process was harmful.

[martin II]

and I get so tired of reading nonsense. orenthal james simpson planned, recruited conspirators, and entered a room with the intent to commit armed robbery. orenthal james simpson entered that room, ordered that 'nobody leaves this room' and had his conspirators pack up everything -- including a cell phone, a pair of sunglasses, and memorabilia that he knew did not belong to him. all reasonable people believe orenthal had guns brought to the hotel bent on criminal intent. a jury of his peers found him guilty of all 12 counts. orenthal james simpson is a convicted felon.

there is no statute under Nevada law that allows for 'claim of right' defense.

On all tapes it was clear that no one spoke of going to the room to do anything other than retrieve personal property.No one spoke of robbing anyone.There was no request by oj of anyone to bring guns to the room other than the very suspect claim of two witnesses whom the jury stated that their teestimony was not believable.

Oj can be heard on the tapes specifically saying 'DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE". There was no intent to take anything that was not his. McClinton is the one that gave the order to pack stuff up and oj never took any item from the room.imo

[William Anthony]

I forgot to post the link to the above case, so here it is.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:hzHIOaviVkwJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/A097749.DOC+Nevada+case+law+there+must+be+specific +intent+to+convict+of+burglary&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

I would argue strongly that the use of the words "Unalienable rights" means that there must be a uniformity of criminal laws, or more precisely a uniformity of the intent required, from one state jurisdiction to another, since they involve a deprivation of liberty and that the word alien is used in connection to a citizen from a different state. I hope I have said that clearly.

[William Anthony]

On all tapes it was clear that no one spoke of going to the room to do anything other than retrieve personal property.No one spoke of robbing anyone.There was no request by oj of anyone to bring guns to the room other than the very suspect claim of two witnesses whom the jury stated that their teestimony was not believable.

Oj can be heard on the tapes specifically saying 'DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE". There was no intent to take anything that was not his. McClinton is the one that gave the order to pack stuff up and oj never took any item from the room.imo

I agree that there is evidence to negate an intent, which is why I say that the laws should be uniform from state to state, before one is incarcerated. Either it requires specific intent or general intent and that question should be answered and made uniform.

[William Anthony]

Here is a case from Florida.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/76717/op-76717.pdf

Simpson resided in California and Florida, which both states require specific intent to commit robbery. In other words, the claim of right defense would have been applicable in those states. It is illogical to expect a person, who is visiting a state briefly, as Simpson was, to understand the differences and intricacies of various state laws and wholly consistent with the idea that he knew from the states in which he lived that the claim of right defense was available to the crime of robbery. This is why I would argue for uniformity of laws, so that a defendant would know which conduct was unacceptable and under what precise circumstances his conduct might be found to be acceptable.

[William Anthony]

Ditto as I add my two cents. Judge Glass was only thinking of the CA case. IMO

The defense will have to provide evidence from which the court can agree that judge J. Glass' rulings were biased and I think they will be able to do so as it pertains to the jury foreman. I would think that the defense is looking into her campaign contributors, as well as her actions, demeanor and statements made during the trial and sentencing.

The defense may also be on firm ground as it relates to a Batson challenge on the exclusion of the two potential Black jurors based on their religion. There seems to be something innately unfair in the exclusion. Is the prosecution saying that Blacks are more religious than Whites? Were White jurors asked about their religion? Is the prosecution saying that Blacks are unable to separate their religious views from their secular duties as citizens, whereas, Whites are?

[William Anthony]

There may be underlying reasons why Blacks were excluded from the jury and I wonder if the appeal will address the issues happening in Vegas, meaning that this will be used to show that the prosecution's reason was a pretext.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3405

[William Anthony]

In order to curtail any heated debates or desire to say that something is not an issue on appeal, I will provide the precedent and information, which will allow for the appeal.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Brandeis,+Louis+Dembitz

“Brandeis also created a new style of legal writing, appropriately called the Brandeis brief.

“With his sister-in-law Josephine Goldmark, of the National Consumer's League, Brandeis produced the first legal brief to include copious supporting data. For Muller v. State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551 (1908), Brandeis wrote more than one hundred pages in favor of an Oregon state law mandating a maximum ten-hour workday for women. Later, when asked for an appropriate title for the seminal Muller brief, Brandeis replied, What Any Fool Knows. In the document, he described the deleterious physical and mental effects on women of extended periods of manual labor. He included references to sociology, psychology, history, politics, employment statistics, and economics; this method of amassing data from several different disciplines to persuade the court became popular with other lawyers. The legal principles of the case were discussed in about two pages.”

[martin II]

There may be underlying reasons why Blacks were excluded from the jury and I wonder if the appeal will address the issues happening in Vegas, meaning that this will be used to show that the prosecution's reason was a pretext.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3405


Police are shooting and killing people where i am almost daily.

[martin II]

who knows? only the NG's at all cost and the folks who like to argue for the sake of argument try to foist the "Judge Glass was biased" argument off as feasible. All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

I don't see why you should claim that others just like to argue for the sake of arguing JUST because they have different opinions than you. The asppeals court will decide what is feasible when the appeals if filed. Until then all possibilities are open for discussion without personal attacks.

[socaldiva]

Police are shooting and killing people where i am almost daily.


Seems to me this post is OT. :no: and I thought you were part of the off topic police :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I don't see why you should claim that others just like to argue for the sake of arguing JUST because they have different opinions than you. The asppeals court will decide what is feasible when the appeals if filed. Until then all possibilities are open for discussion without personal attacks.

I don't know if all understand that argument is a part of a trial. Not arguments in the context here, although they do become heated at times, but trying to persuade a judge or judges that your view of the law is the correct one and jurors that your view of the facts is the correct one. I think heated arguments occur when the lawyers remain convinced that their view is the only correct one. Based on some of the cases I have read in the Nevada supreme court, I do believe that the Nevada court favors individual liberties more than society's interests.

[RayStar]

who knows? only the NG's at all cost and the folks who like to argue for the sake of argument try to foist the "Judge Glass was biased" argument off as feasible. All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.
Did you approve of the way Judge Glass conducted the trial? Please, if you can, don't talk about the innocence or guilt of OJ as my question is simply about Judge Glass. Thank you

[William Anthony]

All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

I guess that you consider that "this particular jury", as the jury foreman wanted the case decided by, "All reasonable people".

[William Anthony]

I wonder if this had anything to do with the jury foreman's statement that he wanted the case decided by "this particular jury".

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

“District Attorney David Roger defended the final makeup of the jury, saying that two of six alternate jurors are black.”

[martin II]

Did you approve of the way Judge Glass conducted the trial? Please, if you can, don't talk about the innocence or guilt of OJ as my question is simply about Judge Glass. Thank you



Very good question.

[martin II]

I wonder if this had anything to do with the jury foreman's statement that he wanted the case decided by "this particular jury".

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

“District Attorney David Roger defended the final makeup of the jury, saying that two of six alternate jurors are black.”

with the PLANTED jury forman in place , Rogers knew the alternate jury would not be needed. that was criminal imo. OJ and stewart never had a chance.

[martin II]

who knows? only the NG's at all cost and the folks who like to argue for the sake of argument try to foist the "Judge Glass was biased" argument off as feasible. All reasonable people understand that orenthal planned and executed a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

Reasonable people are people that agree with your opinions?

[weezer]

with the PLANTED jury forman in place , Rogers knew the alternate jury would not be needed. that was criminal imo. OJ and stewart never had a chance.

OMG martin -- you have finally slipped over the edge. imo

[weezer]

Police are shooting and killing people where i am almost daily.

any smart person would MOVE! :punch:

[weezer]

Did you approve of the way Judge Glass conducted the trial? Please, if you can, don't talk about the innocence or guilt of OJ as my question is simply about Judge Glass. Thank you

I approved of Judge Glass's handling of the trial probably the same as you approved of Judge Ito's conduct during the original trial.

[martin II]

I approved of Judge Glass's handling of the trial probably the same as you approved of Judge Ito's conduct during the original trial.

I think judge Glass allowing unauthenticated tapes into evidence was a mistake and allowing the kidnapping charge against oj and Stewart to stand showed bias against the defendants.
After listening to days of false testimony from prosecution witness how the jury could say they ignored all of it is beyond me as with those testimonies the bells had been rung. imo

Judge Ito is OT.

[William Anthony]

I approved of Judge Glass's handling of the trial probably the same as you approved of Judge Ito's conduct during the original trial.

The Nevada court was the court of original jurisdiction as it related to the charges brought pursuant to the hotel incident, as such this was the original trial in that incident. Your comment seems to speak of payback rather than karma.

[weezer]

I think judge Glass allowing unauthenticated tapes into evidence was a mistake and allowing the kidnapping charge against oj and Stewart to stand showed bias against the defendants.
After listening to days of false testimony from prosecution witness how the jury could say they ignored all of it is beyond me as with those testimonies the bells had been rung. imo

Judge Ito is OT.

orenthal's attorney thought it was great that the tapes came because they thought it would help the defense -- oops. . .

[weezer]

The Nevada court was the court of original jurisdiction as it related to the charges brought pursuant to the hotel incident, as such this was the original trial in that incident. Your comment seems to speak of payback rather than karma.

nope -- bad behavior eventually results in consequences --

Personally, I like to think it's karma. :tongue:

[RayStar]

I approved of Judge Glass's handling of the trial probably the same as you approved of Judge Ito's conduct during the original trial.
Thanks for not answering my question properly. :)

[RayStar]

Very good question.
Thank you. Judge Glass was out of control. IMO

[martin II]

orenthal's attorney thought it was great that the tapes came because they thought it would help the defense -- oops. . .

Unauthenticated tapes should have been tossed by the judge as they amounted to something like gossip. The kidnapping charge did not carry with it what is normally associated with that crime. No one was tied up, beat or moved and there was no ransom request.A simple statement no body leave the room was not enough as no one even asked to leave.

[William Anthony]

nope -- bad behavior eventually results in consequences --

Personally, I like to think it's karma. :tongue:

By referring to Ito and the "original trial", your post makes it seem as thought the Nevada case was an extenuation of that case, which would be payback, imho, rather than karma.

[William Anthony]

Thank you. Judge Glass was out of control. IMO

At least when it came to Galantar and Simpson, imho.

[William Anthony]

Unauthenticated tapes should have been tossed by the judge as they amounted to something like gossip. The kidnapping charge did not carry with it what is normally associated with that crime. No one was tied up, beat or moved and there was no ransom request.A simple statement no body leave the room was not enough as no one even asked to leave.

I don't know how a jury could determine from the tapes that Fromong and Beardsley felt fear or threatened when they testified they did not, which the jury chose to find not credible. I think that will be an issue on appeal or hope it will.

[RayStar]

At least when it came to Galantar and Simpson, imho.

Screaming like a woman having flashes she did. I truly was shocked by her demeanor on the bench. I have often thought had the verdict been different she would have passed out right before the camera. I think she got so much pleasure out of sentencing OJ. Stewart really got messed up. This decision deserves another look by a higher court. IMO

[weezer]

Screaming like a woman having flashes she did. I truly was shocked by her demeanor on the bench. I have often thought had the verdict been different she would have passed out right before the camera. I think she got so much pleasure out of sentencing OJ. Stewart really got messed up. This decision deserves another look by a higher court. IMO

nah -- that was orenthal's swooning sister ---

[William Anthony]

Screaming like a woman having flashes she did. I truly was shocked by her demeanor on the bench. I have often thought had the verdict been different she would have passed out right before the camera. I think she got so much pleasure out of sentencing OJ. Stewart really got messed up. This decision deserves another look by a higher court. IMO

I truly believed Galantar knew what the decision was going to be early on and possibly before one item of evidence was introduced and judge J. Glass' demeanor, conduct and statements played right into his hand.

[William Anthony]

nah -- that was orenthal's swooning sister ---

I think musings about the family has been ruled OT.

[martin II]

I think musings about the family has been ruled OT.

I am sure the moderator has ruled they are ot but some just ignore the directive.

[William Anthony]

I am sure the moderator has ruled they are ot but some just ignore the directive.

I did some checking and the directive was issued in post #51.

[martin II]

Screaming like a woman having flashes she did. I truly was shocked by her demeanor on the bench. I have often thought had the verdict been different she would have passed out right before the camera. I think she got so much pleasure out of sentencing OJ. Stewart really got messed up. This decision deserves another look by a higher court. IMO


Her yelling about her head 'SPINNING AROUND AT 360 DEGREES WITH FLAMES COMMING OUT OF HER MOUTH' was meant by her as a PR sound bite but the media did not pick up on it and she got no coverage on the evening news cycle.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on the religious exclusions.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/may05/jn.html

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on judge J. Glass' campaign spending.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-10-Mon-2003/news/20613245.html

[William Anthony]

More on judge J. Glass.

http://judicial.state.nv.us/scjeepdecision0213new.htm

http://psychwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/judge-sealed-cases-against-psychiatrist.html

[weezer]

and here's orenthal -- in his own words -- hmmm, I'm thinking you guys have pegged the wrong person as being out of control! :tongue:

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

[William Anthony]

and here's orenthal -- in his own words -- hmmm, I'm thinking you guys have pegged the wrong person as being out of control! :tongue:

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

Thank you. I hope the defense did object to jury instruction #6 as it does not square with the nevada case law. This from my link in the first post on page 14 of this thread.

"Although we refuse to adopt the natural and probable consequences doctrine in general, our decision is limited to vicarious coconspirator liability based on that doctrine for specific intent crimes only."

I think that this may be a solid issue on appeal and I will continue to look at the other information you so graciously provided. The instruction did not limit the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

[weezer]

Thank you. I hope the defense did object to jury instruction #6 as it does not square with the nevada case law. This from my link in the first post on page 14 of this thread.

"Although we refuse to adopt the natural and probable consequences doctrine in general, our decision is limited to vicarious coconspirator liability based on that doctrine for specific intent crimes only."

I think that this may be a solid issue on appeal and I will continue to look at the other information you so graciously provided. The instruction did not limit the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

oh maybe IF anyone bought into orenthal being a coconspirator BUT since he initiated, planned, and executed the armed robbery I guess convicted felon orenthal james simpson is liable.

[martin II]

oh maybe IF anyone bought into orenthal being a coconspirator BUT since he initiated, planned, and executed the armed robbery I guess convicted felon orenthal james simpson is liable.

