Nevada Case Discussion Only [Archive] - Page 5 - Crime Library Message Boards

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 02:48 PM

Irrespective of why they were admitted, the question remains as to should they have been admitted as a matter of law. I have supplied the link in which it said the defense objected. I am not sure but I think Galantar may have simply stated an objection and Bryson went more thoroughly into the basis for the objection. In any event, the jury stated they relied on the tapes and, if they are inadmissible, then there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, imho.

If you supplied such a link I didn't see it. All I've seen are links to other cases and blogs about this case. I haven't seen transcripts of the testimony from this trial published yet or a copy of Simpson's Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. I'm basing my comments on notes I kept from the streamed video of this trial that I not only watched live but downloaded to my computer and reviewed. I kept my notes but destroyed the videos following the sentencing, thinking this matter was finally "over".

Gallanter was specific in telling the court that he had no objection to the admission of the tapes as evidence - he stated he WANTED the tapes in because he believed they would help Simpson's case. He not only failed to lay the groundwork necessary to raise admissibility of the tapes as an appeal issue, he knowingly stated his position on the matter in direct conflict with Mr. Stewart's position on the matter. The only objection Simpson's side had regarding the tapes was to a few instances in the prosecution's proffered transcripts. They agreed to the use of the transcripts as an "aid" only as suggested by Judge Glass. The jury's statements that they relied on the tapes was exactly what Galanter said he wanted to happen: the only problem is Galanter was apparently hoping for jury nullification instead of a strict application of Nevada law.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 02:56 PM

Again, Galantar objected to the use of the tapes during the prosecution's opening statement. The prosecution was allowed to play them during the opening based on a conditional admissibility. Whether that objection and that ruling will play a part in the appeal, is a matter that is yet to be decided. I do not think that Riccio or the experts met the clear and convincing standard required to allow the tapes to be admitted into evidence. Welcome to the forum.

The matter was addressed more than once. Each time Stewart's attorney(s) objected (to admissibility, to authenticity, to areas not involving but prejudicial to Stewart) and clearly made record for appeal. The Appeals Court is not going to re-try this case; they will only rule on the matters brought up in each party's appeal and based on objections made and what happened during the trial. IMO, Galanter should have represented OJ more like a trial attorney and less like a friend.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 03:03 PM

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/977/977.F2d.594.91-16723.html

“Debra Hadlock. Because White's counsel did not object to the introduction of this testimony at trial, there is some question as to White's ability to raise this issue on appeal. Nonetheless, we do not think that the introduction of this testimony fundamentally affected the fairness of White's trial.”

I have learned that when the Court uses the word fundamental it generally refers to a Constitutional right.

In my experience, "fundamental" in an appeals decision means that the issue being addressed is of such consequence that a different ruling on it alone would have been sufficient to almost guarantee a different trial outcome.

weezer

01-27-2009, 03:18 PM

OMG! a sane voice in the wilderness. . . .

welcome to the Board.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 03:25 PM

OMG! a sane voice in the wilderness. . . .

welcome to the Board.

I have been to the board for years, I have just always chosen to read instead of post. I'm not here either to harrass or make new friends; I'm just waiting and watching to see how the sad tale of OJ Simpson ends.

weezer

01-27-2009, 03:32 PM

martin II

01-27-2009, 04:04 PM

Again, they didn't have to after Galanter said he had no objection to admission of the tapes and didn't question their authenticity. Galanter had some quibble about the prosecution's transcription of what was said on the tapes, but Galanter WANTED the tapes in saying they would prove OJ's innocence.

HI

The prosecution had the burden of meeting the tape authenticity requirement
as posted in a post above this one for the evidence to be admitted.Since the le experts testified that they could not authentricate the tapes----

weezer

01-27-2009, 04:29 PM

martin II

01-27-2009, 04:47 PM

I believe you are wrong about there being a requitement on authenticity.

“The burden is properly on the offering party here the Government "to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of . . . recordings . . . ." United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). Accord, United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1975).”

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 04:49 PM

In my experience, "fundamental" in an appeals decision means that the issue being addressed is of such consequence that a different ruling on it alone would have been sufficient to almost guarantee a different trial outcome.

You may very well be correct and we may be saying the same thing. The reason I say a Constitutional right and I capitalize Constitutional is because the decision was rendered in a federal circuit court of appeals. When I see the words fairness and fundamental in the same sentence it automatically calls to my mind the Due Process clause and the Privileges and Immunities clause.

I am not saying that I am right or you are wrong because the word was fundamentally and was used in connection to affected.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 04:55 PM

I have been to the board for years, I have just always chosen to read instead of post. I'm not here either to harrass or make new friends; I'm just waiting and watching to see how the sad tale of OJ Simpson ends.

Neither of which means that you do not have a voice of sanity.:) I hope that you will post more and that we had the transcripts available to see if Galantar did object after the expert's testimony. Because the ninth circuit is said to be the most liberal, they may decided to consider the issue of the tapes admissibility even though their might not have been an objection. I am unfamiliar with the ideology of the Nevada Supreme Court.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 05:22 PM

I believe you are wrong about there being a requitement on authenticity.

I do not understand your stance and seeming change of position on the kidnapping charge. Will you explain?

Redmama

01-27-2009, 05:31 PM

Redmama,

Tell your boss that I said you need more breaks,:). It is just that wanna-be lawyer thing in me. I believe that a lawyer must represent his client's best interest in every aspect, while not loosing credibility with the court, which is why I said I would be selective with where I made the argument, if at all, :).

Ha - I'll tell her - I'm out of town and stuck in one of the ice storms - it is not good.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 05:38 PM

Ha - I'll tell her - I'm out of town and stuck in one of the ice storms - it is not good.

Oh, I did not know you work for a woman. They feel that you have never done enough. :)

Redmama

01-27-2009, 05:42 PM

Oh, I did not know you work for a woman. They feel that you have never done enough. :)

Hey now - that is because we are making up for everything the men haven't done - sorry - I know I'm off topic, but I had to gig you on that one - for your assumption and your statement.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 05:50 PM

Hey now - that is because we are making up for everything the men haven't done - sorry - I know I'm off topic, but I had to gig you on that one - for your assumption and your statement.

I think no one will complain about a momentary digression when it is meant in fun.

Redmama

01-27-2009, 06:16 PM

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 06:46 PM

So if the tapes needed to be authenticated, why didn't the lawyers object to them?

They did. “The burden is properly on the offering party here the Government "to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of . . . recordings . . . ." United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). Accord, United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1975).”

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 07:04 PM

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 07:17 PM

HI

The prosecution had the burden of meeting the tape authenticity requirement
as posted in a post above this one for the evidence to be admitted.Since the le experts testified that they could not authentricate the tapes----

The prosecution had that burden UNTIL Galanter (for Simpson only) went on record agreeing to admission of all the tapes without authentication. It had the same effect as a stipulation on their part. I clearly remember it because I couldn't believe Galanter would do such a stupid thing. Here's a link to an article that seems to support my memory of Galanter's (and Stewart's) positions on the matter, "While Simpson's attorneys do not object to using Riccio's recordings as evidence, the defense objects to the transcripts that were provided by police. Lawyers for both defendants called the accounts inaccurate."

I agree with you, but only as the issue pertains to Stewart's case, because, "Stewart's lawyers, meanwhile, object to both the audio files and the transcripts in any form."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/22/audio-recordings-highlight-first-week-oj-simpson-t/

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 07:24 PM

In order for judge J. Glass to have admitted the tapes, she must have ruled that the tapes were authenticated by clear and convincing evidence by the prosecution. This is were the standard of review will come into play, imho. The questions in my mind are, despite the fact that there may not have been an objection, did the admission of the tapes without proper authentication and accuracy of content fundamentally affect the fairness of the trial and did that admission result in prejudice to both defendants?

Perhaps you needed to hear the proceeding, but Galanter did more than not make an objection to the tape. He said, in effect, WE WANT THOSE TAPES IN BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY WILL PROVE MY CLIENT, O.J. SIMPSON, IS NOT GUILTY. The problem with OJ's defense was that Galanter insisted on arguing for a defense that was not viable based on Nevada law. He gambled on jury nullification of the law and lost.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 07:29 PM

So if the tapes needed to be authenticated, why didn't the lawyers object to them?

Excellent question. The only answer I have been able to come up with is hubris on the part of Simpson's legal team. IMO, that's why Judge Glass sometimes seemed to treat them with thinly veiled disdain.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 07:29 PM

The prosecution had that burden UNTIL Galanter (for Simpson only) went on record agreeing to admission of all the tapes without authentication. It had the same effect as a stipulation on their part. I clearly remember it because I couldn't believe Galanter would do such a stupid thing. Here's a link to an article that seems to support my memory of Galanter's (and Stewart's) positions on the matter, "While Simpson's attorneys do not object to using Riccio's recordings as evidence, the defense objects to the transcripts that were provided by police. Lawyers for both defendants called the accounts inaccurate."

I agree with you, but only as the issue pertains to Stewart's case, because, "Stewart's lawyers, meanwhile, object to both the audio files and the transcripts in any form."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/22/audio-recordings-highlight-first-week-oj-simpson-t/

I see that you have knowledge of the law. I distinctly recall that, during the opening, Galantar objected to the tapes use, stating that they had not come into evidence, and went further to say that he intended to use them and had no objection to them being used once they were admitted into evidence. I had not researched the Nevada law at that time. This is why I wish we had the actual transcripts.

I think that the court may look at Galantar's statement as preserving the record on appeal as to the admissibility of the tapes and might consider it an objection based on a condition that the tapes were properly authenticated. There is another issue that crossed my mind in regard to the tapes and the hearsay rule and wonder if you know on the basis they were admitted in that regard.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 07:34 PM

Neither of which means that you do not have a voice of sanity.:) I hope that you will post more and that we had the transcripts available to see if Galantar did object after the expert's testimony. Because the ninth circuit is said to be the most liberal, they may decided to consider the issue of the tapes admissibility even though their might not have been an objection. I am unfamiliar with the ideology of the Nevada Supreme Court.

At this time I believe the Nevada Supreme Court is where any appeal would be headed. This case has not risen to the level of a federal case.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 07:43 PM

Perhaps you needed to hear the proceeding, but Galanter did more than not make an objection to the tape. He said, in effect, WE WANT THOSE TAPES IN BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY WILL PROVE MY CLIENT, O.J. SIMPSON, IS NOT GUILTY. The problem with OJ's defense was that Galanter insisted on arguing for a defense that was not viable based on Nevada law. He gambled on jury nullification of the law and lost.

The statement we want the tapes in is not the same as saying we agree to their accuracy, imho. He also wanted and argued the claim of right defense to robbery, but judge J. Glass did not care what he wanted in that instance. I have stated another possibility of his continued argument of that defense. I have to think that he was aware of that the claim of right defense was not applicable to the robbery charge and that he understood that he would probably loose at the trial court level. With that in mind, I think he was in contact with appellate lawyers and I have stated my opinion on the conflict in the law on burglary and robbery.

I am truly glad you are posting. Here is the problem. Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping require specific intent, while robbery has a general intent requirement. With that in mind, the convictions says that he had the general intent to commit robbery and the specific intent to commit burglary in so doing. The claim of right defense is allowed to a burglary charge, or in other words, he went into the room not to commit robbery but to take back what was his. The argument would be that he went in the room with the general intent to commit a felony. However, that does not equate to the specific intent to commit a felony.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 07:46 PM

At this time I believe the Nevada Supreme Court is where any appeal would be headed. This case has not risen to the level of a federal case.

You are quite correct and that is what I said, which is why I said I am unfamiliar with the ideology of the Nevada Supreme Court. I fully expect a further appeal to the ninth circuit in case of a loss in the Nevada Supreme Court.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 07:49 PM

Excellent question. The only answer I have been able to come up with is hubris on the part of Simpson's legal team. IMO, that's why Judge Glass sometimes seemed to treat them with thinly veiled disdain.

I can think or another reason and it has to do with her mentioning Simpson's comment about calling the Goldman's, gold diggers. The claim of right defense is applicable to the burglary statue in Nevada and I am sure she realized that.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 08:34 PM

Corrections

that he understood that he would probably lose...

The argument would be that he went in the room with the general intent to commit a felony. However, that does not equate to the specific intent to commit a felony-burglary.

I can think of another reason...

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 08:52 PM

The statement we want the tapes in is not the same as saying we agree to their accuracy, imho. He also wanted and argued the claim of right defense to robbery, but judge J. Glass did not care what he wanted in that instance. I have stated another possibility of his continued argument of that defense. I have to think that he was aware of that the claim of right defense was not applicable to the robbery charge and that he understood that he would probably loose at the trial court level. With that in mind, I think he was in contact with appellate lawyers and I have stated my opinion on the conflict in the law on burglary and robbery.

I am truly glad you are posting. Here is the problem. Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping require specific intent, while robbery has a general intent requirement. With that in mind, the convictions says that he had the general intent to commit robbery and the specific intent to commit burglary in so doing. The claim of right defense is allowed to a burglary charge, or in other words, he went into the room not to commit robbery but to take back what was his. The argument would be that he went in the room with the general intent to commit a felony. However, that does not equate to the specific intent to commit a felony.

Sigh. What part of it is unlawful in the state of Nevada to enveigle a person into a room for the purpose of taking something from them by force, even if what you are taking is your own property do you still not understand after watching that trial? They did not see the stuff in a public place - even stumble onto it in a private place - and say "Wow! There's OJ's stuff he's been looking for!" They planned and lured the victims - and the items - to a particular room where the commission of the crime would not be seen and the victims could not safely leave, for the express purpose of taking the items by force. That's not a burglary.

martin II

01-27-2009, 09:00 PM

So if the tapes needed to be authenticated, why didn't the lawyers object to them?

Stewarts lawyer did object and the judge ignored it.i am looking for the trial transcrip to see when ojs lawyer objected.

If it was the prosdecutions responsibility to authenticate the tapes by law, why didn't the judge require them to do so before allowing them to be entered into evidence or played. That is what i am struggling with.

martin II

01-27-2009, 09:10 PM

Redmama

01-27-2009, 09:11 PM

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 09:14 PM

The statement we want the tapes in is not the same as saying we agree to their accuracy, imho. He also wanted and argued the claim of right defense to robbery, but judge J. Glass did not care what he wanted in that instance. I have stated another possibility of his continued argument of that defense. I have to think that he was aware of that the claim of right defense was not applicable to the robbery charge and that he understood that he would probably loose at the trial court level. With that in mind, I think he was in contact with appellate lawyers and I have stated my opinion on the conflict in the law on burglary and robbery.

I am truly glad you are posting. Here is the problem. Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping require specific intent, while robbery has a general intent requirement. With that in mind, the convictions says that he had the general intent to commit robbery and the specific intent to commit burglary in so doing. The claim of right defense is allowed to a burglary charge, or in other words, he went into the room not to commit robbery but to take back what was his. The argument would be that he went in the room with the general intent to commit a felony. However, that does not equate to the specific intent to commit a felony.

You can keep saying that - or typing it - ad nauseum. But it's as ridiculous as saying we should give the 9/11 terrorists a pass on the murder of thousands of people and assume they didn't intend for the World Trade Towers to fall and hold them responsible only for their lesser crime of hijacking a plane. OJ burgled some baseballs, lithographs, sunglasses and cell phones in the course of committing felony kidapping and armed robbery, not the other way around.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 09:16 PM

He was convicted of Burglary. Is that right?

Among many other more serious charges.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:21 PM

Sigh. What part of it is unlawful in the state of Nevada to enveigle a person into a room for the purpose of taking something from them by force, even if what you are taking is your own property do you still not understand after watching that trial? They did not see the stuff in a public place - even stumble onto it in a private place - and say "Wow! There's OJ's stuff he's been looking for!" They planned and lured the victims - and the items - to a particular room where the commission of the crime would not be seen and the victims could not safely leave, for the express purpose of taking the items by force. That's not a burglary.

The Nevada statute does not say that burglary has to take place in a private place. I fully understand the general intent element of robbery but you seem not to understand the specific intent or how the claim of right defense applies to burglary.

If I entered the courthouse to steal something, under the Nevada statute I would be charged with burglary. I am allowed to say that I was there only to reclaim my property, which, if believed, negates any specific intent to commit a theft. The elements that you have listed apply to robbery and kidnapping, imho. However, Nevada case law is that in order to be convicted dually on the crime of kidnapping the force used must be substantially excessive of the force require to commit the associated crime, robbery.

I really don't think that you are understanding my argument. The claim of right defense is allowed to the crime of burglary under Nevada law to negate the specific intent required. Without the specific intent to commit another felony there could be no burglary, IIRC. I will look again at the wording of the statute and post it and make amends, if I fell it is necessary. However, my recollection of the statute is that a person must enter a place with a specific intent to commit a felony in order to be convicted of burglary. How can a person have a general intent to commit robbery and simultaneously have the specific intent to commit burglary when the claim of right defense negates the specific intent required, if believed by a jury? I hope i am making myself clear. It is not a matter of what I saw during the trial. It is a matter of law.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 09:23 PM

I can think or another reason and it has to do with her mentioning Simpson's comment about calling the Goldman's, gold diggers. The claim of right defense is applicable to the burglary statue in Nevada and I am sure she realized that.

You've lost me. By "her" I assume you mean Judge Glass. What do you think she meant to imply by her reference to Simpson's comment regarding the Goldmans?

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:25 PM

You can keep saying that - or typing it - ad nauseum. But it's as ridiculous as saying we should give the 9/11 terrorists a pass on the murder of thousands of people and assume they didn't intend for the World Trade Towers to fall and hold them responsible only for their lesser crime of hijacking a plane. OJ burgled some baseballs, lithographs, sunglasses and cell phones in the course of committing felony kidapping and armed robbery, not the other way around.

I am not responding to your example. However, it was the other way around. Simpson was convicted of burglary, because the jury believed they believe the evidence showed he committed robbery. If not, then it cannot square with a burglary conviction.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:31 PM

You've lost me. By "her" I assume you mean Judge Glass. What do you think she meant to imply by her reference to Simpson's comment regarding the Goldmans?

Did you watch that portion, sentencing, of the trial? She had previously ruled that the civil trial and the murder trial were not part of this trial and that the ownership of the property was not an element of robbery, which you have acknowledged. Therefore, his comment was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. Judge J. Glass may have been repulsed by that comment and I am sure she had previously heard the tapes. While her sentencing was within the guidelines, did her repulsion, if she was, play any part in her rulings and her demeanor toward Simpson? That is the question and can it be proven.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:40 PM

There seems to be some problem with my computer as it is not allowing me to copy and paste. However, I will direct you to the Nevada Revised Statutes, sections 205.060. 205.065 and 205.070. I will log off and back on to see if it cures the problem.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 09:42 PM

The Nevada statute does not say that burglary has to take place in a private place. I fully understand the general intent element of robbery but you seem not to understand the specific intent or how the claim of right defense applies to burglary.

If I entered the courthouse to steal something, under the Nevada statute I would be charged with burglary. I am allowed to say that I was there only to reclaim my property, which, if believed, negates any specific intent to commit a theft. The elements that you have listed apply to robbery and kidnapping, imho. However, Nevada case law is that in order to be convicted dually on the crime of kidnapping the force used must be substantially excessive of the force require to commit the associated crime, robbery.

I really don't think that you are understanding my argument. The claim of right defense is allowed to the crime of burglary under Nevada law to negate the specific intent required. Without the specific intent to commit another felony there could be no burglary, IIRC. I will look again at the wording of the statute and post it and make amends, if I fell it is necessary. However, my recollection of the statute is that a person must enter a place with a specific intent to commit a felony in order to be convicted of burglary. How can a person have a general intent to commit robbery and simultaneously have the specific intent to commit burglary when the claim of right defense negates the specific intent required, if believed by a jury? I hope i am making myself clear. It is not a matter of what I saw during the trial. It is a matter of law.

Well, part of the scenario is "if believed by a jury". OJ & his gang took not only items he may or may not have believed were his, they also took unintended items that were not his. So there was a mix of items actually taken from the victims whether OJ intended to take them or not. This was argued during the trial; the judge explained to Galanter that the facts of this particular case did not jive with what he - and now you - were trying to put forth as a legal defense of Simpson's actions. That's why he was not allowed to go into some of the areas he attempted to go into. Surely you'd agree Judge Glass knows Nevada law better than either of us - and apparently Galanter who I don't think normally practices law in Nevada.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:53 PM

Well, part of the scenario is "if believed by a jury". OJ & his gang took not only items he may or may not have believed were his, they also took unintended items that were not his. So there was a mix of items actually taken from the victims whether OJ intended to take them or not. This was argued during the trial; the judge explained to Galanter that the facts of this particular case did not jive with what he - and now you - were trying to put forth as a legal defense of Simpson's actions. That's why he was not allowed to go into some of the areas he attempted to go into. Surely you'd agree Judge Glass knows Nevada law better than either of us - and apparently Galanter who I don't think normally practices law in Nevada.

I am not willing to concede anything about who knows more about what. I will concede that judge J. Glass was in a position where she should have known more. The problem is that judge J. Glass precluded the claim of right defense. The link to the jury instructions were posted and I will have to go back and find it, unless the poster who posted the link will be so kind as to post it again. The jury did not believe any of the witnesses, according to them and based their conviction on the questionably admitted tapes. I have posted the link, showing the case law that allows for any defense that will negate the specific intent required to commit burglary.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 09:56 PM

Here are the statutes.

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.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of his sentence.

3. Whenever a burglary is committed on a vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, in motion or in rest, in this State, and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car traveled during the time the burglary was committed.

4. A person convicted of burglary who has in his possession or gains possession of any firearm or deadly weapon at any time during the commission of the crime, at any time before leaving the structure or upon leaving the structure, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

[1911 C&P § 369; A 1953, 31]—(NRS A 1967, 494; 1968, 45; 1971, 1161; 1979, 1440; 1981, 551; 1983, 717; 1989, 1207; 1995, 1215; 2005, 416)

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)

statute 205.070 is not applicable, imho, because it deals with invasion of the home. Notice that to obtain property by false pretense is not an element of burglarious intent which allows for an inferenence of intent. The only one, who entered under a false pretense, was Riccio, imho, because he said he had a buyer for the property. Irrespective, that is not an element included to determine intent to commit burglary.

Thank you because on a more careful reading of the intent factor the claim of right defense is applicable to the robbery. Look at this, "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. How can you show there was no criminal intent, if you cannot say that your intent was not to commit robbery or an unlawful taking but simply to reclaim what was yours.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 09:56 PM

Did you watch that portion, sentencing, of the trial? She had previously ruled that the civil trial and the murder trial were not part of this trial and that the ownership of the property was not an element of robbery, which you have acknowledged. Therefore, his comment was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. Judge J. Glass may have been repulsed by that comment and I am sure she had previously heard the tapes. While her sentencing was within the guidelines, did her repulsion, if she was, play any part in her rulings and her demeanor toward Simpson? That is the question and can it be proven.