Riccio planned and managed to bring the two parties togeather in HIS hotel room.

[weezer]

Riccio planned and managed to bring the two parties togeather in HIS hotel room.

too busy to pay attention to evidence/testimony in the trial were you? :tongue:

[Redmama]

Here is a case from Florida.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/76717/op-76717.pdf

Simpson resided in California and Florida, which both states require specific intent to commit robbery. In other words, the claim of right defense would have been applicable in those states. It is illogical to expect a person, who is visiting a state briefly, as Simpson was, to understand the differences and intricacies of various state laws and wholly consistent with the idea that he knew from the states in which he lived that the claim of right defense was available to the crime of robbery. This is why I would argue for uniformity of laws, so that a defendant would know which conduct was unacceptable and under what precise circumstances his conduct might be found to be acceptable.

This is the first thought that comes to my mind - in some states u-turns are illegal - in some they are not. Not all states have signs. So if I get pulled over for a u-turn in a state where it is illegal - I expect I'll get a ticket. Not knowing a law is not an excuse.

[Redmama]

The defense will have to provide evidence from which the court can agree that judge J. Glass' rulings were biased and I think they will be able to do so as it pertains to the jury foreman. I would think that the defense is looking into her campaign contributors, as well as her actions, demeanor and statements made during the trial and sentencing.

The defense may also be on firm ground as it relates to a Batson challenge on the exclusion of the two potential Black jurors based on their religion. There seems to be something innately unfair in the exclusion. Is the prosecution saying that Blacks are more religious than Whites? Were White jurors asked about their religion? Is the prosecution saying that Blacks are unable to separate their religious views from their secular duties as citizens, whereas, Whites are?

Is it really possible that there where different questionaires?

[Redmama]

Screaming like a woman having flashes she did. I truly was shocked by her demeanor on the bench. I have often thought had the verdict been different she would have passed out right before the camera. I think she got so much pleasure out of sentencing OJ. Stewart really got messed up. This decision deserves another look by a higher court. IMO

"Screaming like a woman...having flashes?" wow.

[Redmama]

oh maybe IF anyone bought into orenthal being a coconspirator BUT since he initiated, planned, and executed the armed robbery I guess convicted felon orenthal james simpson is liable.

Without OJ - there would be nothing to talk about - that is my only thought...oh well I do have a few more thoughts - I sure hope if I do something like this, I have those who think I'm not liable.

[martin II]

too busy to pay attention to evidence/testimony in the trial were you? :tongue:

I heard every word of Riccios testimony and learned that he was responsible for arranging for both parties to come togeather. Looks like you missed his testimony or would rather ignore it out of biase.imo

[martin II]

Without OJ - there would be nothing to talk about - that is my only thought...oh well I do have a few more thoughts - I sure hope if I do something like this, I have those who think I'm not liable.


hi there where have you been.

In the beginning Fumong was in ca with the goods and oj was in florida at home. Some how Riccio found Beadsley and Beadsley informed Riccio that he had Oj stuff for sale.Riccio called oj and informed him that he knew some people that had his stolen goods and had offered it to him for sale.Riccio informed oj that he would arrange for oj to confront the sellers face to face to get his stuff.

When oj came to Vegas for the wedding Riccio had the sellers to come to HIS hotel room and he then brought oj and the others to the room for the face off.

Based on the above it seems that if it had not been for Riccio Fumong would have been in CA and oj would have been at the wedding until he had returned to Florida.imo

[martin II]

This is the first thought that comes to my mind - in some states u-turns are illegal - in some they are not. Not all states have signs. So if I get pulled over for a u-turn in a state where it is illegal - I expect I'll get a ticket. Not knowing a law is not an excuse.

I think that when you faced a judge he would ask how you happened to make the u-turn. understanding that you had no intent to break the law he would most likely cancel your ticket.

[Redmama]

I think that when you faced a judge he would ask how you happened to make the u-turn. understanding that you had no intent to break the law he would most likely cancel your ticket.

I guess there is a chance of that - but if the law was followed he/she would be well within his/her rights to make me pay the ticket. I'm a rule follower (drives my hubby nuts sometimes) so I would just pay the ticket, not even bother going in front of a judge in this situation.

[Redmama]

hi there where have you been.

In the beginning Fumong was in ca with the goods and oj was in florida at home. Some how Riccio found Beadsley and Beadsley informed Riccio that he had Oj stuff for sale.Riccio called oj and informed him that he knew some people that had his stolen goods and had offered it to him for sale.Riccio informed oj that he would arrange for oj to confront the sellers face to face to get his stuff.

When oj came to Vegas for the wedding Riccio had the sellers to come to HIS hotel room and he then brought oj and the others to the room for the face off.

Based on the above it seems that if it had not been for Riccio Fumong would have been in CA and oj would have been at the wedding until he had returned to Florida.imo

I had a personal medical situation - it hasn't been much fun - but I'm all ok and back! No matter what someone asks me to do, it is still up to me to carry myself in a legal and moral sense. I mentioned earlier I am a rule follower - what happened to me caused me not to be able to drive for 6 months - completely on the honor system...I've not been turned in so no one even knows...and you know what? I won't drive for 6 months. It isn't hard to just use common sense and do what is right - no matter what someone else dangles in front of us.

[weezer]

I heard every word of Riccios testimony and learned that he was responsible for arranging for both parties to come togeather. Looks like you missed his testimony or would rather ignore it out of biase.imo

martin, to blame riccio for orenthal's felonious behavior is bizarre. the fact that he told orenthal there were sellers out there with 'stuff' he knew orenthal would be interested in did in no way place the blame for what else orenthal did on riccio. always the orenthal apologist -- geez.

[weezer]

hi there where have you been.

In the beginning Fumong was in ca with the goods and oj was in florida at home. Some how Riccio found Beadsley and Beadsley informed Riccio that he had Oj stuff for sale.Riccio called oj and informed him that he knew some people that had his stolen goods and had offered it to him for sale.Riccio informed oj that he would arrange for oj to confront the sellers face to face to get his stuff.

When oj came to Vegas for the wedding Riccio had the sellers to come to HIS hotel room and he then brought oj and the others to the room for the face off.

Based on the above it seems that if it had not been for Riccio Fumong would have been in CA and oj would have been at the wedding until he had returned to Florida.imo

you really need to go back and re-read the testimony -- including orenthal's statements before, during, and after the armed robbery.

[weezer]

I think that when you faced a judge he would ask how you happened to make the u-turn. understanding that you had no intent to break the law he would most likely cancel your ticket.

except for where you live right? I mean, didn't you say LE is shooting people almost daily wherever there is? or maybe you didn't mean for things like u-turns. . .

[weezer]

I had a personal medical situation - it hasn't been much fun - but I'm all ok and back! No matter what someone asks me to do, it is still up to me to carry myself in a legal and moral sense. I mentioned earlier I am a rule follower - what happened to me caused me not to be able to drive for 6 months - completely on the honor system...I've not been turned in so no one even knows...and you know what? I won't drive for 6 months. It isn't hard to just use common sense and do what is right - no matter what someone else dangles in front of us.

I hope you're well on your way to recovery and it's good to see you posting again. of course you are right on about doing the right thing if that's who/what you are. Good for you.

[martin II]

I had a personal medical situation - it hasn't been much fun - but I'm all ok and back! No matter what someone asks me to do, it is still up to me to carry myself in a legal and moral sense. I mentioned earlier I am a rule follower - what happened to me caused me not to be able to drive for 6 months - completely on the honor system...I've not been turned in so no one even knows...and you know what? I won't drive for 6 months. It isn't hard to just use common sense and do what is right - no matter what someone else dangles in front of us.

I feel that way about McClinton and Alexander saying they brought guns to the room because they said oj asked them to.

[martin II]

except for where you live right? I mean, didn't you say LE is shooting people almost daily wherever there is? or maybe you didn't mean for things like u-turns. . .

As usual you got it wrong.I was speaking of a mental patient standing on his house steps holding a chair. the police told him to put if down. he raised it up and they killed him on his house steps from the sidewalk.

[martin II]

you really need to go back and re-read the testimony -- including orenthal's statements before, during, and after the armed robbery.

I have posted what Riccio said he did before anyone came to vegas and after evetryone came to vegas.That cannot be changed,

[weezer]

I have posted what Riccio said he did before anyone came to vegas and after evetryone came to vegas.That cannot be changed,

you are right -- those facts cannot be changed. but I'm preplexed martin -- orenthal said he planned and executed the 'sting' (armed robbery) but you continue to insinuate that he's a liar and a victim of everybody else's actions. I can't figure out why you don't let his statements stand?

[weezer]

As usual you got it wrong.I was speaking of a mental patient standing on his house steps holding a chair. the police told him to put if down. he raised it up and they killed him on his house steps from the sidewalk.

hmmm, daily huh?

[martin II]

hmmm, daily huh?

I apologize
your post and my response is ot so i will not follow with any response.

[martin II]

you are right -- those facts cannot be changed. but I'm preplexed martin -- orenthal said he planned and executed the 'sting' (armed robbery) but you continue to insinuate that he's a liar and a victim of everybody else's actions. I can't figure out why you don't let his statements stand?

Without riccio there would have been no meeting,
fini.

[William Anthony]

oh maybe IF anyone bought into orenthal being a coconspirator BUT since he initiated, planned, and executed the armed robbery I guess convicted felon orenthal james simpson is liable.

I understand that you may not understand the general legal elements of conspiracy and I hope that you will believe me on this point and, if not, I will supply the information but it takes two or more to conspire and it does not involve who planned, initiated or executed the crime or even had to execute a crime. It is an incohate crime, meaning imperfect, meaning the crime did not have to be completed. It only matters that two or more, called coconspirators, agreed to commit a crime and took some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, I think the appeal is on very solid ground as it relates to jury instruction #6.

[William Anthony]

This is the first thought that comes to my mind - in some states u-turns are illegal - in some they are not. Not all states have signs. So if I get pulled over for a u-turn in a state where it is illegal - I expect I'll get a ticket. Not knowing a law is not an excuse.

You are correct but, since making an unlawful turn does not normally, absent other circumstances, deprive one of his right to liberty, there would be no Due Process violation. In fact there may not even be a trial. The point is that in a case as serious as the instant one and since Nevada has recognized a claim of right defense to burglary and other states have recognized a claim of right to robbery that there should be some consistency in the law and a consistency in Nevada law. I do thank you for this, because being the want to be lawyer that I am in training to be, I would argue the same for the u turn laws since they deprive a citizen of his right to property, meaning his money. I doubt that case would afford me the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court as the client most likely want to pay the fine than pay my fee.:)

[William Anthony]

Is it really possible that there where different questionaires?

No the questions were the same, which is my point. How can one say that, because a Black person goes to church and is a Christian and a White person is a Christian but does not go to church that the Black's religious beliefs are stronger than the White's, or that the White is able to set aside his religious beliefs and the Black is not? The prosecution said that they dismissed one black juror, who said she would be able to forgive Simpson. Doesn't the Bible tell all Christians to forgive? I think the question should have been, even if you forgive Simpson, can you find him guilty if you believe the evidence proves his guilt. Imho, anything short of that is an impermissible exclusion based on the Batson challenge.

[William Anthony]

oh maybe IF anyone bought into orenthal being a coconspirator BUT since he initiated, planned, and executed the armed robbery I guess convicted felon orenthal james simpson is liable.

Simpson is not liable. He has been found guilty and the questions remain were there any harmful and clearly erroneous errors of law and were there any Due Process violations.

[William Anthony]

you are right -- those facts cannot be changed. but I'm preplexed martin -- orenthal said he planned and executed the 'sting' (armed robbery) but you continue to insinuate that he's a liar and a victim of everybody else's actions. I can't figure out why you don't let his statements stand?

Not quite correct. He said he wanted to reclaim his property and got others to assist in the endeavor and he never intended to harm anyone, which the victims said they were not harmed.

[Redmama]

hi there where have you been.

In the beginning Fumong was in ca with the goods and oj was in florida at home. Some how Riccio found Beadsley and Beadsley informed Riccio that he had Oj stuff for sale.Riccio called oj and informed him that he knew some people that had his stolen goods and had offered it to him for sale.Riccio informed oj that he would arrange for oj to confront the sellers face to face to get his stuff.

When oj came to Vegas for the wedding Riccio had the sellers to come to HIS hotel room and he then brought oj and the others to the room for the face off.

Based on the above it seems that if it had not been for Riccio Fumong would have been in CA and oj would have been at the wedding until he had returned to Florida.imo

So maybe Ricio and others should be in trouble too - that could be a thread, if allowed, all within itself - but that is not the issue here - nor what I said/meant - ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves and only ourselves. One bad dead doesn't make another okay. If my passenger had told me to make that u-turn, it isn't their fault - I'm behind the wheel.

[Redmama]

I hope you're well on your way to recovery and it's good to see you posting again. of course you are right on about doing the right thing if that's who/what you are. Good for you.

Thanks - it is good to be back again!

[Redmama]

I feel that way about McClinton and Alexander saying they brought guns to the room because they said oj asked them to.

Yep - McClinton was wrong, Alexander was wrong, and OJ was wrong.

[martin II]

Yep - McClinton was wrong, Alexander was wrong, and OJ was wrong.

McClinton and Alexander were given probation for telling the jury lies in a effort to support the prosecutions weak claims and bring ing guns into the room all on their own.Something wrong.
If the person had been joe instead of oj simpson, i believe all would have been charged equally and sent to jail.

[martin II]

I guess there is a chance of that - but if the law was followed he/she would be well within his/her rights to make me pay the ticket. I'm a rule follower (drives my hubby nuts sometimes) so I would just pay the ticket, not even bother going in front of a judge in this situation.

Your right to protest the ticket is not lost because you broke a rule.That right is included in your right to protest and have a judge decide is there was harn in your actions.I once went to traffic court to pay three tickets for parking violatioins totaling a face fine of about $300.00. the judge decided that amount was excessive and reduced the fine to $50.00.

[William Anthony]

So maybe Ricio and others should be in trouble too - that could be a thread, if allowed, all within itself - but that is not the issue here - nor what I said/meant - ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves and only ourselves. One bad dead doesn't make another okay. If my passenger had told me to make that u-turn, it isn't their fault - I'm behind the wheel.