Yes I did, and what she said made perfect sense to me. I don't think Glass was "repulsed" by Simpson's Golddigger comment. I took it that she wasn't close to buying what you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker: OJ's defense that he was only trying to retrieve personal items which he had tried thru legal means to retrieve but couldn't get law enforcement to help him. Simpson's Golddigger comment, to me, simply exemplifies OJ's disdain for Goldman's ongoing efforts through legal means to attach his assets. You have to keep in mind that this crime took place when Goldman was releasing Simpson's book which was, IMO, Simpson's true motivation for the crime. I suspect Glass resented the Simpson team's attempt to sidestep the law thru jury nullification in her courtroom.

martin II

01-27-2009, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE=martin II;9158032]Stewarts lawyer did object and the judge ignored it.i am looking for the trial transcrip to see when ojs lawyer objected.[QUOTE=martin II;9158032]

If that is the law, then both the lawyers and the judge have some culpability for the entry of the tapes. That is an IF – I still haven’t read anything that makes me sure that the tapes have to be authenticated.

Sorry for the bad quoting there!!

Here it is again.The judge is responsible for the authentication being done by the party attempting to get evidence accepted not the defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmama
So if the tapes needed to be authenticated, why didn't the lawyers object to them?

They did. “The burden is properly on the offering party here the Government "to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of . . . recordings . . . ." United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). Accord, United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1975).”

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 10:09 PM

I am not willing to concede anything about who knows more about what. I will concede that judge J. Glass was in a position where she should have known more. The problem is that judge J. Glass precluded the claim of right defense. The link to the jury instructions were posted and I will have to go back and find it, unless the poster who posted the link will be so kind as to post it again. The jury did not believe any of the witnesses, according to them and based their conviction on the questionably admitted tapes. I have posted the link, showing the case law that allows for any defense that will negate the specific intent required to commit burglary.

Why do you insist on focusing upon defense criteria applicable only to the least serious of all the crimes Simpson was charged with? Would you have been happy if they'd have thrown the burglary out altogether? Can you not see that the jury had justification to decide some items were take due to burglary and most taken as a result of robbery?

martin II

01-27-2009, 10:14 PM

Yes I did, and what she said made perfect sense to me. I don't think Glass was "repulsed" by Simpson's Golddigger comment. I took it that she wasn't close to buying what you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker: OJ's defense that he was only trying to retrieve personal items which he had tried thru legal means to retrieve but couldn't get law enforcement to help him. Simpson's Golddigger comment, to me, simply exemplifies OJ's disdain for Goldman's ongoing efforts through legal means to attach his assets. You have to keep in mind that this crime took place when Goldman was releasing Simpson's book which was, IMO, Simpson's true motivation for the crime. I suspect Glass resented the Simpson team's attempt to sidestep the law thru jury nullification in her courtroom.

i think Goldman released the book about August September 07
For me i was surprised when Glass mentioned a issue from the civil trial since she had ordered everyone else not to.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:16 PM

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 10:18 PM

I am not responding to your example. However, it was the other way around. Simpson was convicted of burglary, because the jury believed they believe the evidence showed he committed robbery. If not, then it cannot square with a burglary conviction.

I'm not going to argue with you. It'll be a matter for the Appeals Court to decide - if they think its even an appealable issue - and nobody really cares what either of us think.

martin II

01-27-2009, 10:20 PM

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:22 PM

Why do you insist on focusing upon defense criteria applicable only to the least serious of all the crimes Simpson was charged with? Would you have been happy if they'd have thrown the burglary out altogether? Can you not see that the jury had justification to decide some items were take due to burglary and most taken as a result of robbery?

I see you do not understand my argument in the larger sense. I think all these factors placed together make a stronger case that Simpson did not receive a fair trial or that would be my argument. I think I would argue that it showed her bias. The jury decided that all items were taken due to a robbery, burglary, conspiracy and kidnapping. I have said that, under Nevada law, Simpson was guilty of robbery. However, the question is whether the preclusion of the defense, when placed in connection with the burglary conviction, denied Simpson his Due Process rights.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 10:24 PM

It is not a case of who knows more, so much as it is who can persuade the person making the decision that their interpretation of the law is more in line with the intention of the law.

Exactly. And OJ Simpson will not be the first common criminal to take a stab at being heard. Sadly, he's just a man; another number whose case is going to be grinding through the legal system. I hope he gets an appeals attorney who is familiar with Nevada law.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:27 PM

I'm not going to argue with you. It'll be a matter for the Appeals Court to decide - if they think its even an appealable issue - and nobody really cares what either of us think.

I care what I think and that what is important to me. I care what you think and that is important to me. We are not arguing but we are debating. I can learn from a civil and intelligent debate. I do not think it is important whether either of us is right or wrong, as you are correct it will not influence how the court rules. I understand the points you are making and only countering them with case law and statutes. I would love to be pinned in a corner, so I could learn from my mistakes. I thought I had been until I saw that taking property by false pretense was not included to draw an inferenece of intent.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:30 PM

Exactly. And OJ Simpson will not be the first common criminal to take a stab at being heard. Sadly, he's just a man; another number whose case is going to be grinding through the legal system. I hope he gets an appeals attorney who is familiar with Nevada law.

That is what the law allows for every man, Due Process before the privilege of liberty is taken away. I think he had an appellate lawyer in the bag when the case began. What better case to argue for uniformity in the law and be heard than Simpson?

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:36 PM

Yes I did, and what she said made perfect sense to me. I don't think Glass was "repulsed" by Simpson's Golddigger comment. I took it that she wasn't close to buying what you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker: OJ's defense that he was only trying to retrieve personal items which he had tried thru legal means to retrieve but couldn't get law enforcement to help him. Simpson's Golddigger comment, to me, simply exemplifies OJ's disdain for Goldman's ongoing efforts through legal means to attach his assets. You have to keep in mind that this crime took place when Goldman was releasing Simpson's book which was, IMO, Simpson's true motivation for the crime. I suspect Glass resented the Simpson team's attempt to sidestep the law thru jury nullification in her courtroom.

You speak of jury nullification as though it was automatically a bad thing. Are not our legislators obligated to enact laws that express our will? Are we not entitled to say that, under the circumstances of any case, we do not believe that the law reflects our will?

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 10:44 PM

I see you do not understand my argument in the larger sense. I think all these factors placed together make a stronger case that Simpson did not receive a fair trial or that would be my argument. I think I would argue that it showed her bias. The jury decided that all items were taken due to a robbery, burglary, conspiracy and kidnapping. I have said that, under Nevada law, Simpson was guilty of robbery. However, the question is whether the preclusion of the defense, when placed in connection with the burglary conviction, denied Simpson his Due Process rights.

Maybe the difference is that you're focusing on some "larger sense" and I'm focused solely on the facts presented in this case. I don't think its bias to treat OJ Simpson like any other defendant is treated. There was enough evidence preseted in that trial to convince me, and I imagine the jurors, that OJ's attempted "defense" was bogus. The only thing to be gained by letting Galanter proceed would have been a possible jury nullification of the law. OJ thought he'd be confronting Mike Gilbert in that room. I shudder to think what might have happened had that been the case.

martin II

01-27-2009, 10:46 PM

jury instructions

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson-Stewart-Jury-Instructions.pdf

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 10:52 PM

Maybe the difference is that you're focusing on some "larger sense" and I'm focused solely on the facts presented in this case. I don't think its bias to treat OJ Simpson like any other defendant is treated. There was enough evidence preseted in that trial to convince me, and I imagine the jurors, that OJ's attempted "defense" was bogus. The only thing to be gained by letting Galanter proceed would have been a possible jury nullification of the law. OJ thought he'd be confronting Mike Gilbert in that room. I shudder to think what might have happened had that been the case.

Now you are speaking in a larger sense as it pertains to Mike Gilbert. :) The facts are that he was not.:) Of course it is not biased to treat Simpson as any other defendant but you admit that she showed her disdain for Simpson and that might have had a prejudicial effect on the jurors. I have already spoken on jury nullification and await you response to those questions and I appreciate your views.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 10:53 PM

You speak of jury nullification as though it was automatically a bad thing. Are not our legislators obligated to enact laws that express our will? Are we not entitled to say that, under the circumstances of any case, we do not believe that the law reflects our will?

Laws should be enacted by legislators in the legislature! And I hope society is never allowed to disregard the laws whenever someone doesn't like them - as OJ Simpson did!

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:02 PM

Laws should be enacted by legislators in the legislature! And I hope society is never allowed to disregard the laws whenever someone doesn't like them - as OJ Simpson did!

Is the United States not a republic? Are people not allowed to negate a law that they feel is not in line with what they would consider a crime under the circumstances? Would the Civil Rights Movement have had the same effect if marchers would have not have disobeyed orders by LE? Was it a crime to disobey LE orders? Did that disobedience lead legislators to change the law?

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:02 PM

Now you are speaking in a larger sense as it pertains to Mike Gilbert. :) The facts are that he was not.:) Of course it is not biased to treat Simpson as any other defendant but you admit that she showed her disdain for Simpson and that might have had a prejudicial effect on the jurors. I have already spoken on jury nullification and await you response to those questions and I appreciate your views.

The issue of Mike Gilbert, and OJ's anger towards him and OJ's hope that he would be there, was a part of the testimony in this case. I don't think Glass showed "disdain" for Simpson in front of the jury. I think like many Americans she was baffled by Simpson's behavior and thought processes. I agree with Glass that this case, as bad as it was, could easily have been so much worse had gun went off, or if Fromong had suffered a heart attack and died.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:03 PM

jury instructions

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson-Stewart-Jury-Instructions.pdf

Thanks and I would urge all to look closely at instructions 10-13 and hope that those were objected to.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:06 PM

The issue of Mike Gilbert, and OJ's anger towards him and OJ's hope that he would be there, was a part of the testimony in this case. I don't think Glass showed "disdain" for Simpson in front of the jury. I think like many Americans she was baffled by Simpson's behavior and thought processes. I agree with Glass that this case, as bad as it was, could easily have been so much worse had gun went off, or if Fromong had suffered a heart attack and died.

The facts are that he wasn't, a gun didn't go off and Fromong didn't die from a heart attack, so you are looking at the crime in the larger sense. :) When I say Simpson, I mean his Lawyer.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:24 PM

Is the United States not a republic? Are people not allowed to negate a law that they feel is not in line with what they would consider a crime under the circumstances? Would the Civil Rights Movement had the same effect if marchers would have not have disobeyed orders by LE? Was it a crime to disobey LE orders? Did that disobedience lead legislators to change the law?

This from the man who wouldn't address my 9/11 analogy? Are laws that allow treating a fellow human being as a second-class citizen because of the color of his skin more wrong than not allowing a bogus "excuse" to be put forth as a defense comparable? Of course. Fortunately, it did lead to change and it did work. When lady justice weighs the positive and negative consequeces of OJ Simpson being found not guilty based not on the law but because of jury nullification, does it become an issue worthy of protest?

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:32 PM

The facts are that he wasn't, a gun didn't go off and Fromong didn't die from a heart attack, so you are looking at the crime in the larger sense. :) When I say Simpson, I mean his Lawyer.

However, that larger sense is supposed to be considered as part of the case; its why the penalty for crimes involving force or a weapon are stiffer. Galanter earned Glass' disdain by repeatedly refusing to accept her rulings. I don't think any judge, especially any female judge, would have let him get away with what he was trying to do. In that sense it wasn't personal.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:33 PM

Thanks and I would urge all to look closely at instructions 10-13 and hope that those were objected to.

Too late to object after the trial.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:34 PM

Jury instruction # ten only speaks to intent; 11 does not speak to a defense if believed;12. Speaks to specific intent and mentions robbery;13. Only speaks to intent.