Well the passenger could be brought up on aiding and abetting. If there was a sign saying no u turns and the passenger tore it down, you and the passenger might be brought up on conspiracy charges, according to my understanding of Nevada law. The passenger may be given immunity, as was Riccio, and you would be left to face the punishment, while the passenger, who did most, would be making merry and appearing on television programs, describing his/her part in the crime and your cable is turned off. :)

[William Anthony]

Your right to protest the ticket is not lost because you broke a rule.That right is included in your right to protest and have a judge decide is there was harn in your actions.I once went to traffic court to pay three tickets for parking violatioins totaling a face fine of about $300.00. the judge decided that amount was excessive and reduced the fine to $50.00.

I once went to court to protest an arrest for driving without a license, when I was merely sitting in a car on private property, and the judge told me that it made no difference, because I had access to a public street. I looked at him in amazement and said, doesn't everyone in America have that right. He looked at me with anger and my punishment rose considerably. A lot depends on the judge, and I am glad he was not judge J. Glass or I may not be posting, today. :)

[weezer]

I understand that you may not understand the general legal elements of conspiracy and I hope that you will believe me on this point and, if not, I will supply the information but it takes two or more to conspire and it does not involve who planned, initiated or executed the crime or even had to execute a crime. It is an incohate crime, meaning imperfect, meaning the crime did not have to be completed. It only matters that two or more, called coconspirators, agreed to commit a crime and took some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, I think the appeal is on very solid ground as it relates to jury instruction #6.

I understand completely -- I also understand that there would NOT have been any co-conspirators or crimes had orenthal NOT put together the band of thugs and gone to that hotel.

[William Anthony]

I understand completely -- I also understand that there would NOT have been any co-conspirators or crimes had orenthal NOT put together the band of thugs and gone to that hotel.

No you do not seem to understand at all as you are arguing the instruction on aiding and abetting and coercion, which to me sounds similar to solicitation but not that of conspiracy or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which the Nevada court has limited to certain crimes, which, IIRC, are specific intent crimes, which robbery and kidnapping, if I am correct are not. Since I think the kidnapping charge will be overturned on another basis, I will limit it to the robbery charge.

[weezer]

No you do not seem to understand at all as you are arguing the instruction on aiding and abetting and coercion, which to me sounds similar to solicitation but not that of conspiracy or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which the Nevada court has limited to certain crimes, which, IIRC, are specific intent crimes, which robbery and kidnapping, if I am correct are not. Since I think the kidnapping charge will be overturned on another basis, I will limit it to the robbery charge.

LOL -- so now you're going to interpret Nevada law for Nevada courts? LOL

[William Anthony]

LOL -- so now you're going to interpret Nevada law for Nevada courts? LOL

No, not for them but for posters that might not want to believe what the read. The Nevada case I cited already explained the court's view and the jury instructions were made in such a manner that any layperson might understand, imho. I think that, if you read the instructions on aiding, abetting and coercion, you might agree.

[martin II]

I understand completely -- I also understand that there would NOT have been any co-conspirators or crimes had orenthal NOT put together the band of thugs and gone to that hotel.

It does not look like you understand.Maby you should reread.

[Redmama]

You are correct but, since making an unlawful turn does not normally, absent other circumstances, deprive one of his right to liberty, there would be no Due Process violation. In fact there may not even be a trial. The point is that in a case as serious as the instant one and since Nevada has recognized a claim of right defense to burglary and other states have recognized a claim of right to robbery that there should be some consistency in the law and a consistency in Nevada law. I do thank you for this, because being the want to be lawyer that I am in training to be, I would argue the same for the u turn laws since they deprive a citizen of his right to property, meaning his money. I doubt that case would afford me the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court as the client most likely want to pay the fine than pay my fee.:)

I would argue that laws are meant to deprive citizens of something - that is the point - laws are meant to be a deterrent to keep all citizens safe from others. If I make a u-turn and kill someone, money would be the last thing on my mind.

[William Anthony]

I would argue that laws are meant to deprive citizens of something - that is the point - laws are meant to be a deterrent to keep all citizens safe from others. If I make a u-turn and kill someone, money would be the last thing on my mind.

I am glad to see you posting more and hope you are feeling fine. I would argue that laws are designed to set forth a standard of conduct that society deems proper and criminal laws have the added element of the protection of society and civil law is designed to set forth conduct that is wrong but not criminal. I would argue that criminal law has an additional element of a deterrent factor with the possible deprivation of liberty, which is a fundamental/Constitutionally guaranteed privilege. With all of that said, you have changed the circumstances and included a vehicular homicide by means of a traffic violation. In that event and considering your prior quote, I would argue vehemently and passionately appeal to the trier of fact for the need for some consistency in the law, as an accused has a right to know specifically in each and every state that his conduct is criminal and argue that the lack of consistency negates criminal intent. I think under those circumstances and, if you were facing prison for a violation that you did not realize was a crime and never intended to commit any crime, you might afford my fees, smile.

[William Anthony]

I would argue that laws are meant to deprive citizens of something - that is the point - laws are meant to be a deterrent to keep all citizens safe from others. If I make a u-turn and kill someone, money would be the last thing on my mind.

You do bring up some interesting points and I hope that you understand my point on this issue. The need for some consistency as to privileges/rights being Constitutionally deprived by inconsistencies in state laws has been addressed. The two most notable cases in my mind were the Dred Scott decision, which promoted enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15 Amendments to overturn that decision, and the case of Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court may be addressing this issue again as it considers the right of same sex couples to marry and have that marriage honored throughout the United States. I think there should be some model of uniform criminal laws for people to follow or they may unintentionally violate a criminal law or, perhaps, better stated all violations of criminal laws that involve a liberty deprivation should require the mens rea or specific intent to commit the crime. I do not know for sure but I see the general intent as a means to convict those who might not otherwise be found guilty. I think the court has ruled that the intent fact is a matter of fact for the trier of fact and I do not see that as imposing to heavy a burden for the state, as the jury could have chosen not to believe Simpson's defense, as opposed to being instructed not to consider it.

[Redmama]

You do bring up some interesting points and I hope that you understand my point on this issue. The need for some consistency as to privileges/rights being Constitutionally deprived by inconsistencies in state laws has been addressed. The two most notable cases in my mind were the Dred Scott decision, which promoted enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15 Amendments to overturn that decision, and the case of Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court may be addressing this issue again as it considers the right of same sex couples to marry and have that marriage honored throughout the United States. I think there should be some model of uniform criminal laws for people to follow or they may unintentionally violate a criminal law or, perhaps, better stated all violations of criminal laws that involve a liberty deprivation should require the mens rea or specific intent to commit the crime. I do not know for sure but I see the general intent as a means to convict those who might not otherwise be found guilty. I think the court has ruled that the intent fact is a matter of fact for the trier of fact and I do not see that as imposing to heavy a burden for the state, as the jury could have chosen not to believe Simpson's defense, as opposed to being instructed not to consider it.


I would agree, it would be great if all laws were the same...but they are not. I believe even if we started now it would be hundreds of years before states would agree. Having said that, when do you believe that laws should be followed, and not argued?

[William Anthony]

I would agree, it would be great if all laws were the same...but they are not. I believe even if we started now it would be hundreds of years before states would agree. Having said that, when do you believe that laws should be followed, and not argued?

As fair as laws being followed and not argued, never. Don't forget that many consider me a wannabe lawyer, :). If everyone followed the law, then lawyers would be reduced to estates, wills, trusts, divorce proceedings and bankruptcy, imho. It should not take long to make all criminal laws require the element of specific intent or mens rea. I don't know if you meant the laws should be followed and not disobeyed. I have said this before. Because most laws are written they lend themselves to interpretation. Who succeeds the President and becomes President in the event that he is unable to fulfill his duties while in office according to the law? Did you mean followed and not obeyed?

[William Anthony]

I would agree, it would be great if all laws were the same...but they are not. I believe even if we started now it would be hundreds of years before states would agree. Having said that, when do you believe that laws should be followed, and not argued?

It is taking you much too long to answer the President question, :).

[William Anthony]

Let me help you out on that question and show the value of interpretation and argument. Most will say that Article II of the Constitution gave the Vice President the power to become President but that is not the case. Article II only provides that the duties "shall devolve" to the Vice President. Although the secession was followed but challenged after a careful reading of the Constitution, it was not unitl 1965, after the assassination of President Kennedy that the 25th Amendment was passed making the Vice President President in the event that the President was unable to fulfill the duties of his office. They operated de facto, as opposed to de jure up until that point. You see where interpretation and argument of law can be important, don't you? :)

[William Anthony]

This is what Sir Thomas Aquinas said about when law should be disobeyed.

"Whether someone subject to the law can act outside the letter of the law
All law is ordered to the common well-being of men and gains the force of law from precisely that fact. To the degree that it fails in accomplishing this end, it loses its binding force. Thus the Jurist says, "No reason of law or advantage of equity allows us to interpret harshly and render burdensome those healthy measures which were originally enacted for man s welfare."

It often happens that a law aimed at the general welfare is useful in most cases and yet on occasion is very harmful. Because a legislator cannot foresee all possible individual cases, he promulgates a law which fits the majority of cases, having the common good in mind. If a case emerges in which the law is harmful to the common good, it should not be observed. For example, if a law says that the gates of a certain besieged city should remain closed, such a law is beneficial to the city in most cases; yet if the enemy is pursuing some of the very citizens by whom the city is defended, refusal to open the gates and let them in would be harmful to the city. In such cases, the gates should be opened despite the letter of the law, in order to attain the common good intended by the legislator.

Note, though, that if obedience to the letter of the law involves no immediate danger calling for instant remedy, not everyone is competent to decide what is good or bad for the city, but only the leaders, who have authority to dispense with the law in such cases. If it is indeed a matter of immediate danger allowing no time to consult a superior, such necessity carries its own dispensation, for necessity knows no law. "

Did Simpson claim that it was necessary for him to act to reclaim his property after LE refused to act? Was it for the common good to allow the dealers to sell property that could have belonged to the Goldmans or Simpson? Did Simpson's conduct prevent another crime?

[William Anthony]

Redmama,

Please, do not misunderstand? I am not trying to put you on the spot and, in fact, your posts have temporarily increased my motivation to go to law school. I feel inspired by your posts and questions. You have given me an opportunity to discuss the law and how it applies or maybe, should apply, which is the very reason that I wanted to become a lawyer. Somehow, I had forgotten that. I had begun to think that I only wanted to be one, because a federal judge disrespected me. It is that when laws are not enforced equally everyone is disrespected. Thank you and I truly mean that.

[Redmama]

Redmama,

Please, do not misunderstand? I am not trying to put you on the spot and, in fact, your posts have temporarily increased my motivation to go to law school. I feel inspired by your posts and questions. You have given me an opportunity to discuss the law and how it applies or maybe, should apply, which is the very reason that I wanted to become a lawyer. Somehow, I had forgotten that. I had begun to think that I only wanted to be one, because a federal judge disrespected me. It is that when laws are not enforced equally everyone is disrespected. Thank you and I truly mean that.

I've been busy making a living...not ignoring - I believe laws should be equally enforced...followed...and obeyed.

[William Anthony]

I've been busy making a living...not ignoring - I believe laws should be equally enforced...followed...and obeyed.

I believe that laws should be equally enforced and unfortunately they are not, as with this case, where LE did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case. I happen to feel that celebrities are entitled to the full and equal protection of the laws as are ordinary citizens. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in America's history as it relates to some. There are times when disobedience caused changes in the law for the good, imho. Disobedience is sometimes a necessity. If they were not disobeyed and brought to the media's attention it is more than likely that there would be business as usual. I truly believe in Due Process and have questions as to whether or not Simpson received it. I think the reasoning of Sir Thomas Aquinas is solid and there is a need for uniformity on specific intent for the common good.

I am glad to hear that you are able to keep busy making a living in these perilous times caused by lapse government in these perilous financial times, smile.

[William Anthony]

There is a long history of civil disobedience in this country. Perhaps, the most visible or notable of the violent form was the Civil War. However, here is a link on non-violence.

http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/HistoryNV.html

[socaldiva]

*snip*Screaming like a woman having flashes she did.


This portion of the post is sexist, rude, obnoxious, slanderous & uncalled for IMO :punch::no:

[RayStar]

YES!That's actually how I felt about judge glass actions in the courtroom."Screaming like a woman...having flashes?" wow.

[Redmama]

YES!That's actually how I felt about judge glass actions in the courtroom.


Then you should have said "screaming like Judge Glass." This post was extrememly rude - it takes A LOT to get to me - this did.

[Redmama]

There is a long history of civil disobedience in this country. Perhaps, the most visible or notable of the violent form was the Civil War. However, here is a link on non-violence.

http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/HistoryNV.html

I completely understand the importance of civil disobedience and understand its historical importance. Putting this case in that category discredits all the other important cases. This was all about material possessions, nothing else.

[William Anthony]

I completely understand the importance of civil disobedience and understand its historical importance. Putting this case in that category discredits all the other important cases. This was all about material possessions, nothing else.

That was the view of the south in the Civil War and this case was not nearly as violent. However, that was only a side issue brought about through a question as to when a law should be disobeyed and my answer was not pertinent to this case, such as a view of necessity as those who fought for the south thought. When Simpson received the report that LE was not interested in a weird celebrity case, he must have felt a necessity to reclaim his property. However, the more pertinent question in my mind is the possible violation of due process.

[RayStar]

Then you should have said "screaming like Judge Glass." This post was extrememly rude - it takes A LOT to get to me - this did.I post to please and express my opinion and so I thank you for expressing yours! Rude is telling a poster what they should have said. Right????
:shrug:

[William Anthony]

I think a little caution on everyone's part is needed, as this is the last thread on Simpson at this time. I do not think making comments about another poster's post, other than off topic, or reminding a poster about the moderator's instructions, are in line with the moderator's warnings. I would appeal to everyone to exercise discretion and follow the proper way in dealing with posts that they feel are not appropriate. Let's all show that we can follow those directions and keep the forum open. Thanks.

I am not criticizing anyone as I have been guilty of responding in kind in the past. However, it is time for a change and let's discuss the case and the issues pertinent thereto and we can civilly disagree or agree as to how we see those issues, and not fall into any traps, which may result in the thread being closed.

I will say that "flashes" could mean anything, such as flashes of grandeur or flashes of becoming famous. I do understand how it could be taken another way but, absent the word hot preceding it, I think we should not automatically jump to conclusions and judge J. Glass is a woman. Thanks again.

[martin II]

I think a little caution on everyone's part is needed, as this is the last thread on Simpson at this time. I do not think making comments about another poster's post, other than off topic, or reminding a poster about the moderator's instructions, are in line with the moderator's warnings. I would appeal to everyone to exercise discretion and follow the proper way in dealing with posts that they feel are not appropriate. Let's all show that we can follow those directions and keep the forum open. Thanks.

I am not criticizing anyone as I have been guilty of responding in kind in the past. However, it is time for a change and let's discuss the case and the issues pertinent thereto and we can civilly disagree or agree as to how we see those issues, and not fall into any traps, which may result in the thread being closed.

I will say that "flashes" could mean anything, such as flashes of grandeur or flashes of becoming famous. I do understand how it could be taken another way but, absent the word hot preceding it, I think we should not automatically jump to conclusions and judge J. Glass is a woman. Thanks again.

i agree

[William Anthony]

i agree

Martin,

Perhaps, you can help me with this. The Nevada case law says that burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime but the robbery statute says that it is a crime of general intent. I am really struggling with this. How can you have a conviction on a general intent, when specific intent is required in the first place? This is the crux of my question on Due Process. Look at it this way-it is like saying a person had the general intent to commit a crime, which is therefore equivalent to the specific intent to commit burglary. The kidnapping charge requires specific intent in Nevada, according to the case law. Therefore, the theory must be that Simpson and the others had the specific intent to commit kidnapping and, thus, committed burglary and the robbery was incidental to those charges but that was not the theory of the case, to my understanding, or the specifically intended to assault the alleged thieves and the robbery was incidental to the assault. ???

[weezer]

O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Roger Friedman

O.J. Lawyer: He's a Sociopath

Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” :beer: Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson. :eek:

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.

If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

. . .

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured. . ." :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479867,00.html

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson on suicide watch
January 11, 2:27 AM
by Tiffany Warner, LA Celebrity Gossip Examiner

O.J. SimpsonRumor has it O.J. Simpson, 61, is having a tough time adjusting to prison life after being transferred to a new facility in Nevada.

According to sources, Simpson initially requested cable TV, various board games and a cell phone be placed in his cell.

The warden rejected all of O.J.'s requests. However, he did place the former-athlete in a solitary wing after numerous inmates made threats on Simpson's life.

So far, the former NFL Hall of Famer has lost 25 pounds after hardly eating during the first three weeks of incarceration and the solitary confinement has reportedly caused Simpson to speak of “ending it all”…saying, “I can’t take this sh*t, man”.

Currently, guards are monitoring him on 24hr cycles and his attorney has requested Simpson be relocated to the prison’s psychiatric ward.

O.J. was sentenced to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnappings, and isn’t up for parole for at least 9 years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-964-LA-Celebrity-Gossip-Examiner~y2009m1d11-OJ-Simpson-on-suicide-watch

[William Anthony]

O.J. Simpson on suicide watch
January 11, 2:27 AM
by Tiffany Warner, LA Celebrity Gossip Examiner

O.J. SimpsonRumor has it O.J. Simpson, 61, is having a tough time adjusting to prison life after being transferred to a new facility in Nevada.

According to sources, Simpson initially requested cable TV, various board games and a cell phone be placed in his cell.

The warden rejected all of O.J.'s requests. However, he did place the former-athlete in a solitary wing after numerous inmates made threats on Simpson's life.

So far, the former NFL Hall of Famer has lost 25 pounds after hardly eating during the first three weeks of incarceration and the solitary confinement has reportedly caused Simpson to speak of “ending it all”…saying, “I can’t take this sh*t, man”.

Currently, guards are monitoring him on 24hr cycles and his attorney has requested Simpson be relocated to the prison’s psychiatric ward.

O.J. was sentenced to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnappings, and isn’t up for parole for at least 9 years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-964-LA-Celebrity-Gossip-Examiner~y2009m1d11-OJ-Simpson-on-suicide-watch

The key word in the link is "rumor" and I do not place much stock in that.

[William Anthony]

O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Roger Friedman

O.J. Lawyer: He's a Sociopath

Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” :beer: Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson. :eek:

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.

If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

. . .

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured. . ." :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479867,00.html

Aside from the fact that this is OT, it is highly probable that Saipiro was a disgruntled employee as Simpson realized he was a settlement attorney and demoted him replacing him with the magnificent one.

[martin II]

O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Roger Friedman

O.J. Lawyer: He's a Sociopath

Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” :beer: Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson. :eek:

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.

If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

. . .

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured. . ." :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479867,00.html


Are you ignoring the moderators directive about discussing the vegas case only?Gees

[martin II]

O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Roger Friedman

O.J. Lawyer: He's a Sociopath

Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” :beer: Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson. :eek:

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.

If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

. . .

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured. . ." :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479867,00.html

All of your post is gossip and OT.

[martin II]

O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Roger Friedman

O.J. Lawyer: He's a Sociopath

Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” :beer: Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson. :eek:

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.

If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

. . .

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured. . ." :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479867,00.html


I believe your above post is only meant to incite anger in those that do not agree with you on the verdict in another case and there is no proof that any of it is true.i suggest you stop posting ot comments.

[weezer]

I assume that when and/or if the moderator believes current news articles regarding orenthal james simpson to be 'off topic' she will let me know. In the meantime. . .

[FDInLaw]

O.J. Simpson on suicide watch
January 11, 2:27 AM
by Tiffany Warner, LA Celebrity Gossip Examiner

O.J. SimpsonRumor has it O.J. Simpson, 61, is having a tough time adjusting to prison life after being transferred to a new facility in Nevada.

According to sources, Simpson initially requested cable TV, various board games and a cell phone be placed in his cell.

The warden rejected all of O.J.'s requests. However, he did place the former-athlete in a solitary wing after numerous inmates made threats on Simpson's life.

So far, the former NFL Hall of Famer has lost 25 pounds after hardly eating during the first three weeks of incarceration and the solitary confinement has reportedly caused Simpson to speak of “ending it all”…saying, “I can’t take this sh*t, man”.

Currently, guards are monitoring him on 24hr cycles and his attorney has requested Simpson be relocated to the prison’s psychiatric ward.

O.J. was sentenced to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnappings, and isn’t up for parole for at least 9 years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-964-LA-Celebrity-Gossip-Examiner~y2009m1d11-OJ-Simpson-on-suicide-watch
Life is tough all around. Cheer up Juice. It could be worse. You could be hangin' with Sheriff Joe Arpaio! :hat:

[One2Snoop]

O/T -

How many message board readers does it take to change the light bulb?

One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

Five to flame the spell checkers.

Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.

Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...

Another six to condemn those six as stupid.

Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the correct
spelling.

Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.

Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.

Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty.

Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".

Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

Three to tell a funny story about their chickens and a light bulb.

Six to post photos of lightbulbs in their avatars with snarky users titles.

four to post that lightbulbs are part of a liberal socialist goverment plan to take over our lighting from the way it was done in the Bible

One to post the various sex acts which can be performed with a lightbulb

One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

[FDInLaw]

Oh, that is so real it's scary!

ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D


Thanks for sharing! :beer:

[Redmama]

i agree

I don't agree.

[William Anthony]

I assume that when and/or if the moderator believes current news articles regarding orenthal james simpson to be 'off topic' she will let me know. In the meantime. . .

She has already informed us that the discussion here are about the Nevada Case Only. I think, unless you have received some sort of authorization to post in any manner that you please, then, like the rest of us, you should try to adhere to her instructions out of you disdain for those who break the rules/laws.

[Redmama]

Sometimes staying on topic is subject to interpretation. I know I am guilty and sometimes don't even realize I am off topic until I've already posted. I, for one, just vote to let the moderator to do their job and just don't reply to those items that we feel are off topic.

[William Anthony]

Sometimes staying on topic is subject to interpretation. I know I am guilty and sometimes don't even realize I am off topic until I've already posted. I, for one, just vote to let the moderator to do their job and just don't reply to those items that we feel are off topic.

I think that is your choice and I respect it. I, on the other hand, do not want to see the thread closed, due to derailment, so I will alert the new posters, lurking or any other poster who may not be aware of the moderator's instructions. I think the moderator may be too busy and should not have to repeat instructions to posters. Let's discuss the Nevada case.

[martin II]

I assume that when and/or if the moderator believes current news articles regarding orenthal james simpson to be 'off topic' she will let me know. In the meantime. . .

i think you are assuming wrong.
the moderator gave a clear statement of what can be posted on this thread.
It was in english.

[FDInLaw]

Sometimes staying on topic is subject to interpretation. I know I am guilty and sometimes don't even realize I am off topic until I've already posted. I, for one, just vote to let the moderator to do their job and just don't reply to those items that we feel are off topic.
I agree.

[martin II]

Sometimes staying on topic is subject to interpretation. I know I am guilty and sometimes don't even realize I am off topic until I've already posted. I, for one, just vote to let the moderator to do their job and just don't reply to those items that we feel are off topic.

See moderators comments at the top of the thread.

[William Anthony]

I agree.

None of us are perfect, which does not mean we can't strive to do better. Let's discuss the Nevada case.

[martin II]

O/T -

How many message board readers does it take to change the light bulb?

One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

Five to flame the spell checkers.

Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.

Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...

Another six to condemn those six as stupid.

Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the correct
spelling.

Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.

Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.

Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty.

Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".

Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

Three to tell a funny story about their chickens and a light bulb.

Six to post photos of lightbulbs in their avatars with snarky users titles.

four to post that lightbulbs are part of a liberal socialist goverment plan to take over our lighting from the way it was done in the Bible

One to post the various sex acts which can be performed with a lightbulb

One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

And one moderator to flip the switch and leave the room dark.:cool:

[FDInLaw]

None of us are perfect, which does not mean we can't strive to do better. Let's discuss the Nevada case.Which is exactly why we should leave the policing to the moderator. IMHO

Otherwise, the thread goes of topic. . . our posts here are a prime example (lol).

[FDInLaw]

And one moderator to flip the switch and leave the room dark.:cool:
I shouldn't laugh, but that there is funny!

[martin II]

Which is exactly why we should leave the policing to the moderator. IMHO

Otherwise, the thread goes of topic. . . our posts here are a prime example (lol).

See moderators comments at top of this last thread.

[William Anthony]

Which is exactly why we should leave the policing to the moderator. IMHO

Otherwise, the thread goes of topic. . . our posts here are a prime example (lol).

My dear young lady,

We are all members of a community and what may be allowed on one thread may not be allowed on another. Please, do not take my advice as an instruction, as you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are highly capable of making your own decisions. However, if you will allow me to be so bold, I think we should be discussing the Nevada case as any mention of the other case causes passions to rise and we may be without light bulbs. :)

[FDInLaw]

My dear young lady,

We are all members of a community and what may be allowed on one thread may not be allowed on another. Please, do not take my advice as an instruction, as you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are highly capable of making your own decisions. However, if you will allow me to be so bold, I think we should be discussing the Nevada case as any mention of the other case causes passions to rise and we may be without light bulbs. :)

“My Dear Young Lady” . . . that's not the slightest bit condescending. . . *sarcasm*

My point. . . there would be more on topic conversation if there were fewer wanna-be mods on this thread. You being one. But hey, this point has been stated repeatedly to no avail. This record has been played and it is apparently broken. . .

Redmama made an excellent point, what is on topic seems to be a matter of interpretation. (Don't get me on a rant here.)

[FDInLaw]

O.J. Simpson on suicide watch
January 11, 2:27 AM
by Tiffany Warner, LA Celebrity Gossip Examiner

O.J. SimpsonRumor has it O.J. Simpson, 61, is having a tough time adjusting to prison life after being transferred to a new facility in Nevada.

According to sources, Simpson initially requested cable TV, various board games and a cell phone be placed in his cell.

The warden rejected all of O.J.'s requests. However, he did place the former-athlete in a solitary wing after numerous inmates made threats on Simpson's life.

So far, the former NFL Hall of Famer has lost 25 pounds after hardly eating during the first three weeks of incarceration and the solitary confinement has reportedly caused Simpson to speak of “ending it all”…saying, “I can’t take this sh*t, man”.

Currently, guards are monitoring him on 24hr cycles and his attorney has requested Simpson be relocated to the prison’s psychiatric ward.

O.J. was sentenced to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnappings, and isn’t up for parole for at least 9 years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-964-LA-Celebrity-Gossip-Examiner~y2009m1d11-OJ-Simpson-on-suicide-watch
Suggestion. . . should we do a whole page of "poor OJ" posts before the mod discovers this OT marathon??? How should we redeem this situation??? Personally, I'm afraid of the dark (being so young and all). . . LMAO

[William Anthony]

“My Dear Young Lady” . . . that's not the slightest bit condescending. . . *sarcasm*

My point. . . there would be more on topic conversation if there were fewer wanna-be mods on this thread. You being one. But hey, this point has been stated repeatedly to no avail. This record has been played and it is apparently broken. . .

Redmama made an excellent point, what is on topic seems to be a matter of interpretation. (Don't get me on a rant here.)

I did not mean it in a condescending way-only to lighten the mood. I can thoroughly agree that what is OT is a matter of interpretation and what Shapiro may or may not have thought about Simpson is irrelevant, since Shapiro was not part of the Nevada case and the entire post was about the unmentionable one. No one wants to be a moderator to my knowledge but there are some to my knowledge that want to keep the thread open. I would appreciate it, if when you speak of what you think my desires may be, that you put it in a form of an opinion. Now, can we let this be the last post on the subject, since it is obvious to me that you have no intention of following my advice, and let's discuss the Nevada case.

[William Anthony]

Suggestion. . . should we do a whole page of "poor OJ" posts before the mod discovers this OT marathon??? How should we redeem this situation??? Personally, I'm afraid of the dark (being so young and all). . . LMAO

I share your fear, so let's discuss the Nevada case, so we will not be afraid. :)

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Perhaps, you can help me with this. The Nevada case law says that burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime but the robbery statute says that it is a crime of general intent. I am really struggling with this. How can you have a conviction on a general intent, when specific intent is required in the first place? This is the crux of my question on Due Process. Look at it this way-it is like saying a person had the general intent to commit a crime, which is therefore equivalent to the specific intent to commit burglary. The kidnapping charge requires specific intent in Nevada, according to the case law. Therefore, the theory must be that Simpson and the others had the specific intent to commit kidnapping and, thus, committed burglary and the robbery was incidental to those charges but that was not the theory of the case, to my understanding, or the specifically intended to assault the alleged thieves and the robbery was incidental to the assault. ???