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

“We conclude that the district court understandably but erroneously instructed the jury that Bolden could be found guilty of the specific intent crimes of burglary and first- and second-degree kidnapping as long as the commission of those offenses was a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy, and even if Bolden never intended the commission of those crimes. We further conclude, however, that the error is applicable only with respect to Bolden's conviction of the specific intent crimes of burglary and kidnapping and does not require reversal of his conviction of the general intent crimes of home invasion and robbery.”

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:36 PM

Too late to object after the trial.

I don't know if the arguments against the jury instructions were televised. They, like evidence, are objected to and ruled upon. It appears that judge J. Glass was not as knowledgeable of the law as she should have been, imho.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:44 PM

This from the man who wouldn't address my 9/11 analogy? Are laws that allow treating a fellow human being as a second-class citizen because of the color of his skin more wrong than not allowing a bogus "excuse" to be put forth as a defense comparable? Of course. Fortunately, it did lead to change and it did work. When lady justice weighs the positive and negative consequeces of OJ Simpson being found not guilty based not on the law but because of jury nullification, does it become an issue worthy of protest?

In one sense it has been worthy of protest for over 13 years by some. Your 911 analogy fails because of tapes released saying that the intended that result and that it had been forewarned. Simpson repeatedly claimed that he was going to get his stuff. That is why I chose not to address your analogy.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:48 PM

I don't know if the arguments against the jury instructions were televised. They, like evidence, are objected to and ruled upon. It appears that judge J. Glass was not as knowledgeable of the law as she should have been, imho.

Attorneys and the judge reviewed the jury instructions prior to giving them to the jury. It appears the jury may have reached the burglary conviction through the robbery. And as in the case you noted above, its not a matter likely to result in an overturned verdict.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:49 PM

However, that larger sense is supposed to be considered as part of the case; its why the penalty for crimes involving force or a weapon are stiffer. Galanter earned Glass' disdain by repeatedly refusing to accept her rulings. I don't think any judge, especially any female judge, would have let him get away with what he was trying to do. In that sense it wasn't personal.

But consideration of Due Process violations are not to be considered as part of the larger case, correct?:) There is a way to handle that and it could have been done at side bar or she could have said, I have ruled end of subject in a much milder tone. If he persisted, she could have told the lawyers to approach and explained that any further conduct in that manner would be grounds for contempt, as opposed to showing her disdain in open court, which may have prejudiced Simpson.

William Anthony

01-27-2009, 11:57 PM

Attorneys and the judge reviewed the jury instructions prior to giving them to the jury. It appears the jury may have reached the burglary conviction through the robbery. And as in the case you noted above, its not a matter likely to result in an overturned verdict.

Ah, I think we are reaching a point of agreement. The burglary charge was overturned in the case I provided. You will note that the jury instruction did not include any instruction on the defense if believed. You are beginning to understand my point, in this case, he was precluded from saying that he did not intend to burgle or rob anyone, because he believed the property belonged to him. If there was no intent to commit a crime when entry was made, of course that would by logic apply to the reason he entered the room and his subsequent conduct to reclaim the property that was his. Every time I go click on a link I have to go off line. There is a caution in the case I provided that the court stated that general intent crimes may be considered in the future. I think the court was cognizant of the implications of its ruling.

serpentsfall

01-27-2009, 11:57 PM

In one sense it has been worthy of protest for over 13 years by some. Your 911 analogy fails because of tapes released saying that the intended that result and that it had been forewarned. Simpson repeatedly claimed that he was going to get his stuff. That is why I chose not to address your analogy.

And you didn't hear the conversation where OJ is laughing about how the stuff came to be "missing"? This is also where the Golddiggers comment comes into play: OJ knew that stuff was no longer legally his. Irregardless of how one feels about the outcome of the criminal murder and civil wrongful death/domestic violence verdicts, Goldman had a court order laying claim to those items that OJ intentionally and illegally avoided. That's why no police department would have gotten involved in helping Simpson reclaim them.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 12:15 AM

And you didn't hear the conversation where OJ is laughing about how the stuff came to be "missing"? This is also where the Golddiggers comment comes into play: OJ knew that stuff was no longer legally his. Irregardless of how one feels about the outcome of the criminal murder and civil wrongful death/domestic violence verdicts, Goldman had a court order laying claim to those items that OJ intentionally and illegally avoided. That's why no police department would have gotten involved in helping Simpson reclaim them.

You would think that you thought that everything Simpson owned belonged to the Goldmans. Did you forget that a judge ruled that Goldman had to return Simpson's watch. Since judge J. Glass ruled that the civil case was not a part of the trial, then that portion of the tape should have been redacted, imho. The question was not whether or not the stuff was his but did he believe, rightly or wrongly, that the stuff was his and I think there is case law to support that, which would negate the criminal intent. We all expect LE to investigate reports of stolen property and hold them to a higher standard than ordinary citizens not to decide what the law is (act like judge and jury) but to investigate crimes and enforce the law so as to protect society.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 12:35 AM

Here is a case, although not directly on point, explains the element of lack of intent through a wrongful belief. I am not saying that the jury would have believed Simpson. I am saying that he was denied the opportunity to assert that defense, which might be a Due Process violation.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/342/246/case.html

“Congress, by the language of this section, has been at pains to incriminate only "knowing" conversions. But, at common law, there are unwitting acts which constitute conversions. In the civil tort, except for recovery of exemplary damages, the defendant's knowledge, intent, motive, mistake, and good faith are generally irrelevant. [Footnote 31] If one takes property which turns out to belong to another, his innocent intent will not shield him from making restitution or indemnity, for his well meaning may not be allowed to deprive another of his own.

Had the statute applied to conversions without qualification, it would have made crimes of all unwitting, inadvertent and unintended conversions. Knowledge, of course, is not identical with intent, and may not have been the most apt words of limitation. But knowing conversion

Page 342 U. S. 271

requires more than knowledge that defendant was taking the property into his possession. He must have had knowledge of the facts, though not necessarily the law, that made the taking a conversion. In the case before us, whether the mental element that Congress required be spoken of as knowledge or as intent, would not seem to alter its bearing on guilt, for it is not apparent how Morissette could have knowingly or intentionally converted property that he did not know could be converted, as would be the case if it was, in fact, abandoned, or if he truly believed it to be abandoned and unwanted property.

It is said, and at first blush the claim has plausibility, that, if we construe the statute to require a mental element as part of criminal conversion, it becomes a meaningless duplication of the offense of stealing, and that conversion can be given meaning only by interpreting it to disregard intention. But here again a broader view of the evolution of these crimes throws a different light on the legislation.

It is not surprising if there is considerable overlapping in the embezzlement, stealing, purloining, and knowing conversion grouped in this statute. What has concerned codifiers of the larceny-type offense is that gaps or crevices have separated particular crimes of this general class, and guilty men have escaped through the breaches. The books contain a surfeit of cases drawing fine distinctions between slightly different circumstances under which one may obtain wrongful advantages from another's property. The codifiers wanted to reach all such instances. Probably every stealing is a conversion, but certainly not every knowing conversion is a stealing. "To steal means to take away from one in lawful possession without right with the intention to keep wrongfully." (Italics added.) Irving Trust Co. v. Leff, 253 N.Y. 359, 364, 171 N.E. 569, 571. Conversion, however, may be consummated without

Page 342 U. S. 272

any intent to keep and without any wrongful taking, where the initial possession by the converter was entirely lawful. Conversion may include misuse or abuse of property. It may reach use in an unauthorized manner or to an unauthorized extent of property placed in one's custody for limited use. Money rightfully taken into one's custody may be converted without any intent to keep or embezzle it merely by commingling it with the custodian's own, if he was under a duty to keep it separate and intact. It is not difficult to think of intentional and knowing abuses and unauthorized uses of government property that might be knowing conversions but which could not be reached as embezzlement, stealing or purloining. Knowing conversion adds significantly to the range of protection of government property without interpreting it to punish unwitting conversions.”

martin II

01-28-2009, 03:45 AM

And you didn't hear the conversation where OJ is laughing about how the stuff came to be "missing"? This is also where the Golddiggers comment comes into play: OJ knew that stuff was no longer legally his. Irregardless of how one feels about the outcome of the criminal murder and civil wrongful death/domestic violence verdicts, Goldman had a court order laying claim to those items that OJ intentionally and illegally avoided. That's why no police department would have gotten involved in helping Simpson reclaim them.

It seems that many believe that everything oj owned was ordered by the judge to be turned over for sale to satisfy the judgements.

But only the items listed in his order, mostly high end items had to be given for sale and disbursement to the Goldmans and the NBS estate. imo

After the vegas event Fred went to the Ca supreme court judge requesting that he be given ownership of all the items being held by the vegas DA and the judge refused his request ruling that Fred would have to present each item for his review and ruling. And there is the issue of the judge returing ojs watch after Fred claimed ownership as a result of the judgement.imo

martin II

01-28-2009, 04:09 AM

Laws should be enacted by legislators in the legislature! And I hope society is never allowed to disregard the laws whenever someone doesn't like them - as OJ Simpson did!

Poll tax, and denying blacks and women the right to viote laws would still be on the books if not for protest.

MistyMoppens

01-28-2009, 04:36 AM

I watched the entire murder trial & most of the armed robbery, etc. etc. ETC.... (it never seems to end with that guy..) trial. My comment / observation is regarding the murder trial because it's always bothered me...

When OJ tried on those leather gloves he did it over latex gloves. He couldn't have gotten gloves that were several sizes too big over those latex gloves. Way too much friction. Just one more cheap, dishonest courtroom stunt. :no:

BTW - I don't seem to recall Johnny Cochran wearing latex gloves when it was his turn to try them on. And I can't find any pics on the Internet showing latex gloves. So why did OJ have to wear latex while Cochran did not? I wish he was still alive to explain it to us.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 07:05 AM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 07:48 AM

What? When did that ever stop you from dragging anything and everything in here, including the kitchen sink.

You want to do some good? CR's thread which if you help push, will become a forum.

Since we were told not to, following your posts pushing to get the forum closed, which you were almost successful. This is not the proper place for you to ask for my assistance on another case. Do you wish to discuss the Nevada Case Only? I will respond to your request at the proper place.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 08:18 AM

It is interesting that the Nevada statute on robbery does not mention intent or the inference necessary to say one has formed the required intent.

"NRS 200.380 Definition; penalty.

1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:

(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;

(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or

(c) Facilitate escape.

Ê The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. A taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

[1911 C&P § 162; RL § 6427; NCL § 10109]—(NRS A 1961, 53; 1967, 470; 1993, 253; 1995, 1187)"

martin II

01-28-2009, 08:42 AM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 09:38 AM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 09:49 AM

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 10:12 AM

It seems that many believe that everything oj owned was ordered by the judge to be turned over for sale to satisfy the judgements.