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps, you can help me with this. The Nevada case law says that burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime but the robbery statute says that it is a crime of general intent. I am really struggling with this. How can you have a conviction on a general intent, when specific intent is required in the first place? This is the crux of my question on Due Process. Look at it this way-it is like saying a person had the general intent to commit a crime, which is therefore equivalent to the specific intent to commit burglary. The kidnapping charge requires specific intent in Nevada, according to the case law. Therefore, the theory must be that Simpson and the others had the specific intent to commit kidnapping and, thus, committed burglary and the robbery was incidental to those charges but that was not the theory of the case, to my understanding, or the specifically intended to assault the alleged thieves and the robbery was incidental to the assault. ???

i have also struggled to untangle this conflict imo in the law which is why i believe kidnapping did not take place.

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps, you can help me with this. The Nevada case law says that burglary requires a specific intent to commit another crime but the robbery statute says that it is a crime of general intent. I am really struggling with this. How can you have a conviction on a general intent, when specific intent is required in the first place? This is the crux of my question on Due Process. Look at it this way-it is like saying a person had the general intent to commit a crime, which is therefore equivalent to the specific intent to commit burglary. The kidnapping charge requires specific intent in Nevada, according to the case law. Therefore, the theory must be that Simpson and the others had the specific intent to commit kidnapping and, thus, committed burglary and the robbery was incidental to those charges but that was not the theory of the case, to my understanding, or the specifically intended to assault the alleged thieves and the robbery was incidental to the assault. ???


fdinlaw

maby you can give me some answers to williams questions to me on the law in this case.

[martin II]

“My Dear Young Lady” . . . that's not the slightest bit condescending. . . *sarcasm*

My point. . . there would be more on topic conversation if there were fewer wanna-be mods on this thread. You being one. But hey, this point has been stated repeatedly to no avail. This record has been played and it is apparently broken. . .

Redmama made an excellent point, what is on topic seems to be a matter of interpretation. (Don't get me on a rant here.)

How can "CASE DISCUSSION ONLY " be left to interpretation?? GEES.

[FDInLaw]

i have also struggled to untangle this conflict imo in the law which is why i believe kidnapping did not take place.I've never fully understood the grounds for the kidnapping charge either. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

i have also struggled to untangle this conflict imo in the law which is why i believe kidnapping did not take place.

I understand, which is why reading case opinions and researching helps before posting. I am having a hard time reconciling the intent factors, especially in light of the court's admonition in Bolden, with the Nevada Simpson case. The training I have had thus far has taught me that the law is not etched in stone and in the three discrimination cases and the six administrative hearings that I was successful in, I learned a lot about argument and interpretation of the law. I am sure that, if the court is predisposed to find a way they will reconcile the apparent conflict. I could not help but see that in Bolden there was a mention of a model penal code, which means that there has been some discussion of making the criminal code uniform, imho.

[FDInLaw]

How can "CASE DISCUSSION ONLY " be left to interpretation?? GEES.
Do you really want to go there AGAIN???? :rolleyes:

One would think that this is merely a matter of common sense, but then, the items at the center of the Nevada case were deemed OT (much to my confusion).


Too many cooks in the kitchen IMO.

[William Anthony]

I've never fully understood the grounds for the kidnapping charge either. :shrug:

Thank you and that is the only charge that I am aware of the requires specific intent. However, IIRC, the burglary statute says, "any other felony". Thus, the specific intent to commit burglary must have been based on a specific intent to commit another felony. I hope you understand what I am trying to say, because robbery, which is what the prosecution said was the motivation for the burglary requires general intent. Thus, what actually is being said is Simpson had the general intent to commit robbery and the specific intent to commit robbery when he had the specific intent to commit burglary but denied the claim of right defense to the robbery charge, because he was not required to have formed the specific intent to rob.

[weezer]

Do you really want to go there AGAIN???? :rolleyes:

One would think that this is merely a matter of common sense, but then, the items at the center of the Nevada case were deemed OT (much to my confusion).


Too many cooks in the kitchen IMO.

I think the 'case only' part has been taken way too literally! my interpretation of the mod's rules are that the discussions should not venture into areas where tempers can flare: bashing victims/families, etc.

[FDInLaw]

I think the 'case only' part has been taken way too literally! my interpretation of the mod's rules are that the discussions should not venture into areas where tempers can flare: bashing victims/families, etc.Which is a result of personal interpretation. I agree with you! :beer:

[William Anthony]

I think the 'case only' part has been taken way too literally! my interpretation of the mod's rules are that the discussions should not venture into areas where tempers can flare: bashing victims/families, etc.

I hope that you will pardon my legal jargon but I am a firm believer that, if you don't use it, you will loose it. I would refer you to the dicta in post #50, which is clear and unambiguous, neither vague or overly broad, where it states that this is for discussion of the Nevada case only. Perhaps, a little historical analysis is called for as to the intent of the moderator when she gave that instruction is in order. The aforementioned post was almost directly preceded by some post, which, inter alia, discussed the heretofore unmentionable trial. The moderator it appears but, which may not be the case, did, sua sponte, put forth the aforesaid directive. I respectfully submit that it is beyond contradiction that such a post so clearly and unambiguously made following so close on the heels of a post, mentioning the unmentionable, has establish the requisite nexus and causual connection to make it plain that the moderator meant exactly what was posted.

[martin II]

Do you really want to go there AGAIN???? :rolleyes:

One would think that this is merely a matter of common sense, but then, the items at the center of the Nevada case were deemed OT (much to my confusion).


Too many cooks in the kitchen IMO.

Prior to the closing of several threads some used what they considered to be their common sense in posting and the moderator decided to limit posting to the nevada case ONLY. i don't understand how that could be so confusing and why their is this urge to do otherwise.imo

[martin II]

I've never fully understood the grounds for the kidnapping charge either. :shrug:

So How will the kidnapping charge stand if Due process is considered?

[William Anthony]

Prior to the closing of several threads some used what they considered to be their common sense in posting and the moderator decided to limit posting to the nevada case ONLY. i don't understand how that could be so confusing and why their is this urge to do otherwise.imo

Since there is this urge, perhaps, a pm to the moderator to reopen discussion about the criminal case would be in order. I am not opposed to the idea, if we can act appropriately when posting.

[Redmama]

Since there is this urge, perhaps, a pm to the moderator to reopen discussion about the criminal case would be in order. I am not opposed to the idea, if we can act appropriately when posting.

I think we need a thread just on whether or not we are posting correctly...just a joke;)

[FDInLaw]

I think we need a thread just on whether or not we are posting correctly...just a joke;)
Isn't that the topic of this thread??? :shrug:




:biggrin:


:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Isn't that the topic of this thread??? :shrug:




:biggrin:


:seeya:

It seems that it has turned into this, so let's discuss the Nevada case. :)

[FDInLaw]

It seems that it has turned into this, so let's discuss the Nevada case. :)
Yes, LDTNC. :hat:











:D

[FDInLaw]

A little info about OJ's new residence. Who is Nicole? I don't remember her being mentioned in the Nevada case. . . :shrug: (These pesky reporters won't stay on topic :punch: :D ).

Today we compare our local forecast with that of Lovelock, Nev.

Lovelock is a small desert town about 90 miles northeast of Reno. Once a stopping place for wagon trains in the 1800s, today it survives primarily on agriculture: alfalfa and livestock feeding grains.

It’s got a few motels and restaurants, including a McDonald’s and the Cowpoke Cafe. Some railroad tracks run through it. In short, it’s really no place special – other than the fact that it is where O.J. Simpson now resides.

Not that he’s able to enjoy any of the town’s offerings.

Simpson, 61, has been sentenced to serve nine to 33 years at the Lovelock Correctional Center, a 1,500-bed Nevada state prison. The former football star was found guilty in December of robbing two sports memorabilia dealers.

Now he’ll spend most hours of the day in a jail cell, possibly for the rest of his life. He’ll have plenty of time to think about Nicole.

>snip<

Today's forecast for Orlando: Mostly cloudy with a 60 percent chance of rain or thunderstorms, afternoon highs in the mid 70s and evening lows in the upper 40s.

The forecast for Lovelock: Mostly sunny with highs in the upper 40s and lows in the low 20s tonight.


http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_stormcenter/2009/01/oj-simpson-rese.html

[FDInLaw]

Karma??? Any thoughts???
LAS VEGAS—A convicted accomplice in the O.J. Simpson armed robbery who testified against the fallen football star has been jailed and could be sent to state prison for failing a drug test, his lawyer said Thursday.
Charles Cashmore, 41, was taken into custody on New Year's Eve and faces a hearing before the judge who let him and three other men remain free after sentencing Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to long prison terms.

"He violated probation," attorney Edward Miley said, citing a state Division of Parole and Probation report that he said showed Cashmore had methamphetamine in his system. "The state intends to impose the suspended sentence."

In December, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass handed Cashmore a suspended one-to-three year sentence, allowing him to remain free on three years' probation if he abided by strict behavioral rules.

Miley said a hearing before the judge had was not immediately scheduled.

Cashmore, a journeyman laborer, was the first of four accomplices to take a plea deal in the case, after initially facing the same charges as Simpson and Stewart. He pleaded guilty in October 2007 to a reduced charge, felony accessory to robbery.

He told a jury he met Simpson for the first time minutes before joining Simpson and four other men in the ill-fated hotel room confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007.

Cashmore provided testimony that two other men in the group brought guns. . . (continued, see link)



http://www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_11407827

[William Anthony]

A little info about OJ's new residence. Who is Nicole? I don't remember her being mentioned in the Nevada case. . . :shrug: (These pesky reporters won't stay on topic :punch: :D ).

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_stormcenter/2009/01/oj-simpson-rese.html

Are edits allowed?

[William Anthony]

Karma??? Any thoughts???




http://www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_11407827

Stupidity.

[martin II]

Karma??? Any thoughts???




http://www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_11407827

the info about cashmore was posted here a few days ago.

[martin II]

Karma??? Any thoughts???




http://www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_11407827

Cashmore was not the first one to accept a plea as the article states.

[FDInLaw]

Cashmore was not the first one to accept a plea as the article states.

I did note the date and thought it might have. . . knew you would let me know if it had.

Been following too many cases these days I guess. Sorry about that. :seeya:

[martin II]

I did note the date and thought it might have. . . knew you would let me know if it had.

Been following too many cases these days I guess. Sorry about that. :seeya:

Alexander stated that the first to cooperate gets the best deal and that is why he beat everyone in agreeing to testify against his long time golf buddy and personal friend OJ especially since oj did not agree to pay him a large sum of money he demanded to taint his testimony in favor of oj.

[martin II]

I've never fully understood the grounds for the kidnapping charge either. :shrug:

So what was the theory of the case upon which oj and stewart were convicted?

[FDInLaw]

So what was the theory of the case upon which oj and stewart were convicted?

I'm no legal eagle. . . but storming into the room the way they did caused some serious misunderstandings apparently.

[William Anthony]

I'm no legal eagle. . . but storming into the room the way they did caused some serious misunderstandings apparently.

I agree that it appears to be some serious apparent misunderstanding of the application of the law. However, I think it was caused by something of a different reason, or reasoning, if you will.

[Its just me]

Wasn't OJ and the other guy (Stewart ?) given a chance to plea and they turned it down. I don't know what deal was given but I'd think they had to plead guilty to something....and the truth is they were guilty of some of the charges....granted some of the charges were to the extreme but OJ knew what chances he was taking when he turned down the plea but I have him figured to be one that thought he could beat it. "Again" in my humble opinion.
My "guess" the first appeal will be denied unless there was something done in the trial that was a terrible NO NO. I didn't follow it very closely but I watched the other one every day and sadly OJ has destroyed his reputation by his own doings....and a reputation is part of the person and something you can't buy. Most of the time it takes as long to regain it as it did to make it. (or longer) Hopefully OJ will get his head straight and spend his remaining years where ever he lives being a loving Dad, loving family member and a true friend to the ones who are willing to stand by him.
If an appeals court ever decides OJ will get a new trial I hope there will be an unbiased jury that finds OJ guilty of the things I believe him to be guilty of in Nevada. Most of the time a defense attorney can find some law on the books that can halfway justify the client's wrong doings and most of the time it doesn't fly with the jury. Maybe the LE wouldn't help when OJ thought they should :shrug: but it didn't put the badge on OJ or one on his buds. I use buds because they truly are not what I'd call a friend. The truth is OJ would not be in this mess if he had kept his tail home.

Some things in my post may be considered off topic but I disagree because it is about "OJ" and without OJ there wouldn't be a tread. fep

[martin II]

I'm no legal eagle. . . but storming into the room the way they did caused some serious misunderstandings apparently.

neither am i but one has to understand the legal; aspects of the case before taking sides in the discussion if one desires to be as accurate as possible.i think.

Everyone walked into the room.storming is a media word.oj started yelling. fumong told him mike stole the stuff not me. things had sort of cooled down. fumong was offering to give oj his stuff according to Riccio. Then for no reason McClinton pulled out a gun and said bag up this S***. cashmore and the other guy put the stuff in boxes carried it out and all left.

OJ knowing he would be the target should have never entered that room.big mistake that he allowed Riccio to suck him into his scheme.

The prosecuter can always charge light or heavy as there are many laws he can use if he wants to streatch what happened into a larger list crimes and overcharging is what i think happened in this case.imo

[Its just me]

I've never fully understood the grounds for the kidnapping charge either. :shrug:

I don't know what the difference is between being held hostage and kidnapping but if the people didn't feel they were free to leave the room I think a hostage situation or a kidnapping took place...Or it would have in my mind if I was the one that it was happening to. If it was for 10 seconds, 10 hours or 10 days. Mabe I'm wrong but it seems like I remember it was reported that one of the men who entered the room said for no one to leave the room....it may have came down to the frame of mind of the men labeled victims. They are all crooks in my opinion. fep

[martin II]

Wasn't OJ and the other guy (Stewart ?) given a chance to plea and they turned it down. I don't know what deal was given but I'd think they had to plead guilty to something....and the truth is they were guilty of some of the charges....granted some of the charges were to the extreme but OJ knew what chances he was taking when he turned down the plea but I have him figured to be one that thought he could beat it. "Again" in my humble opinion.
My "guess" the first appeal will be denied unless there was something done in the trial that was a terrible NO NO. I didn't follow it very closely but I watched the other one every day and sadly OJ has destroyed his reputation by his own doings....and a reputation is part of the person and something you can't buy. Most of the time it takes as long to regain it as it did to make it. (or longer) Hopefully OJ will get his head straight and spend his remaining years where ever he lives being a loving Dad, loving family member and a true friend to the ones who are willing to stand by him.
If an appeals court ever decides OJ will get a new trial I hope there will be an unbiased jury that finds OJ guilty of the things I believe him to be guilty of in Nevada. Most of the time a defense attorney can find some law on the books that can halfway justify the client's wrong doings and most of the time it doesn't fly with the jury. Maybe the LE wouldn't help when OJ thought they should :shrug: but it didn't put the badge on OJ or one on his buds. I use buds because they truly are not what I'd call a friend. The truth is OJ would not be in this mess if he had kept his tail home.

Some things in my post may be considered off topic but I disagree because it is about "OJ" and without OJ there wouldn't be a tread. fep


oj should have never entered that room.that was silly considering who he was. i think that kidnapping did not take place and everyone in the room should have been charged fairly and tried including the two trying to sell stolen goods.This way the people of nevada would have received justice. imo

[martin II]

I don't know what the difference is between being held hostage and kidnapping but if the people didn't feel they were free to leave the room I think a hostage situation or a kidnapping took place...Or it would have in my mind if I was the one that it was happening to. If it was for 10 seconds, 10 hours or 10 days. fep


In my view asportation did not take place as no one was moved from the room.

[Its just me]

In my view asportation did not take place as no one was moved from the room.


I ETA my post. Sorry you but your to fast. ;)

I don't know what the difference is between being held hostage and kidnapping but if the people didn't feel they were free to leave the room I think a hostage situation or a kidnapping took place...Or it would have in my mind if I was the one that it was happening to. If it was for 10 seconds, 10 hours or 10 days. Mabe I'm wrong but it seems like I remember it was reported that one of the men who entered the room said for no one to leave the room....it may have came down to the frame of mind of the men labeled victims. They are all crooks in my opinion. fep

[martin II]

Question

A person walkes into a bank and finds 30 people in line. he pulls out a gun and says everybody freeze.they do.he collects money from the teller leaves and is caught by le dowen the street.

Does the DA charge him with 30 or more counts of kidnapping?

[Its just me]

Question

A person walkes into a bank and finds 30 people in line. he pulls out a gun and says everybody freeze.they do.he collects money from the teller leaves and is caught by le dowen the street.

Does the DA charge him with 30 or more counts of kidnapping?

If I rented a motel room and someone came in with a gun and told me not to leave....they better charge them with something. fep

[martin II]

I ETA my post. Sorry you but your to fast. ;)

I don't know what the difference is between being held hostage and kidnapping but if the people didn't feel they were free to leave the room I think a hostage situation or a kidnapping took place...Or it would have in my mind if I was the one that it was happening to. If it was for 10 seconds, 10 hours or 10 days. Mabe I'm wrong but it seems like I remember it was reported that one of the men who entered the room said for no one to leave the room....it may have came down to the frame of mind of the men labeled victims. They are all crooks in my opinion. fep

It is believed that oj said nobody leaves the room.
but then no one asked to leave.
the nevada supreme court has agreed that asportation must be a part of kidnapping. imo:shrug:

[martin II]

If I rented a motel room and someone came in with a gun and told me not to leave....they better charge them with something. fep

the hotel room was rented by Riccio not the victims and Riccio brought oj and his buds/victims togeather in his room for the purpose of tapping for money.

[William Anthony]

Wasn't OJ and the other guy (Stewart ?) given a chance to plea and they turned it down. I don't know what deal was given but I'd think they had to plead guilty to something....and the truth is they were guilty of some of the charges....granted some of the charges were to the extreme but OJ knew what chances he was taking when he turned down the plea but I have him figured to be one that thought he could beat it. "Again" in my humble opinion.
My "guess" the first appeal will be denied unless there was something done in the trial that was a terrible NO NO. I didn't follow it very closely but I watched the other one every day and sadly OJ has destroyed his reputation by his own doings....and a reputation is part of the person and something you can't buy. Most of the time it takes as long to regain it as it did to make it. (or longer) Hopefully OJ will get his head straight and spend his remaining years where ever he lives being a loving Dad, loving family member and a true friend to the ones who are willing to stand by him.
If an appeals court ever decides OJ will get a new trial I hope there will be an unbiased jury that finds OJ guilty of the things I believe him to be guilty of in Nevada. Most of the time a defense attorney can find some law on the books that can halfway justify the client's wrong doings and most of the time it doesn't fly with the jury. Maybe the LE wouldn't help when OJ thought they should :shrug: but it didn't put the badge on OJ or one on his buds. I use buds because they truly are not what I'd call a friend. The truth is OJ would not be in this mess if he had kept his tail home.

Some things in my post may be considered off topic but I disagree because it is about "OJ" and without OJ there wouldn't be a tread. fep

All of what you said may be true. However, all of us want to have the law applied correctly in regard to our Due Process rights. That is my concern and a new trial might give more validity to the conviction, imho, due to the numerous possible errors of law.

[William Anthony]

I ETA my post. Sorry you but your to fast. ;)

I don't know what the difference is between being held hostage and kidnapping but if the people didn't feel they were free to leave the room I think a hostage situation or a kidnapping took place...Or it would have in my mind if I was the one that it was happening to. If it was for 10 seconds, 10 hours or 10 days. Mabe I'm wrong but it seems like I remember it was reported that one of the men who entered the room said for no one to leave the room....it may have came down to the frame of mind of the men labeled victims. They are all crooks in my opinion. fep

I can't remember the exact wording, without going back and finding the link, but the Nevada Supreme court has ruled that, in order for there to be kidnapping, it must be something more done than what was incidental to the crime/robbery. I do not think you have that in this case.

[Its just me]

It is believed that oj said nobody leaves the room.
but then no one asked to leave.
the nevada supreme court has agreed that asportation must be a part of kidnapping. imo:shrug:

Would you have felt free to leave the room if you had been told not to leave and there was a gun involved. I sure wouldn't have.
I'm the first to admit I'm not highly educated and I don't know the meaning of asportation and it is not in my dictionary but it's not a legal one. Please help me out. For now I can only guess it has something to do with not being moved from the room.

[William Anthony]

the hotel room was rented by Riccio not the victims and Riccio brought oj and his buds/victims togeather in his room for the purpose of tapping for money.

I did not realize that Riccio rented the room. This puts a whole new light on subject, imho. I will have to look at the burglary statute, again.

[William Anthony]

In regard to the kidnapping charge and what the Nevada supreme court has ruled,


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...OpNo86&invol=2

"We conclude that dual convictions for kidnapping and murder, arising out of a single course of conduct, may exist if the seizure, restraint, or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged."

[Its just me]

All of what you said may be true. However, all of us want to have the law applied correctly in regard to our Due Process rights. That is my concern and a new trial might give more validity to the conviction, imho, due to the numerous possible errors of law.

I agree but on the flip side I don't want someone to be set free by bringing in another case that clearly would not be the same circumstances. If there was "actual" errors I hope OJ gets his new trial. LOL I can't really blame OJ because I doubt one soul in his position would not be grasping at every straw to lesson their sentence. The problem for OJ is he is now dealing with a higher court and it won't be a jury who decides but officials who know the law that applies to his actual case. I'm sure his defense will appeal every thing that has any chance of getting a new trial but that doesn't mean its going to happen or if even actaully has case law to back it up. MHOO fep

[William Anthony]

After rereading the burglary statute, I don't think it matters that Ricicio rented the room.

NRS 205.060 Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

[William Anthony]

I agree but on the flip side I don't want someone to be set free by bringing in another case that clearly would not be the same circumstances. If there was "actual" errors I hope OJ gets his new trial. LOL I can't really blame OJ because I doubt one soul in his position would not be grasping at every straw to lesson their sentence. The problem for OJ is he is now dealing with a higher court and it won't be a jury who decides but officials who know the law that applies to his actual case. I'm sure his defense will appeal every thing that has any chance of getting a new trial but that doesn't mean its going to happen or if even actaully has case law to back it up. MHOO fep

I have posted the case law that supports some of what may be the grounds for his appeal. I have also mentioned the Brandise brief in which it may allow an argument for the need of uniformity of the laws, not on the basis of case law, but on the basis of fundamental fairness or, if you will, Due Process. I think that he may not be successful on appeal, just because he is who he is or who people think him to be.

[Its just me]

In regard to the kidnapping charge and what the Nevada supreme court has ruled,


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...OpNo86&invol=2

"We conclude that dual convictions for kidnapping and murder, arising out of a single course of conduct, may exist if the seizure, restraint, or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged."


The link didn't take me to the ruling or case. Maybe I overlooked it on the page that popped up. fep

[William Anthony]

The link didn't take me to the ruling or case. Maybe I overlooked it on the page that popped up. fep

The link did not take me to it either. I will have to try and find the actual case, again, because I can't remember the citation. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

I don't know if this is the case or whether it was the Wright case, no pun intended, :), but here is another and what it says.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo23&invol=2

"����������� In Wright, this court reversed kidnapping convictions imposed by the district court in the context of an armed robbery where the victims were moved from one room to another at the crime scene over a short period of time, and then tied up hand and foot with tape.� Wright embraced the California position taken in People v. Daniels.[8]� In this, we observed the following:

If . . . the movement of the victim is incidental to the robbery and does not substantially increase the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself, it would be unreasonable to believe that the legislature intended a double punishment. . . .� On the other hand, if the movement of the victim results in increased danger over and above that present in the crime of robbery itself, a kidnap[p]ing charge also may lie.[9]"

[Its just me]

I have posted the case law that supports some of what may be the grounds for his appeal. I have also mentioned the Brandise brief in which it may allow an argument for the need of uniformity of the laws, not on the basis of case law, but on the basis of fundamental fairness or, if you will, Due Process. I think that he may not be successful on appeal, just because he is who he is or who people think him to be.

I think you could be right if it was on a local level where things do go wrong and who you are can come into play. It's also as you state...It "may" allow for an argument or be grounds for an appeal. It will be the appeals court's decision and OJ can only hope his attorney can make an argument to convience the judge (s). I believe if the first appeal fails it will go to the next step and as far as the courts or money allows....it could end up before the Supreme Court if allowed and an attorney is willing to keep fighting for OJ because the arguments are weak. I personally believe the higher it gets the less they care about who OJ is. fep

[martin II]

Would you have felt free to leave the room if you had been told not to leave and there was a gun involved. I sure wouldn't have.
I'm the first to admit I'm not highly educated and I don't know the meaning of asportation and it is not in my dictionary but it's not a legal one. Please help me out. For now I can only guess it has something to do with not being moved from the room.

correct
In order for asportation to take place the victims must be moved from the original place. even if they were moved to the very next room that would be asportation and would cause kidnapping to take place.
these sellers were not moved imo

[FDInLaw]

I did not realize that Riccio rented the room. This puts a whole new light on subject, imho. I will have to look at the burglary statute, again.

IMO it shows intent to hold specific individuals. The stage was set so to speak. In a "normal" robbery, the victims are random and the focus of the perpetrator is cash. . . this was more personal. Is it possible that the kidnapping charge was added to clarify this aspect? I agree with Fep, conditions were created where the victims were entrapped. OJ and his pals should be held responsible for this.

To the layman's ears "kidnapping" doesn't seem to fit. Guess I would phrase it as being held by threat of physical harm. Not really any better. JMO.

[martin II]

After rereading the burglary statute, I don't think it matters that Ricicio rented the room.

NRS 205.060 Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

The BeLL hop that brought the goods from fumongs truck into the hotel room testified that Riccio, fumong and beadsley were all acting strange in the parking lot and the hotel as if they were doing something wrong.
He also testified that he thought it was strange that Riccio had rented a roon
on the far side of a hotel wing and not in the main area of the hotel.

Riccio had rented the room. told oj the room number.deposited fumong and besdsley into the room and hid his 'ON' recorder, went to the lobby to fetch oj and his buds, brought them to his room, used his key to open the door to allow all to enter. There was no breaking and entering. imo

[FDInLaw]

correct
In order for asportation to take place the victims must be moved from the original place. even if they were moved to the very next room that would be asportation and would cause kidnapping to take place.
these sellers were not moved imo
This is key IMO.

[William Anthony]

The BeLL hop that brought the goods from fumongs truck into the hotel room testified that Riccio, fumong and beadsley were all acting strange in the parking lot and the hotel as if they were doing something wrong.
He also testified that he thought it was strange that Riccio had rented a roon
on the far side of a hotel wing and not in the main area of the hotel.

Riccio had rented the room. told oj the room number.deposited fumong and besdsley into the room and hid his 'ON' recorder, went to the lobby to fetch oj and his buds, brought them to his room, used his key to open the door to allow all to enter. There was no breaking and entering. imo

I agree that there was no breaking an entering but that is not an element of burglary under Nevada law. A person just needs to enter "with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretense.

[martin II]

IMO it shows intent to hold specific individuals. The stage was set so to speak. In a "normal" robbery, the victims are random and the focus of the perpetrator is cash. . . this was more personal. Is it possible that the kidnapping charge was added to clarify this aspect? I agree with Fep, conditions were created where the victims were entrapped. OJ and his pals should be held responsible for this.

To the layman's ears "kidnapping" doesn't seem to fit. Guess I would phrase it as being held by threat of physical harm. Not really any better. JMO.

House push in robberies and robberies of drug dealers is very popular now.So there is a specific target and there is no question of a robber retreiving his own stolen goods. I think the two that brought and pulled the guns should have been charged with that crime not all the others. You cannot call kidnapping something else and still cause it to have the same penality as kidnapping. right?

The judge ruled that intent could not be considered by the defense so it could not be used by the prosecution to make a charge stick.right?

[martin II]

This is key IMO.

If we allow what is "normal" to guide us, normal kidnapping involves the act of tieing a victim up, removing them to some hiding place, maby physical harm and a request for ransom from family members etc.
None of this happened in this case.

[William Anthony]

This is key IMO.