But only the items listed in his order, mostly high end items had to be given for sale and disbursement to the Goldmans and the NBS estate. imo

After the vegas event Fred went to the Ca supreme court judge requesting that he be given ownership of all the items being held by the vegas DA and the judge refused his request ruling that Fred would have to present each item for his review and ruling. And there is the issue of the judge returing ojs watch after Fred claimed ownership as a result of the judgement.imo

The items-formerly-owned-by-OJ that were involved in the Las Vegas Robbery had been removed from Simpson's home along with the Heisman Trophy because they were subject to the turnover order. The judge Fred went to after the fact of course had to verify what the items were - he had to effectively roll the clock back and do what would have been done if the items had been seized back in the 90's. I completely agree that not everything OJ owned was subject to seizure. On the other hand OJ seems to have a fuzzy understanding that not everything that once belonged to him is still his. For example, the issue of family photos that were sold at auction due to an unpaid storage bill, which unfortunately happens every day. OJ said he thought those would be in the hotel room. Loss of personal family items under those circumstances, while painful, does not give anyone the right to take the items back by force. Galanter seemed intent on somehow using the loss of those pictures to go to Simpson's state of mind in spite of the fact they were not involved in this case.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 10:23 AM

Here is a link to intent but it does not square with Nevada law on robbery, which is why I have said the Nevada statute on robbery is overly broad and vague and would argue for uniformity of the law. It appears that the Nevada law has made robbery a general intent crime, which according to the article would allow a defense of claim of right or should allow it, IIRC, imho. It seems that the Nevada robbery statute is more in line with the strict liability, IIRC, imho.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5863/Criminal-Law-Intent.html

I think your link to the appeals case shows Nevada realizes there is a problem with their burglary statute. It's okay when the only crime committed is a burglary. When they effectively say any robbery is also a burglary the water gets muddy. Their "fix" is apparently to acknowledge and address the issue by "dropping" the add-on "burglary" convictions at the appeals level and letting the more serious "robbery" convictions stand. The only problem would be if a judge has tacked on a consecutive sentence for the burglary. If the burglary sentence is concurrent there is no harm to the defendant because they have been fairly convicted of the higher count of robbery.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 10:28 AM

Nevada law makes kidnapping and burglary specific intent crimes, while the link refers to them as general intent crimes. I do not know which state(s) the link applies to. This is why I would argue vehemently the Due Process argument and the need for uniformity of the law or a person may be compelled to read the law in each state he travels in order to conform his conduct and offer a defense to his conduct, when the defense was available in the other states in which the defendant found himself, such as Simpson in Florida and California, and the defendant relied upon that knowledge to attempt to conform his conduct but to no avail.

Any reasonable citizen knows that kidnapping and burglary are not only wrong but illegal. Back to the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If you're trying to imply that OJ Simpson probably got bad legal advice regarding Nevada law from an attorney who practices in CA and FL, I agree.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 10:33 AM

I think your link to the appeals case shows Nevada realizes there is a problem with their burglary statute. It's okay when the only crime committed is a burglary. When they effectively say any robbery is also a burglary the water gets muddy. Their "fix" is apparently to acknowledge and address the issue by "dropping" the add-on "burglary" convictions at the appeals level and letting the more serious "robbery" convictions stand. The only problem would be if a judge has tacked on a consecutive sentence for the burglary. If the burglary sentence is concurrent there is no harm to the defendant because they have been fairly convicted of the higher count of robbery.

I Understand what you are saying and to some extent I agree. The only thing is that there might be a false conviction. Again, this goes back to what judge J. Glass should have known and I would argue that it is part of the evidence to show her bias against Simpson. I truly can't remember which convictions ran consecutively or concurrently.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 10:40 AM

Any reasonable citizen knows that kidnapping and burglary are not only wrong but illegal. Back to the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If you're trying to imply that OJ Simpson probably got bad legal advice regarding Nevada law from an attorney who practices in CA and FL, I agree.

This does not deal with ignorance of the law or bad advice from an attorney. It deals with how the Nevada statutes are written and the denial of the claim of right defense. It goes back to what I have been saying all alone about the specific intent crime of burglary and the case law saying that the Nevada robbery statute is one of general intent, although there is no mention of intent in that statute. I think you are aware of the apparent discrepancy in the laws and would put forth the persuasive argument that the laws need to be uniform, not just for Simpson but for all citizens in the concept of fundamental fairness.

I know that I am leaving a lot out of this post and hope you are able to follow what I am saying.

martin II

01-28-2009, 10:49 AM

The items-formerly-owned-by-OJ that were involved in the Las Vegas Robbery had been removed from Simpson's home along with the Heisman Trophy because they were subject to the turnover order. The judge Fred went to after the fact of course had to verify what the items were - he had to effectively roll the clock back and do what would have been done if the items had been seized back in the 90's. I completely agree that not everything OJ owned was subject to seizure. On the other hand OJ seems to have a fuzzy understanding that not everything that once belonged to him is still his. For example, the issue of family photos that were sold at auction due to an unpaid storage bill, which unfortunately happens every day. OJ said he thought those would be in the hotel room. Loss of personal family items under those circumstances, while painful, does not give anyone the right to take the items back by force. Galanter seemed intent on somehow using the loss of those pictures to go to Simpson's state of mind in spite of the fact they were not involved in this case.

mike gilbert i think floated the idea that some items were in storage and sold for back rent. i have never seen any proof of that.
On the other hand fumong stated that MIKE TOOK IT. items from ojs throphy room.:shrug:

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 12:36 PM

This does not deal with ignorance of the law or bad advice from an attorney. It deals with how the Nevada statutes are written and the denial of the claim of right defense. It goes back to what I have been saying all alone about the specific intent crime of burglary and the case law saying that the Nevada robbery statute is one of general intent, although there is no mention of intent in that statute. I think you are aware of the apparent discrepancy in the laws and would put forth the persuasive argument that the laws need to be uniform, not just for Simpson but for all citizens in the concept of fundamental fairness.

I know that I am leaving a lot out of this post and hope you are able to follow what I am saying.

I guess it boils down to a question of do you think Judge Glass knows what she's doing or not? This isn't her first case on the bench and Burglary/Robbery/Kidnapping cases are pretty common offenses. My gut tells me she has her finger on the pulse of the Nevada judicial system and has good reason to believe her rulings will be upheld.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 12:43 PM

mike gilbert i think floated the idea that some items were in storage and sold for back rent. i have never seen any proof of that.
On the other hand fumong stated that MIKE TOOK IT. items from ojs throphy room.:shrug:

Beardsley was heard discussing the family-photos-that-turned-up-in-a-storage-locker issue with Riccio on the tapes. They weren't in Gilbert's possession - they were purchased at a sheriff's sale by some singer's manager. Gilbert probably knew about them thru his Simpson memorabilia contacts.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 12:47 PM

I guess it boils down to a question of do you think Judge Glass knows what she's doing or not? This isn't her first case on the bench and Burglary/Robbery/Kidnapping cases are pretty common offenses. My gut tells me she has her finger on the pulse of the Nevada judicial system and has good reason to believe her rulings will be upheld.

All the case law I have found seems to go against her rulings.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 01:07 PM

I Understand what you are saying and to some extent I agree. The only thing is that there might be a false conviction. Again, this goes back to what judge J. Glass should have known and I would argue that it is part of the evidence to show her bias against Simpson. I truly can't remember which convictions ran consecutively or concurrently.

There might be a false conviction on the burglary count? They'll throw it out and it will essentially change nothing - they'll chalk it up to "harmless error". Glass dealing with and discussing the ramifications of and how to handle avoiding issues from the other case(s) with attorneys in court out of the presence of the jury does not equate to "bias" - I'd suggest instead the theme of the trial was "caution". Refusing to acknowledge there is an elephant in her courtroom doesn't mean she was necessarily biased against the elephant. She went to great pains to ensure any evidence before the jury was about the current charges, not the elephant.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 01:20 PM

All the case law I have found seems to go against her rulings.

As to case law regarding defense against burglary - probably so. She tried everything in her power to convince Galanter that his (and your) arguments are not likely to prevail on appeal. I don't think she did that on a whim or because she had a bias against Simpson. I suspect she knows the defense has been unsuccessfully tried before. I hardly think "But this is OJ Simpson" is going to be sufficient justification to effect a different outcome.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 01:22 PM

All the case law I have found seems to go against her rulings.

Have you done any investigation into how often her rulings are overturned?

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 01:41 PM

There might be a false conviction on the burglary count? They'll throw it out and it will essentially change nothing - they'll chalk it up to "harmless error". Glass dealing with and discussing the ramifications of and how to handle avoiding issues from the other case(s) with attorneys in court out of the presence of the jury does not equate to "bias" - I'd suggest instead the theme of the trial was "caution". Refusing to acknowledge there is an elephant in her courtroom doesn't mean she was necessarily biased against the elephant. She went to great pains to ensure any evidence before the jury was about the current charges, not the elephant.

Any error that results in a person being falsely convicted can hardly be harmless, imho. I was not saying that she showed bias any where but in front of the jury. I think her substantiation of an over zealous prosecution and her displays in front of the jury may be used to show her bias. I think I may know what the problem is. I posted some links to the judicial cannon of ethics and it may have been on a thread that has since been closed.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 01:44 PM

Have you done any investigation into how often her rulings are overturned?

I do believe that I posted there have been some problems with her rulings as to providing summaries of competency hearings as opposed to complete reports.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 02:01 PM

Any error that results in a person being falsely convicted can hardly be harmless, imho. I was not saying that she showed bias any where but in front of the jury. I think her substantiation of an over zealous prosecution and her displays in front of the jury may be used to show her bias. I think I may know what the problem is. I posted some links to the judicial cannon of ethics and it may have been on a thread that has since been closed.

I simply think you are wrong. I can only find Nevada Appeals decisions that go back 90 days. I may be a nerd, but I review Appeals decisions in my district/state (Ohio) every week as they are published. Nevada doesn't have an intermediate Appeals court division - every appeal goes to their Supreme Court. I did find statistics for Nevada appeals (2007 was the latest) and very few criminal verdicts are overturned. A person's erroneous conviction on a lesser charge can indeed be determined "harmless" if a simultaneous conviction on a more serious charge is affirmed and the lesser conviction essentially added nothing to the defendant's overall penalty.

martin II

01-28-2009, 02:05 PM

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 02:13 PM

I do believe that I posted there have been some problems with her rulings as to providing summaries of competency hearings as opposed to complete reports.

That's a slap on the wrist type of issue. Usually in such a case the Appeals court will remand the case back, not overturn. Every judge I know accepts that some of their cases will eventually be reviewed at the appeals level. Judges tend to quickly learn how the appeals courts view legal issues and make adjustments to how they handle future cases accordingly.

martin II

01-28-2009, 02:17 PM

FIRST-DEGREE KIDNAPPING CASES IN CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DURING 2006

57 Total cases

41 Kidnapping charges dismissed

3 Guilty pleas on first-degree kidnapping charges

1 Guilty verdict on first-degree kidnapping charges

2 Not guilty verdicts on first-degree kidnapping charges

1 Dismissal of first-degree kidnapping charges and not guilty verdict on other first-degree kidnapping charges

4 Kidnapping charges still pending

Source: Review-Journal analysis of Clark County District Court data

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 02:24 PM

I simply think you are wrong. I can only find Nevada Appeals decisions that go back 90 days. I may be a nerd, but I review Appeals decisions in my district/state (Ohio) every week as they are published. Nevada doesn't have an intermediate Appeals court division - every appeal goes to their Supreme Court. I did find statistics for Nevada appeals (2007 was the latest) and very few criminal verdicts are overturned. A person's erroneous conviction on a lesser charge can indeed be determined "harmless" if a simultaneous conviction on a more serious charge is affirmed and the lesser conviction essentially added nothing to the defendant's overall penalty.