Asportation does not seem to be an element of the kidnapping charge of what Simpson was convicted, if I am correct. This is from the case in the link I supplied.

'����������� The law does not require the person being kidnapped to be carried away for any minimal distance.'

Here are the statutes on first and second degree kidnapping.

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

It seems to be an element of second degree kidnapping, or what we normally think of as kidnapping.

[Redmama]

Wasn't OJ and the other guy (Stewart ?) given a chance to plea and they turned it down. I don't know what deal was given but I'd think they had to plead guilty to something....and the truth is they were guilty of some of the charges....granted some of the charges were to the extreme but OJ knew what chances he was taking when he turned down the plea but I have him figured to be one that thought he could beat it. "Again" in my humble opinion.
My "guess" the first appeal will be denied unless there was something done in the trial that was a terrible NO NO. I didn't follow it very closely but I watched the other one every day and sadly OJ has destroyed his reputation by his own doings....and a reputation is part of the person and something you can't buy. Most of the time it takes as long to regain it as it did to make it. (or longer) Hopefully OJ will get his head straight and spend his remaining years where ever he lives being a loving Dad, loving family member and a true friend to the ones who are willing to stand by him.
If an appeals court ever decides OJ will get a new trial I hope there will be an unbiased jury that finds OJ guilty of the things I believe him to be guilty of in Nevada. Most of the time a defense attorney can find some law on the books that can halfway justify the client's wrong doings and most of the time it doesn't fly with the jury. Maybe the LE wouldn't help when OJ thought they should :shrug: but it didn't put the badge on OJ or one on his buds. I use buds because they truly are not what I'd call a friend. The truth is OJ would not be in this mess if he had kept his tail home.

Some things in my post may be considered off topic but I disagree because it is about "OJ" and without OJ there wouldn't be a tread. fep

That is my question - was OJ offered a deal, and if he was, what was it?

[martin II]

Asportation does not seem to be an element of the kidnapping charge of what Simpson was convicted, if I am correct. This is from the case in the link I supplied.

'����������� The law does not require the person being kidnapped to be carried away for any minimal distance.'

Here are the statutes on first and second degree kidnapping.

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

It seems to be an element of second degree kidnapping, or what we normally think of as kidnapping.

thanks
which kidnapping was oj convicted of.

[martin II]

That is my question - was OJ offered a deal, and if he was, what was it?

From the media report i read the DA offer both what they called 'A INTERNATIONAL PLEA". Don't know the details. This plea required both stewart and oj to accept in order for it to be legal. Stewart, based on the weakness of his case rejected this Internaitonal Plea and that killed it for oj as well.

First time i have heard of this type plea. have you?

[William Anthony]

House push in robberies and robberies of drug dealers is very popular now.So there is a specific target and there is no question of a robber retreiving his own stolen goods. I think the two that brought and pulled the guns should have been charged with that crime not all the others. You cannot call kidnapping something else and still cause it to have the same penality as kidnapping. right?

The judge ruled that intent could not be considered by the defense so it could not be used by the prosecution to make a charge stick.right?

This seems to be the prosecution's case. Simpson and others entered the room to commit robbery and the assault and Kidnapping resulted pursuant to the robbery. The theory was not that they entered with the intent to commit kidnapping or assault. Here is the problem as I see it. Nevada law requires a general intent to commit robbery and the natural and probable consequences of that general intent crime can not or should not apply to the specific intent crimes of burglary, kidnapping and assault. Simpson and others, by the prosecution's theory should have been shown to have had the specific intent to commit robbery, under these circumstances in order for the other charges to stick. The crimes stem from one incident and were not remote and attenuated.

This is where Galantar may have been clever. Judge J. Glass' ruling that ownership was not an issue limited it to the general intent to commit robbery and precluded the requisite specific intent on the other charges, imho.

[William Anthony]

thanks
which kidnapping was oj convicted of.

You're welcome. If it was the second, there was no evidence to support the conviction, imho, and, if it was the first, the case law is against the conviction, imho.

[William Anthony]

From the media report i read the DA offer both what they called 'A INTERNATIONAL PLEA". Don't know the details. This plea required both stewart and oj to accept in order for it to be legal. Stewart, based on the weakness of his case rejected this Internaitonal Plea and that killed it for oj as well.

First time i have heard of this type plea. have you?

No and I do not have my Black's law dictionary handy. I have looked and could not find the legal definition for it. I will try again.

[Its just me]

I don't know if this is the case or whether it was the Wright case, no pun intended, :), but here is another and what it says.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo23&invol=2

"����������� In Wright, this court reversed kidnapping convictions imposed by the district court in the context of an armed robbery where the victims were moved from one room to another at the crime scene over a short period of time, and then tied up hand and foot with tape.� Wright embraced the California position taken in People v. Daniels.[8]� In this, we observed the following:

If . . . the movement of the victim is incidental to the robbery and does not substantially increase the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself, it would be unreasonable to believe that the legislature intended a double punishment. . . .� On the other hand, if the movement of the victim results in increased danger over and above that present in the crime of robbery itself, a kidnap[p]ing charge also may lie.[9]"


The following is the conclusion of the JUAN MANUEL MENDOZA appeal. My lil ole brain continues to say that the defense has a weak argument with the dual charges of kidnapping and robbery or with only the kidnapping charges.



CONCLUSION

����������� We conclude that the district court�s instruction concerning dual culpability for kidnapping and robbery adequately stated the applicable law.� In this, we have clarified the rules surrounding such criminal liability.� Having rejected Mendoza�s other assignments of error, we hereby affirm the judgment of the district court.
ROSE, C.J., BECKER, GIBBONS, DOUGLAS, HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.
**********FOOTNOTES**********
[1]������ 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[2]������ As discussed infra, this ruling eliminates the distinctions between the rules for dual culpability for first-degree kidnapping and robbery and second-degree kidnapping and robbery.� See Wright v. State, 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978) and Jefferson v. State, 95 Nev. 577, 599 P.2d 1043 (1979).� Our ruling today also attempts a reconciliation of vagaries that have developed in the rules concerning dual culpability for robberies and incidental kidnappings.� In addition to Wright and Jefferson, see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. ___, ___, 113 P.3d 836, 842 (2005); Hutchins v. State, 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136 (1994); and Clem v. State, 104 Nev. 351, 760 P.2d 103 (1988), overruled in part by Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571, 798 P.2d 548 (1990).
[3]������ The district court sentenced Mendoza to a series of consecutive and concurrent sentences ranging from four years minimum to life imprisonment.
[4]������ The jury also acquitted Mendoza on the charge of battery of Mr. Canon.
[5]������ See NRS 200.310(1) (defining kidnapping in the first degree under Nevada law).
[6]������ 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978).
[7]������ 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136 (1994).
[8]������ 459 P.2d 225 (Cal. 1969).
[9]������ Wright, 94 Nev. at 417-18, 581 P.2d at 443-44 (citations omitted).
[10]���� Id. at 418, 581 P.2d at 444.
[11]���� Id.
[12]���� 104 Nev. 351, 760 P.2d 103 (1988), overruled in part by Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571, 798 P.2d 548 (1990).
[13]���� 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136.
[14]���� Id. at 108, 867 P.2d at 1139-40 (quoting Clem, 104 Nev. at 354, 760 P.2d at 105) (emphasis added)).
[15]���� Id. at 108, 867 P.2d at 1140 (quoting Clem, 104 Nev. at 354, 760 P.2d at 105).� This language seems confusing.� In paraphrasing Clem, we obviously meant to convey that a kidnapping is not incidental to an underlying offense if the restraint increased the risk of harm or had an independent purpose and significance beyond that inherent in the underlying offense.� The instructions given by the district court in this instance recognize this notion.
[16]���� 121 Nev. ___, ___, 113 P.3d 836, 842 (2005).
[17]���� 95 Nev. 577, 579-80, 599 P.2d 1043, 1044 (1979).
[18]���� First-degree kidnapping involves seizure, etc., for the purpose of committing enumerated associated crimes such as robbery, sexual assault, extortion, and battery to inflict substantial bodily harm or murder.� See NRS 200.310(1).� Second-degree kidnapping involves unlawful seizure of a person.� See NRS 200.310(2).
[19]���� This acknowledges that first-degree kidnapping is not committed unless the underlying purpose is robbery, extortion or sexual assault, infliction of substantial bodily harm or murder.� We note that the Wright test becomes incongruous when the underlying purpose of the seizure or detention is to commit murder.� The movement or restraint used will never substantially increase the danger to a murder victim.� Accordingly, we conclude that the Wright test does not apply when the underlying associated offense is murder.
[20]���� We reject Mendoza�s assignment of error based upon his proffered instructions.� One of his proposed instructions was covered by those given by the court, and the other did not embody a correct statement of Nevada law.� See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. ___, 121 P.3d 592 (2005).
[21]���� 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[22]���� See Floyd v. State, 118 Nev. 156, 171-72, 42 P.3d 249, 260 (2002).
[23]���� See Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. ___, ___, 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).
[24]���� See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; see also Floyd, 118 Nev. at 171, 42 P.3d at 259-60.
[25]���� U.S. v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Pinion, 800 F.2d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 1986)).
[26]���� See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979).
[27]���� Id.
[28]���� Given the wealth of evidence pointing to Mendoza�s guilt, even if a Miranda violation occurred, any error in admitting Mendoza�s un-Mirandized statement is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.� See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295-96 (1991).
[29]���� See U.S. v. Sarracino, 340 F.3d 1148, 1167 (10th Cir. 2003).
[30]���� Id. at 1167-68.
*****************************

[weezer]

From the media report i read the DA offer both what they called 'A INTERNATIONAL PLEA". Don't know the details. This plea required both stewart and oj to accept in order for it to be legal. Stewart, based on the weakness of his case rejected this Internaitonal Plea and that killed it for oj as well.

First time i have heard of this type plea. have you?

I have been unable to find anything that states Stewart was offered the plea deal first and turned it down first. I have read where orenthal turned down the plea deal because it wasn't 'enough' for him -- go figure. I think Stewart and attorney were focused on separating the trials.

[weezer]

That is my question - was OJ offered a deal, and if he was, what was it?

I read somewhere that it could have been as little as 3 years but can't find that article now. I did find this:

OJ Offered Plea Deal: Turned It Down

Posted: Dec 6, 2008 05:49 PM CST

It is too late now, but a Nevada prosecutor says OJ Simpson could have gotten off with a lighter sentence.

A Las Vegas judge sentenced the former football star to at least nine years in prison for kidnapping and armed robbery.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger says Simpson was offered a plea deal for less time than the nine to 33-year prison term.

Roger says Simpson was not open to much in the way of prison time, saying he wanted to give "something just short of a public apology."

He says Prosecutors "didn't think that was appropriate."

Simpson's lawyer Yale Galanter says there were no "palatable" offers.

Simpson's co-defendant also rejected the deal.

Neither Roger nor Galanter offered details of the plea bargains.

Simpson and his co-defendant, Clarence Stewart, were convicted in the kidnapping and armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9470426

[William Anthony]

The following is the conclusion of the JUAN MANUEL MENDOZA appeal. My lil ole brain continues to say that the defense has a weak argument with the dual charges of kidnapping and robbery or with only the kidnapping charges.



CONCLUSION

����������� We conclude that the district court�s instruction concerning dual culpability for kidnapping and robbery adequately stated the applicable law.� In this, we have clarified the rules surrounding such criminal liability.� Having rejected Mendoza�s other assignments of error, we hereby affirm the judgment of the district court.
ROSE, C.J., BECKER, GIBBONS, DOUGLAS, HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.
**********FOOTNOTES**********
[1]������ 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[2]������ As discussed infra, this ruling eliminates the distinctions between the rules for dual culpability for first-degree kidnapping and robbery and second-degree kidnapping and robbery.� See Wright v. State, 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978) and Jefferson v. State, 95 Nev. 577, 599 P.2d 1043 (1979).� Our ruling today also attempts a reconciliation of vagaries that have developed in the rules concerning dual culpability for robberies and incidental kidnappings.� In addition to Wright and Jefferson, see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. ___, ___, 113 P.3d 836, 842 (2005); Hutchins v. State, 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136 (1994); and Clem v. State, 104 Nev. 351, 760 P.2d 103 (1988), overruled in part by Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571, 798 P.2d 548 (1990).
[3]������ The district court sentenced Mendoza to a series of consecutive and concurrent sentences ranging from four years minimum to life imprisonment.
[4]������ The jury also acquitted Mendoza on the charge of battery of Mr. Canon.
[5]������ See NRS 200.310(1) (defining kidnapping in the first degree under Nevada law).
[6]������ 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978).
[7]������ 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136 (1994).
[8]������ 459 P.2d 225 (Cal. 1969).
[9]������ Wright, 94 Nev. at 417-18, 581 P.2d at 443-44 (citations omitted).
[10]���� Id. at 418, 581 P.2d at 444.
[11]���� Id.
[12]���� 104 Nev. 351, 760 P.2d 103 (1988), overruled in part by Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571, 798 P.2d 548 (1990).
[13]���� 110 Nev. 103, 867 P.2d 1136.
[14]���� Id. at 108, 867 P.2d at 1139-40 (quoting Clem, 104 Nev. at 354, 760 P.2d at 105) (emphasis added)).
[15]���� Id. at 108, 867 P.2d at 1140 (quoting Clem, 104 Nev. at 354, 760 P.2d at 105).� This language seems confusing.� In paraphrasing Clem, we obviously meant to convey that a kidnapping is not incidental to an underlying offense if the restraint increased the risk of harm or had an independent purpose and significance beyond that inherent in the underlying offense.� The instructions given by the district court in this instance recognize this notion.
[16]���� 121 Nev. ___, ___, 113 P.3d 836, 842 (2005).
[17]���� 95 Nev. 577, 579-80, 599 P.2d 1043, 1044 (1979).
[18]���� First-degree kidnapping involves seizure, etc., for the purpose of committing enumerated associated crimes such as robbery, sexual assault, extortion, and battery to inflict substantial bodily harm or murder.� See NRS 200.310(1).� Second-degree kidnapping involves unlawful seizure of a person.� See NRS 200.310(2).
[19]���� This acknowledges that first-degree kidnapping is not committed unless the underlying purpose is robbery, extortion or sexual assault, infliction of substantial bodily harm or murder.� We note that the Wright test becomes incongruous when the underlying purpose of the seizure or detention is to commit murder.� The movement or restraint used will never substantially increase the danger to a murder victim.� Accordingly, we conclude that the Wright test does not apply when the underlying associated offense is murder.
[20]���� We reject Mendoza�s assignment of error based upon his proffered instructions.� One of his proposed instructions was covered by those given by the court, and the other did not embody a correct statement of Nevada law.� See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. ___, 121 P.3d 592 (2005).
[21]���� 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[22]���� See Floyd v. State, 118 Nev. 156, 171-72, 42 P.3d 249, 260 (2002).
[23]���� See Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. ___, ___, 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).
[24]���� See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; see also Floyd, 118 Nev. at 171, 42 P.3d at 259-60.
[25]���� U.S. v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Pinion, 800 F.2d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 1986)).
[26]���� See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979).
[27]���� Id.
[28]���� Given the wealth of evidence pointing to Mendoza�s guilt, even if a Miranda violation occurred, any error in admitting Mendoza�s un-Mirandized statement is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.� See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295-96 (1991).
[29]���� See U.S. v. Sarracino, 340 F.3d 1148, 1167 (10th Cir. 2003).
[30]���� Id. at 1167-68.
*****************************

There is no need for you to emphasize your point or to refer to yourself in such a manner as you have, as the law is confusing to all and lends itself to interpretation. Fortunately, that confusion was subsequently clarified by the court as to its ruling in Mendoza. I have previously said that the kidnapping charge could not stand unless it was proven to be more than incidental to the robbery. Here is a link that clarifies all of this and your brain is working perfectly but you must consider all the nuances in the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2

I will edit to show what was confusing as I failed to copy all the appropriate dicta.