I have already stated that I tend to agree with you on the issue of it being overturned but substantially taking nothing away from the sentence. My point is somewhat different and I should have explained more fully. I am taking shortcuts because of your obvious understanding of the law. My point is more to the Due Process violation as I said with the substantiation by judge J. Glass of the over charging and her demeanor. That is what I meant by a false conviction not being harmless, especially in this case. We know that judge's make mistakes. I do not believe that any false conviction is harmless while the effect of it may be harmless if there are concurrent sentences on other crimes.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 02:29 PM

As a reasonable citizen it did not appear that kidnapping took place in the hotel room especially since asportation did not take place.imo

The victims were inveigled to leave their homes and go to another place (the hotel room) under false pretenses for the purpose of robbing them. Once in the room, OJ and his posse prevented the victims from leaving through intimidation (nobody leaves this room) and a show of force (guns). This reasonable person perceives being illegally held anywhere against my will - or doing the same to anyone else - as kidnapping.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 02:31 PM

That's a slap on the wrist type of issue. Usually in such a case the Appeals court will remand the case back, not overturn. Every judge I know accepts that some of their cases will eventually be reviewed at the appeals level. Judges tend to quickly learn how the appeals courts view legal issues and make adjustments to how they handle future cases accordingly.

I must slow down and give your posts the attention they deserve. A remand in this case would mean a new trial. I think the appellate court would simply overturn or reverse the conviction as a matter of law. I think we are now talking about the burglary charge, right?:) I agree with Martin that the kidnapping charge should also be overturned, remanded, vacated or reversed.:)
There are so many issues that I get confused and I am on other threads on this board and I apologize and will slow down.

martin II

01-28-2009, 02:35 PM

The victims were inveigled to leave their homes and go to another place (the hotel room) under false pretenses for the purpose of robbing them. Once in the room, OJ and his posse prevented the victims from leaving through intimidation (nobody leaves this room) and a show of force (guns). This reasonable person perceives being illegally held anywhere against my will - or doing the same to anyone else - as kidnapping.

but asportation did not take place in the hotel room.

martin II

01-28-2009, 02:36 PM

but asportation did not take place in the hotel room.

ps after they came togeather.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 02:42 PM

I have already stated that I tend to agree with you on the issue of it being overturned but substantially taking nothing away from the sentence. My point is somewhat different and I should have explained more fully. I am taking shortcuts because of your obvious understanding of the law. My point is more to the Due Process violation as I said with the substantiation by judge J. Glass of the over charging and her demeanor. That is what I meant by a false conviction not being harmless, especially in this case. We know that judge's make mistakes. I do not believe that any false conviction is harmless while the effect of it may be harmless if there are concurrent sentences on other crimes.

In all due respect, I agree with Judge Glass that this crime was not over charged. I don't know if you think only OJ Simpson deserved a pass on his actions or if you think you should also be able to get away with doing what he did. None of those men would have been in that hotel room doing what they did but for one man: OJ Simpson. If you think its OK to lure a fellow citizen anywhere for the purpose of forcibly taking anything from them - I don't care what - I'm hoping you're not living in my neighborhood! How you can defend that and not see it is not only wrong but illegal is beyond me.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 02:56 PM

In all due respect, I agree with Judge Glass that this crime was not over charged. I don't know if you think only OJ Simpson deserved a pass on his actions or if you think you should also be able to get away with doing what he did. None of those men would have been in that hotel room doing what they did but for one man: OJ Simpson. If you think its OK to lure a fellow citizen anywhere for the purpose of forcibly taking anything from them - I don't care what - I'm hoping you're not living in my neighborhood! How you can defend that and not see it is not only wrong but illegal is beyond me.

You misunderstand. I am not defending Simpson. I am questioning the fact as to whether or not he received a fair trial. I am questioning things that are larger than Simpson. I do understand and it seems that anytime Simpson's name is mentioned and someone questions whether or not he received a fair shake, it is immediately said that he/she is defending Simpson. However, let's look at the case law as it applies to the charges of kidnapping in the instant case and to the possibility of overcharging, substantiation by judge J. Glass, her impartiality and Due Process, in connection with the dual convictions.

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

“�� We now clarify 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.� However, 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, i.e., robbery, extortion, battery resulting in substantial bodily harm or sexual assault, 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.[19]� Also, per Hutchins, dual culpability is permitted where the movement, seizure or restraint stands alone with independent significance from the underlying charge.

�� The evidence against Mendoza justified the district court�s instructions on both of the alleged kidnapping offenses.� Interestingly, the jury acquitted Mendoza of kidnapping Canon, the case in which physical restraint was clearly shown.� As to the kidnapping conviction involving the seizure and restraint of Jose Avalos in Canon�s residence, the seizure and restraint resulted in increased danger and injury to Avalos, thus falling within the purview of instruction 25.� In short, Avalos was seized, physically restrained, assaulted and then robbed.[20]

�� To conclude, we hold that to sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same course of conduct, any movement or restraint must stand alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve movement, seizure or restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion.� Thus, we retreat somewhat from the statement in Hutchins that physical restraint per se satisfies that requirement.� For future guidance, we suggest the following instruction be given in these situations:

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of both first-degree kidnapping (or second-degree kidnapping) and an associated offense of robbery, you must also find beyond a reasonable doubt either:

�� (1) That any movement of the victim was not incidental to the robbery;

�� (2) That any incidental movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the robbery;

�� (3) That any incidental movement of the victim substantially exceeded that required to complete the robbery;

�� (4) That the victim was physically restrained and such restraint substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim; or

�� (5) The movement or restraint had an independent purpose or significance.

�� Physically restrained� includes but is not limited to tying, binding, or taping.

We note finally that instructions 24 and 25 given below comport with our retreat from Hutchins and, thus, substantially provided proper guidance to the jury on these issues.”

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 03:02 PM

but asportation did not take place in the hotel room.

It didn't have to - they had already been tricked into moving from place-to-place (although if I recall correctly, the victims did not have to be physically moved from one location to another for kidapping to occur). Being held captive in the hotel room under fear of force I believe was also enough to justify the kidnapping charge.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 03:17 PM

**Snip**
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of both first-degree kidnapping (or second-degree kidnapping) and an associated offense of robbery, you must also find beyond a reasonable doubt either:
(4) That the victim was physically restrained and such restraint substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim; or
”

I choose option 4, and as I read it only one option is required for conviction.
Even one of OJ's team testified HE was afraid to leave that room because he feared he'd be shot in the back! The victims could easily have been shot. Fromong ended up in the hospital due to his heart because of the stress. I don't know why it is so hard for you to acknowledge the fear you'd have felt if you'd been Fromong or Beardsley or the danger they were in. Suppose they'd have called OJ's bluff and attempted to call 911 on their cell phone to get cops there to mediate. Do you not think there were guns in that room? Do you not think by the sound of OJ's voice that he was enraged? Even if you think they'd have stopped short of shooting them, do you not think those men would have physically hurt the victims had they attempted to leave that room or refuse to turn over the items?

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 03:20 PM

It didn't have to - they had already been tricked into moving from place-to-place (although if I recall correctly, the victims did not have to be physically moved from one location to another for kidapping to occur). Being held captive in the hotel room under fear of force I believe was also enough to justify the kidnapping charge.

That is not what the law says-the law not the statute and look at the jury instruction-#17, as opposed to the instruction the court gave in the link I supplied. You would think judge J. Glass would have researched that, unless for some reason she was not interested in what the court said.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 03:35 PM

I choose option 4, and as I read it only one option is required for conviction.
Even one of OJ's team testified HE was afraid to leave that room because he feared he'd be shot in the back! The victims could easily have been shot. Fromong ended up in the hospital due to his heart because of the stress. I don't know why it is so hard for you to acknowledge the fear you'd have felt if you'd been Fromong or Beardsley or the danger they were in. Suppose they'd have called OJ's bluff and attempted to call 911 on their cell phone to get cops there to mediate. Do you not think there were guns in that room? Do you not think by the sound of OJ's voice that he was enraged? Even if you think they'd have stopped short of shooting them, do you not think those men would have physically hurt the victims had they attempted to leave that room or refuse to turn over the items?

Yes, but did you overlook this?

“�� We now clarify 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."

Telling someone not to leave the room in a loud voice and not allowing them to run freely about the hotel calling 911 is "movement or restraint incidental to an underlying offense where restraint or movement is inherent, as a general matter".

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 03:54 PM

That is not what the law says-the law not the statute and look at the jury instruction-#17, as opposed to the instruction the court gave in the link I supplied. You would think judge J. Glass would have researched that, unless for some reason she was not interested in what the court said.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec310

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.

I don't see the disparity you seem to see between the law and the 17th Jury instruction on kidnapping.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 04:07 PM

Yes, but did you overlook this?

“�� We now clarify 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."

Telling someone not to leave the room in a loud voice and not allowing them to run freely about the hotel calling 911 is "movement or restraint incidental to an underlying offense where restraint or movement is inherent, as a general matter".

I believe what you are trying to compare is commentary from an appeals decision on another case to the facts in this case. The restraint in Simpson was not incidental to the underlying offense of robbery. This is another example of overreaching and bringing issues into this case that have no relation to the evidence presented.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 04:09 PM

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec310

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.

I don't see the disparity you seem to see between the law and the 17th Jury instruction on kidnapping.

Ah, I said the law-not the statute. You have given the statute. However, the United States Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison that is was their duty to say what the law is. Such is the duty of the Nevada supreme court as it pertains to state law. The law is that the movement or restraint is "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" and provided a proposed jury instruction and in Bolden v. State of Nevada that court said the force used must be substantially excessive to that force which is necessary to commit the associated crime. You would think that judge J. Glass would have been aware of those cases and tailored her jury instruction to reflect what the law is, unless she had a reason not to.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 04:20 PM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 04:40 PM

What do you mean, "The law is not the statute"? Of course it is. Commentary from appeals cases are discussions and interpretations of the law as applied to specific cases. Granted, decisions made on previous appeals are later cited as guides to how the laws are interpreted/applied. That's what Glass was trying to tell Galanter: the burglary law is written one way, but application of the law based on the facts of this case will not support the defense he was trying to put forth. The definition of inveigle and notation that the person kidnapped doesn't have to be carried any minimal distance reflects current accepted case law.

If what you say is true, then there would be no appeal. What I said was "the law not the statute". I am sure you are aware of the three primary sources of law. Which one of those sources has the right to say what the law is?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.HTML

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

The Nevada supreme court has stated emphatically what is required to sustain a conviction of kidnapping on a dual conviction with an associated crime. Therefore, we now have a burglary charge and kidnapping charged that may likely be overturned/vacated/remanded based on courts that have said what the law is. The question remains whether or not judge J. Glass knew of should have known this and did her demeanor, conduct and statement indicate bias on her part toward Simpson.

martin II

01-28-2009, 04:50 PM

It didn't have to - they had already been tricked into moving from place-to-place (although if I recall correctly, the victims did not have to be physically moved from one location to another for kidapping to occur). Being held captive in the hotel room under fear of force I believe was also enough to justify the kidnapping charge.

they were not moved by the defendants.they arrived at the hotel on their own intent on commiting a crime, selling stolen goods. for asportation to take place they would have to be moved from where they srarted in the hotel room to at least a next room. that did not happen.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 04:53 PM

Ah, I said the law-not the statute. You have given the statute. However, the United States Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison that is was their duty to say what the law is. Such is the duty of the Nevada supreme court as it pertains to state law. The law is that the movement or restraint is "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" and provided a proposed jury instruction and in Bolden v. State of Nevada that court said the force used must be substantially excessive to that force which is necessary to commit the associated crime. You would think that judge J. Glass would have been aware of those cases and tailored her jury instruction to reflect what the law is, unless she had a reason not to.
http://nevadalawjournal.org/pdf/bolden_v_State.pdf
I'm not seeing the issues you are attributing to Bolden. I just don't see its issues being particularly applicable to Simpson.

I have no squabble that the U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional and is critical to our "checks and balances" form of goverment.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 04:59 PM

http://nevadalawjournal.org/pdf/bolden_v_State.pdf
I'm not seeing the issues you are attributing to Bolden. I just don't see its issues being particularly applicable to Simpson.