"This court recently clarified the criteria required to support dual convictions for kidnapping and robbery when those charges arise from a single course of conduct. In Mendoza v. State,[3] we concluded that �movement or restraint incidental to an underlying offense where restraint or movement is inherent, as a general matter, will not expose the defendant to dual criminal liability under either the first- or second-degree kidnapping statutes.�[4] Yet we qualified that generality by stating that in situations

where the movement or restraint serves to substantially increase the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in an associated offense . . . or where the seizure, restraint or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged, dual convictions under the kidnapping and robbery statutes are proper.[5]"

You do not have the similar circumstances to support a dual conviction in the Simpson case, imho, and which will likely be a successful argument on appeal based on case law. The Mendoza case did not remove this requirement and only said that it could be found in robbery cases. The court maintained that substantial force must be shown over that required to commit the associated crime of robbery.

[weezer]

knew I read it somewhere:

SOURCE:(WENN) O.J. SIMPSON could have settled for a three year jail term but turned the offer down, according to a friend of the disgraced star.

The former American footballer-turned-actor was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison on Friday (05Dec08) for his part in a sports memorabilia heist at the Palace Station Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas last year (Sep07).

But the star’s pal Thomas Scotto has claimed Simpson turned down a chance late in the trial to take a three year prison term - as he believed he would be found not guilty.

Scotto says, "O.J. and his sister told me the prosecution offered him a deal but he and his lawyers turned it down." And Scotto admits the fallen star will now be ruing the decision after being given a much harsher punishment, adding, "He may have given it more serious consideration if he’d known what was coming."

http://www.soulfullvibes.com/Soulfull-News/oj-simpson-said-no-to-three-year-jail-deal.html

[William Anthony]

knew I read it somewhere:

SOURCE:(WENN) O.J. SIMPSON could have settled for a three year jail term but turned the offer down, according to a friend of the disgraced star.

The former American footballer-turned-actor was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison on Friday (05Dec08) for his part in a sports memorabilia heist at the Palace Station Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas last year (Sep07).

But the star’s pal Thomas Scotto has claimed Simpson turned down a chance late in the trial to take a three year prison term - as he believed he would be found not guilty.

Scotto says, "O.J. and his sister told me the prosecution offered him a deal but he and his lawyers turned it down." And Scotto admits the fallen star will now be ruing the decision after being given a much harsher punishment, adding, "He may have given it more serious consideration if he’d known what was coming."

http://www.soulfullvibes.com/Soulfull-News/oj-simpson-said-no-to-three-year-jail-deal.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462985,00.html

[Its just me]

There is no need for you to emphasize your point or to refer to yourself in such a manner as you have, as the law is confusing to all and lends itself to interpretation. Fortunately, that confusion was subsequently clarified by the court as to its ruling in Mendoza. I have previously said that the kidnapping charge could not stand unless it was proven to be more than incidental to the robbery. Here is a link that clarifies all of this and your brain is working perfectly but you must consider all the nuances in the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2

I will edit to show what was confusing as I failed to copy all the appropriate dicta.

"This court recently clarified the criteria required to support dual convictions for kidnapping and robbery when those charges arise from a single course of conduct. In Mendoza v. State,[3] we concluded that �movement or restraint incidental to an underlying offense where restraint or movement is inherent, as a general matter, will not expose the defendant to dual criminal liability under either the first- or second-degree kidnapping statutes.�[4] Yet we qualified that generality by stating that in situations

where the movement or restraint serves to substantially increase the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in an associated offense . . . or where the seizure, restraint or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged, dual convictions under the kidnapping and robbery statutes are proper.[5]"

You do not have the similar circumstances to support a dual conviction in the Simpson case, imho, and which will likely be a successful argument on appeal based on case law. The Mendoza case did not remove this requirement and only said that it could be found in robbery cases. The court maintained that substantial force must be shown over that required to commit the associated crime of robbery.

:) Your are correct the two cases are totally different. I believe the statement that "no one leave the room" supports there was unnecessary force used for OJ to get the "stuff".

Has the defense started the process for an appeal yet. If so...is it available for the public. fep

[William Anthony]

:) Your are correct the two cases are totally different. I believe the statement that "no one leave the room" supports there was unnecessary force used for OJ to get his stuff back.

Has the defense started the process for an appeal yet. If so...is it available for the public. fep

Let's forget the intent factor for a moment, if we can, and say that he was there to rob the place. It is axiomatic that he would not allow anyone there to run freely around while he was trying to rob them. Therefore, the force used was not substantially in excess of the force required to commit the robbery. The cases are different in regard to the standard and the facts to sustain a dual conviction.

I have not been able to locate the appeal. I do believe that someone is working on it, but it has not been filed to my knowledge.

[Its just me]

Let's forget the intent factor for a moment, if we can, and say that he was there to rob the place. It is axiomatic that he would not allow anyone there to run freely around while he was trying to rob them. Therefore, the force used was not substantially in excess of the force required to commit the robbery. The cases are different in regard to the standard and the facts to sustain a dual conviction.

I have not been able to locate the appeal. I do believe that someone is working on it, but it has not been filed to my knowledge.

I understand...but I disagree and think the evidence supports the force used was in excess of what was necessary for OJ to get the stuff and the evidence shows he was there to rob the place. imhoo

I haven't heard anything about it being filed. LOL they may be having a hard time finding cases/law that will back up their claims. fep

ETA: OJ was charged with kidnapping and the evidence shows excess force so imhoo he should have been charged with kidnapping and robbery. fep

[martin II]

:) Your are correct the two cases are totally different. I believe the statement that "no one leave the room" supports there was unnecessary force used for OJ to get the "stuff".

Has the defense started the process for an appeal yet. If so...is it available for the public. fep

The only force used was that one person did a light pat down of Fumong as he had been known to carry a gun and it was thought that he may have brought one to the room. He did bring a gun but left it is his truck.

I see no unecessary force especially since Fumong wanted to give oj HIS stuff.

[martin II]

I understand...but I disagree and think the evidence supports the force used was in excess of what was necessary for OJ to get the stuff and the evidence shows he was there to rob the place. imhoo

I haven't heard anything about it being filed. LOL they may be having a hard time finding cases/law that will back up their claims. fep

ETA: OJ was charged with kidnapping and the evidence shows excess force so imhoo he should have been charged with kidnapping and robbery. fep

Every witness in the trial stated that the intent of going to the room was only to retreive ojs stuff.no one testified to any other motive than that.imo

[William Anthony]

I understand...but I disagree and think the evidence supports the force used was in excess of what was necessary for OJ to get the stuff and the evidence shows he was there to rob the place. imhoo

I haven't heard anything about it being filed. LOL they may be having a hard time finding cases/law that will back up their claims. fep

ETA: OJ was charged with kidnapping and the evidence shows excess force so imhoo he should have been charged with kidnapping and robbery. fep

I understand but I feel that the case law favors Simpson on the kidnapping charge. I think it depends on how you view the evidence and whether the evidence that the jury relied on should have been admitted.

I have easily found case law that supports the issues I have thought of. They have access to the complete record of the case and may bring other issues for the appellate court to consider. They may have abundant research to do and want to be on point. I am sure they will not miss any appropriate time deadlines.

[William Anthony]

The only force used was that one person did a light pat down of Fumong as he had been known to carry a gun and it was thought that he may have brought one to the room. He did bring a gun but left it is his truck.

I see no unecessary force especially since Fumong wanted to give oj HIS stuff.

I understand your point but it is not a question of necessary force (I know what you meant). To be accurate, it was substantial excessive force to carry out the associated robbery that should and will be considered in the kidnapping charge by the case law and telling someone not to leave the room is not that amount of force, imho. In fact, the court has seemed to acknowledge that some force is necessary in carrying out the robbery.

[Its just me]

Every witness in the trial stated that the intent of going to the room was only to retreive ojs stuff.no one testified to any other motive than that.imo

You know Martin I really don't have much doubt that was not the case but the idiots just screwed it up along the way and ended up getting charged and determined to be guilty by a jury. They should have had a better plan....theirs went wrong and got them into trouble. fep

[martin II]

I understand...but I disagree and think the evidence supports the force used was in excess of what was necessary for OJ to get the stuff and the evidence shows he was there to rob the place. imhoo

I haven't heard anything about it being filed. LOL they may be having a hard time finding cases/law that will back up their claims. fep

ETA: OJ was charged with kidnapping and the evidence shows excess force so imhoo he should have been charged with kidnapping and robbery. fep

With Prof Ogleetree available for consultation i doubt there would be a problem finding case law.:cool:

[martin II]

You know Martin I really don't have much doubt that was not the case but the idiots just screwed it up along the way and ended up getting charged and determined to be guilty by a jury. They should have had a better plan....theirs went wrong and got them into trouble. fep

True that.
i just think that the prosecution spent too much time searching and expanding the list of charges because oj was involved.i think in vegas fast food store robbers are charged less.People that cheat/steal from cosinos are just kicked out and banned.

[martin II]

You know Martin I really don't have much doubt that was not the case but the idiots just screwed it up along the way and ended up getting charged and determined to be guilty by a jury. They should have had a better plan....theirs went wrong and got them into trouble. fep

other than the bias jury member i look at the judge that allowed unauthenticated tapes to be allowed into evidense and her attacks on the defense lawyers for the outcome of the case.imo

[Its just me]

I understand but I feel that the case law favors Simpson on the kidnapping charge. I think it depends on how you view the evidence and whether the evidence that the jury relied on should have been admitted.

I have easily found case law that supports the issues I have thought of. They have access to the complete record of the case and may bring other issues for the appellate court to consider. They may have abundant research to do and want to be on point. I am sure they will not miss any appropriate time deadlines.

I don't have an argument whether the evidence that the jury relied on should or should not have been admitted. I only followed the case thru the high lights in the news. How do I hate that now because I do like to argue. Hahaha

I'm sorry I should have added JK with my LOL they may be having a hard time finding a case etc. I am very familiar with a case that went to the appeals court and when the plaintiff’s attorneys went into the court room for the appeals they rolled the material for their argument in on wheels.
I was astonished at the work that went into the research to gather supportive case law and I was amazed how those good arguments could be overridden by something else that had been previous decided. As you know the courts sometimes set new case law and if OJ’s case is so unordinary it just might be his. ;)
I will be surprised if OJ's appeal is filed much before the deadline.
Have a good week-end. We are having a deep freeze warning down here in the south and the cold is hurting my old bones. :D feppy

[Its just me]

other than the bias jury member i look at the judge that allowed unauthenticated tapes to be allowed into evidense and her attacks on the defense lawyers for the outcome of the case.imo

That's why OJ messed up by not taking the plea deal. Any time you go to court you chance getting a biased jury and/or a bad judge. OJ should have known this. I'm not saying that happened....I don't know because I'm not familar with what happened in the court room. OJ will have a chance to prove any wrong doings in the appeals court. fep

[William Anthony]

That's why OJ messed up by not taking the plea deal. Any time you go to court you chance getting a biased jury and/or a bad judge. OJ should have known this. I'm not saying that happened....I don't know because I'm not familar with what happened in the court room. OJ will have a chance to prove any wrong doings in the appeals court. fep

You have given a strong moral argument, with which it is hard to disagree.:)

I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.

[Redmama]

I understand but I feel that the case law favors Simpson on the kidnapping charge. I think it depends on how you view the evidence and whether the evidence that the jury relied on should have been admitted.

I have easily found case law that supports the issues I have thought of. They have access to the complete record of the case and may bring other issues for the appellate court to consider. They may have abundant research to do and want to be on point. I am sure they will not miss any appropriate time deadlines.

I can’t help myself but to picture myself in that situation. I would feel like I had no choice but to stay there. OJ, as big as he is, would be a very menacing figure. I sure hope no law makes it ok for someone to come into my home – for whatever reason. I know testimony was different, but in that moment – they had to be scared and felt trapped – sounds like kidnapping to me.

[Its just me]

You have given a strong moral argument, with which it is hard to disagree.:)

I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.

I think if the courts disagrees with any argument OJ's defense puts forth they will have the necessary argument to explain why and will explain. I doubt OJ's name will be a part of the argument. Granted it being OJ may make them do more researching but I don't know that and neither does anyone else. At this time we don't even know who will be presiding over an appeal.
It's sad to me anytime someone puts their self in a position where they stand a chance of going to prison. When the gun was taken into the room and the people were told not to leave that room OJ and crew put their self into that position and yes that has lots to do with who OJ is. imhoo fep

ETA: Not only does the accused have a right for due process but the victims have a right for justice to be served. OH Lawd, in this case I'm not sure there is morally a real victim. The whole bunch is next to pure gangsters in my opinion based on what I've "heard" and you also know how that can be.