I have no squabble that the U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional and is critical to our "checks and balances" form of goverment.

That was a power that was usurped, which they state supreme court's copied. I may have given you the wrong case but I will look again. That is why I wanna-be a lawyer. :) Here is the case, I think.

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

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 05:00 PM

they were not moved by the defendants.they arrived at the hotel on their own intent on commiting a crime, selling stolen goods. for asportation to take place they would have to be moved from where they srarted in the hotel room to at least a next room. that did not happen.

There was nothing in the charges or evidence that supports your post. Nobody has been charged with selling stolen goods. Rightful ownership of the items is still undetermined. I just posted a link to the Nevada definition of "kidnapping". I didn't see the word "asportation" there.

martin II

01-28-2009, 05:10 PM

There was nothing in the charges or evidence that supports your post. Nobody has been charged with selling stolen goods. Rightful ownership of the items is still undetermined. I just posted a link to the Nevada definition of "kidnapping". I didn't see the word "asportation" there.

fumong said mike took it and fumong never proved ownership but the DA did not charge him.i believe the nevada supreme court had adopted asportation requirement in kidnapping cases. i will look for it.

martin II

01-28-2009, 06:20 PM

opinion/report

"I had been taught that a necessary element of Kidnapping was the asportation of a person from a place of safety against their will to a place of less safety.
Of course that's the law school definition and any one whose been to law school knows better than to try to read specifics of what you learn over onto real life. At any rate Nevada's statute includes as one of the possible element that you might just detain the person against their will.

Nevada law on this sort of charge says that to " sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same course of conduct, any movement or restraint must stand alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve movement, seizure, or restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion"

But:
"Movement of victim, from one location to another, is required to sustain kidnapping conviction when kidnapping is charged as incidental to another offense, such as robbery, in which restraint of victim is inherent within primary offense, and victim is not physically restrained. "

and:
"Instructions setting forth statutory definition of first-degree kidnapping as a “stand-alone” offense and setting forth parameters for dual convictions for robbery and first-degree kidnapping arising from a single incident were supported by evidence; defendant clearly restrained victim whose house he broke into, and second victim who arrived at victim's house while crimes were being committed was seized, physically restrained, assaulted, and then robbed by defendant."

and:

"Defendant's acts of binding victim's hands and feet was sufficient to establish first-degree kidnapping charge, where such acts increased risk of harm to victim and had independent significance with regard to defendant's ability to commit sexual assault."

(all from current Nevada law)

So under Nevada law the Kidnapping charge works.
Until one looks into it a tad further.

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a case in 1973 (Jensen v. Sheriff, White Pine County, 89 Nev. 123, 508 P.2d 4 (1973))
and held "that evidence submitted at preliminary examination established probable cause to hold defendant, who stopped his automobile along side road, forcibly put ten-year-old girl into automobile, drove to and entered main road and traveled short distance before ordering child to exit, for trial on charge of kidnapping, rather than false imprisonment."

False Imprisonment? A different statutory crime with different elements in Nevada. OK What's the deal?
.
Well: that same Court said that "False imprisonment differs from kidnapping in that kidnapping is aggravated by removal of the imprisoned person to some other place."

MistyMoppens

01-28-2009, 06:23 PM

We welcome you to the this thread and hope that you will continue posting. We are precluded from discussing anything but the Nevada case.

Sorry about that! This topic only seems to have one thread going. It read: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman." That certainly is misleading. It did not refer to the NV case whatsoever.

I did notice a reference to reading an "announcement" on the first post yet was unable to find it - hard as I tried.. (I haven't posted here in several years...) Could someone PLEASE help me locate it? (thanks)

Again, please accept my heartfelt apologies. And thank you for being such a gentleman about it, William!

martin II

01-28-2009, 06:25 PM

Mr. Simpson’s lead lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Friday’s sentence was less than he had expected. “It was one of those days where you expect the worst, hope for the best, and it turned out better than we thought,” he said, describing his client as “upset by the prospect of facing nine years in prison,” but “I think he’s really relieved he didn’t get a life sentence."

Mr. Galanter said his legal team planned to appeal the verdict on several grounds, including jury selection and Judge Glass’s instructions to the jury. He and the legal team have argued that jury selection was manipulated to produce a panel with no African-Americans, and that Judge Glass biased jurors by engaging in theatrics like berating lawyers and witnesses, sighing and waving her hands in disgust.

“What she did was horrible towards the defense, and that really does have an impact on jurors,” said a criminal defense lawyer not associated with the case, Dayvid Figler. “They can easily make a greatest hits of her screaming or yelling shut up or other signals to the jury.”

Another criminal defense lawyer, David Chesnoff, said Mr. Stewart might have a better chance for an appeal because Judge Glass denied repeated requests by his lawyers for a separate trial to avoid Mr. Stewart’s being associated with the notoriety attached to Mr. Simpson.

“There are some issues on severance for Mr. Stewart that the Nevada Supreme Court has been sensitive to in the past,” said Mr. Chesnoff, who has represented Martha Stewart and Mike Tyson, among other celebrity clients.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 06:32 PM

fumong said mike took it and fumong never proved ownership but the DA did not charge him.i believe the nevada supreme court had adopted asportation requirement in kidnapping cases. i will look for it.

OJ didn't outright admit he had "arranged" for the items to be removed from his home, but he did admit knowing it was happening at the time and who was involved in hiding the items. OJ knew Gilbert was hiding some of the items for him (Gilbert was forced to hand over the Heisman Trophy) and its clear he (Simpson) had not claimed ownership of any hidden items on court documents. Gilbert doesn't deny Fromong's assertion that Gilbert took some of the items. Whether or not Gilbert can prove he was told to keep the items by Simpson (as bartered payment for Gilbert's management services) is unclear. Fromong owned some of the items brought to the room and I believe he indicated he was representing the seller (Gilbert?) who he thought owned the other OJ items. Fromong had no way of knowing whether Gilbert and Simpson had made a verbal agreement for payment years earlier. It's clear OJ knew where the items were but never attempted to recover them through civil courts. I know if I was paying to store someone's stuff for years and they made no effort to retrieve it, eventually I'd sell the stuff to recoup my expenses instead of storing it for free indefinitely. Wouldn't you?

martin II

01-28-2009, 06:45 PM

kidnapping law

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Interim_Agendas_Minutes_Exhibits/Exhibits/AdminJustice/E060908Q.pdf

martin II

01-28-2009, 06:57 PM

OJ didn't outright admit he had "arranged" for the items to be removed from his home, but he did admit knowing it was happening at the time and who was involved in hiding the items. OJ knew Gilbert was hiding some of the items for him (Gilbert was forced to hand over the Heisman Trophy) and its clear he (Simpson) had not claimed ownership of any hidden items on court documents. Gilbert doesn't deny Fromong's assertion that Gilbert took some of the items. Whether or not Gilbert can prove he was told to keep the items by Simpson (as bartered payment for Gilbert's management services) is unclear. Fromong owned some of the items brought to the room and I believe he indicated he was representing the seller (Gilbert?) who he thought owned the other OJ items. Fromong had no way of knowing whether Gilbert and Simpson had made a verbal agreement for payment years earlier. It's clear OJ knew where the items were but never attempted to recover them through civil courts. I know if I was paying to store someone's stuff for years and they made no effort to retrieve it, eventually I'd sell the stuff to recoup my expenses instead of storing it for free indefinitely. Wouldn't you?

i doubt oj had a problem paying a monthly fee gfor storage.For every tee shirt or poster oj signed oj got 60% and gilbert 40% gilbert wanted more. fumong saying mike took it was not a guess imo.these guys knew each other very well. If oj knew where the items were then he weould have been there instead of the palacs hotel. i think he knew who took stuff from his throphy room maby while he was on trial.

Gilbert in his many tv interviews has never proven that he stored any items for oj.Just fast eddie talk like promissing Fred he woul turn over stuff to him
in his cnn .Fox interview. Gilbert in only telling the truth when his lips are touching imo

martin II

01-28-2009, 07:02 PM

absent anyone but oj proving ownership, fumong, mike,of the items i think the CA judge will tell fred to take this stuff and get out of my court room with this pettyness.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 07:07 PM

Sorry about that! This topic only seems to have one thread going. It read: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman." That certainly is misleading. It did not refer to the NV case whatsoever.

I did notice a reference to reading an "announcement" on the first post yet was unable to find it - hard as I tried.. (I haven't posted here in several years...) Could someone PLEASE help me locate it? (thanks)

Again, please accept my heartfelt apologies. And thank you for being such a gentleman about it, William!

Thank you and it is always easy to be a gentleman to a lady. There is no need to apologize. The other threads were recently closed due to some complaints about our conduct. The moderator has said she might consider opening other threads, if we show good behavior.:)

martin II

01-28-2009, 07:27 PM

MistyMoppens

01-28-2009, 07:55 PM

Thank you, William and Martin, but my observation about the leather gloves was just about all I had to contribute to the OJ topic. I came back to the forum because of the Caylee/Casey Anthony case.

I think I'll just continue to lurk this thread as I've enjoyed your spirited debate! It's always fascinating to see this complicated situation from all sides.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 08:01 PM

kidnapping law

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Interim_Agendas_Minutes_Exhibits/Exhibits/AdminJustice/E060908Q.pdf

The kidnapping law is pretty much buried in the midst of this report submitted for discussion by a committee member sitting on a Nevada legislative board.
See page 32, four paragraphs about Teresa Warner who submitted the article(s). Factually, its about as authoratative as our message board posts.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 08:05 PM

absent anyone but oj proving ownership, fumong, mike,of the items i think the CA judge will tell fred to take this stuff and get out of my court room with this pettyness.

You think the CA court will turn the items over to Fred Goldman? (actually, it would order them sold and the proceeds distributed by the court).

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 08:20 PM

i doubt oj had a problem paying a monthly fee gfor storage.For every tee shirt or poster oj signed oj got 60% and gilbert 40% gilbert wanted more. fumong saying mike took it was not a guess imo.these guys knew each other very well. If oj knew where the items were then he weould have been there instead of the palacs hotel. i think he knew who took stuff from his throphy room maby while he was on trial.

Gilbert in his many tv interviews has never proven that he stored any items for oj.Just fast eddie talk like promissing Fred he woul turn over stuff to him
in his cnn .Fox interview. Gilbert in only telling the truth when his lips are touching imo

OJ financially SHOULDN'T have had a problem paying storage fees, but he allegedly didn't have the storage facilities in his name (so it couldn't be traced back to him). If OJ was on top of keeping track of the minute details, the bill would have been paid on the items stored in his mom's name. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! That's a lot of years to be juggling details like paying storage rental fees all over California and wherever else they are; I'm surprised more items haven't fallen through the cracks and become public. I agree with you about Gilbert's lips and that these guys were all friends in cahoots at one point in time. I think at this point that the ownership of this stuff is so murky, and OJ Simpson's reputation is so tarnished, that nobody wants anything of OJ's anymore. OJ in prison has probably, at least temporarily, sated Goldman.

Redmama

01-28-2009, 08:22 PM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 08:25 PM

The kidnapping law is pretty much buried in the midst of this report submitted for discussion by a committee member sitting on a Nevada legislative board.
See page 32, four paragraphs about Teresa Warner who submitted the article(s). Factually, its about as authoratative as our message board posts.

Here is the case on substantial force exceeding the necessary force to commit the associated crime and it is pretty authoritative as it comes from the Nevada supreme court.

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

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 08:35 PM

So what is the truth...I need it in plain english

Do people have to be moved from one place to another to be considered kidnapped?

Were the items in question OJ's, or did they belong to someone else?

Even if they belonged to OJ, if the items were not reported stolen by OJ, did he have the right to get them back, no matter how?

Was it OJ's responsibility to ask for LE's help to get these items back, or is it ok that he sent someone else to ask?

Seriously, just straight answers - laws - what each of us should know - that it is clear to us that we are breaking the law.

The law varies from state to state. It is not set in stone. There is no answer that can be given in plain English. It depends on the ideology of the people interpreting the law, or declaring what the law is, if you will. That is precise as anyone can get. I will try.

1. Under Nevada law, it appears that, if they are moved, it does not require any significant distance.

2. That has yet to be decided.

3. Provided that he did not transfer title, his attempts to get them back would depend on the interpretation of the statute, which, under Nevada law, the answer would be no. However, Marbury v. Madison said any law repugnant to the Constitution cannot stand. The Constitution says that no one can be deprived of property or liberty without due process of law.

4. Anyone can report a crime whether or not they are the victim.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 08:51 PM

Riccio testified he had a meeting with the FBI about some Anna Nicole items they had heard he was trying to sell and he need to explain how he got the items. With ojs approval he told the fbi that he knew someone was holding some of ojs stolen stuff and they were trying to sell it.When he told them it was ojs stuff they told him they were not interested. Riccio gave the same info to lapd and got the same response.No help.

The issue came up on the day of the event and Riccio and OJ decided not to call Vegas le because they thought they would no get help.
But the plan was that when they went to the room if the people did not give the stuff back Riccio/OJ would call the police.Fumong and Beadsley gave the stuff up.

Obviously I'm going back reading old posts. I notice, Martin, that you fail to mention that law enforcement didn't just turn Riccio away. They told him there was a reason they would not get involved: Riccio was describing a civil issue, not a criminal one. Law enforcement's recommended course of action was to have OJ contact his attorney and file a civil action. On the tapes there was a conversation indicating OJ had talked to an attorney and his sister about his "sting" plan and was advised by both not to do it. Do you seriously think OJ would have called police for backup on a "sting" that his attorney told him not to do?

Redmama

01-28-2009, 09:02 PM

Redmama

01-28-2009, 09:04 PM

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 09:07 PM

Obviously I'm going back reading old posts. I notice, Martin, that you fail to mention that law enforcement didn't just turn Riccio away. They told him there was a reason they would not get involved: Riccio was describing a civil issue, not a criminal one. Law enforcement's recommended course of action was to have OJ contact his attorney and file a civil action. On the tapes there was a conversation indicating OJ had talked to an attorney and his sister about his "sting" plan and was advised by both not to do it. Do you seriously think OJ would have called police for backup on a "sting" that his attorney told him not to do?

So, is it your position that LE did not have to investigate a report of stolen property? Did you read far enough back where LE said they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case? Is it your position that the theft of stolen property or being in possession of stolen property are not crimes? Is it your position that the attorney told Simpson that the sting was a crime? Do you think that Simpson did not want to see a person in jail, who he was friends with and had called his mother to wish her a happy birthday, and that is why he did not involve LE, especially since this friend told him another friend stole the property? I don't know which is a fact but tend to take in the totality of the information and consider all possibilities.

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 09:08 PM

Thank you, for answering in English - I just want to let you know - I plan to answer - I'm just exhausted right now - thanks again - Redmama

I did my best. :)

William Anthony

01-28-2009, 09:09 PM

that is exactly the part I don't get.

Join the club. I don't get any of it from Riccio to the verdict. :)

martin II

01-28-2009, 09:14 PM

Redmama

01-28-2009, 09:14 PM

Join the club. I don't get any of it from Riccio to the verdict. :)

Exactly. He is a scum.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 09:58 PM

So, is it your position that LE did not have to investigate a report of stolen property? Did you read far enough back where LE said they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case? Is it your position that the theft of stolen property or being in possession of stolen property are not crimes? Is it your position that the attorney told Simpson that the sting was a crime? Do you think that Simpson did not want to see a person in jail, who he was friends with and had called his mother to wish her a happy birthday, and that is why he did not involve LE, especially since this friend told him another friend stole the property? I don't know which is a fact but tend to take in the totality of the information and consider all possibilities.

No, 10+ years after the fact they don't have to investigate a report of stolen property. The statute of limitation had expired. OJ never reported the items stolen, so there would be no way for LE to verify whether the items were the ones stolen. LE made the right call - this should have been handled as a civil matter in a civil court. OJ hadn't been "friends" with either Beardsley or Fromong for years. All I heard was that OJ's attorney advised him not to proceed with the sting.

serpentsfall

01-28-2009, 10:01 PM

i am not sure what you have stated is what riccio testified to.

And I'm not sure you'd acknowledge it if you heard or read it anyway, so I'm not going to search for a link. Sorry.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 04:30 AM

No, 10+ years after the fact they don't have to investigate a report of stolen property. The statute of limitation had expired. OJ never reported the items stolen, so there would be no way for LE to verify whether the items were the ones stolen. LE made the right call - this should have been handled as a civil matter in a civil court. OJ hadn't been "friends" with either Beardsley or Fromong for years. All I heard was that OJ's attorney advised him not to proceed with the sting.

I think you are mixing apple and oranges. The prosecution decides whether or not to press charges, depending on the statute of limitations, inter alia. LE has a duty to investigate and cannot and should not be playing prosecutor. Here is the Nevada law and the duty of LE.

“BUYING OR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS

NRS 205.275 Offense involving stolen property: Definition; penalty; restitution; prima facie evidence; determination of value of property.

1. A person commits an offense involving stolen property if the person, for his own gain or to prevent the owner from again possessing his property, buys, receives, possesses or withholds property:

(a) Knowing that it is stolen property; or

(b) Under such circumstances as should have caused a reasonable person to know that it is stolen property.

2. A person who commits an offense involving stolen property in violation of subsection 1:

(a) If the value of the property is less than $250, is guilty of a misdemeanor;

(b) If the value of the property is $250 or more but less than $2,500, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130; or

(c) If the value of the property is $2,500 or more or if the property is a firearm, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and by a fine of not more than $10,000.

3. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.

4. A person may be prosecuted and convicted pursuant to this section whether or not the principal is or has been prosecuted or convicted.

5. Possession by any person of three or more items of the same or a similar class or type of personal property on which a permanently affixed manufacturer’s serial number or manufacturer’s identification number has been removed, altered or defaced, is prima facie evidence that the person has violated this section.

6. For the purposes of this section, the value of the property involved shall be deemed to be the highest value attributable to the property by any reasonable standard.

7. As used in this section, “stolen property” means property that has been taken from its owner by larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft or any other offense that is a crime against property, whether or not the person who committed the taking is or has been prosecuted or convicted for the offense.

[1911 C&P § 383; A 1951, 29]—(NRS A 1967, 502; 1971, 925; 1979, 561, 1445; 1989, 1434; 1995, 13, 1223, 1323; 1997, 344; 1999, 402)

NRS 205.290 Restoration of stolen property to owner. All property obtained by larceny, robbery, burglary or embezzlement and found in the possession of the thief or embezzler thereof, or in the possession of any receiver or wrongful possessor of stolen property, shall be restored to the owner.

[1911 C&P § 385; A 1935, 370; 1931 NCL § 10337]—(NRS A 1971, 926)

NRS 205.295 Restoration of stolen property: Duties of officers. The officer arresting any person charged as principal or accessory in any robbery or larceny shall use reasonable diligence to secure the property alleged to have been stolen, and after seizure shall be answerable therefor while it remains in his hands, and shall annex a schedule thereof to his return of the warrant. Whenever the district attorney shall require such property for use as evidence upon the examination or trial, such officer, upon his demand, shall deliver it to him and take his receipt therefor, after which such district attorney shall be answerable for the same."

[1911 C&P § 386; RL § 6651; NCL § 10338]”

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 05:25 AM

Why don't you get it? Simpson is in jail because he was found guilty.
What part of that don't you understand?

In a court of law. He was found guilty. You know, guilty. Not innocent. He did it. Guilty. Not innocent. Guilty, not innocent. Simpson is in jail. And he's staying there. Oh yeah. Not innocent. You know. Guilty. In a court of law.

Guilty.

Simpson is in the penitentiary. Why don't you get it? There are a lot of people in jail that are guilty. There a some in jail that are innocent and there are some in jail or the penitentiary, because of a possible deprivation of thier rights. I tend to stand up for the rights of all, not just the ones I like. Get it?

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 05:56 AM

And I'm not sure you'd acknowledge it if you heard or read it anyway, so I'm not going to search for a link. Sorry.

But just in case, I found Riccio's Preliminary Hearing testimony
http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/C237890/
document "2007-12-26 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedigs 68.tif"
Go to document page 50 (page 191 of testimony) for Riccio's explanation about going to the police. Note he doesn't say OJ asked him to do so - it was his business partner who first suggested Riccio go to the police because they were leery of doing business with Beardsley.

Riccio didn't just go to the FBI to ask about the OJ memorabilia; he was being investigated regarding the Anna Nicole Smith breast augmentation video that was being shopped.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433243,00.html

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 06:05 AM

But just in case, I found Riccio's Preliminary Hearing testimony
http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/C237890/
document "2007-12-26 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedigs 68.tif"
Go to document page 50 (page 191 of testimony) for Riccio's explanation about going to the police. Note he doesn't say OJ asked him to do so - it was his business partner who first suggested Riccio go to the police because they were leery of doing business with Beardsley.

Riccio didn't just go to the FBI to ask about the OJ memorabilia; he was being investigated regarding the Anna Nicole Smith breast augmentation video that was being shopped.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433243,00.html

Irrespective of who asked whom to do what, LE received a report of stolen property and did nothing. I don't think that anyone said Simpson asked Riccio to go to LE. The information was, IIRC, that Riccio told Simpson what LE said. I think we all expect LE to do all in their power to prevent crime. Riccio also told them of the sting, IIRC. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 06:39 AM

I think you are mixing apple and oranges. The prosecution decides whether or not to press charges, depending on the statute of limitations, inter alia. LE has a duty to investigate and cannot and should not be playing prosecutor. Here is the Nevada law and the duty of LE.

Apples and oranges? Surely you jest! LE knows, or should know, the laws regarding the statute of limitations on reporting a theft. Our courts are overburdened as it is. Why on earth would LE waste their time and resources (and scarce taxpayer dollars) on this issue? Riccio was bringing them heresay at best - he wasn't reporting a theft. All police could tell him was that Simpson never filed a theft report on the items. If a citizen expects LE's assistance to get stolen items returned they have to report the theft in a timely manner. This was just "stuff", not a person being discussed. You always talk about people's rights and wring your hands at evey possible chink you can find in the due process of law. We not only have rights in this country, we also have obligations. Apples and oranges. With your interest in the law, have you ever considered doing something with your time that would really make a difference, such as volunteering to advocate for abused and neglected kids in court? It might give you some insight into why many posters fail to share your concern about Nevada's maybe, possibly, could be due rights issues that need fine tuning.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 06:46 AM

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 07:03 AM

Apples and oranges? Surely you jest! LE knows, or should know, the laws regarding the statute of limitations on reporting a theft. Our courts are overburdened as it is. Why on earth would LE waste their time and resources (and scarce taxpayer dollars) on this issue? Riccio was bringing them heresay at best - he wasn't reporting a theft. All police could tell him was that Simpson never filed a theft report on the items. If a citizen expects LE's assistance to get stolen items returned they have to report the theft in a timely manner. This was just "stuff", not a person being discussed. You always talk about people's rights and wring your hands at evey possible chink you can find in the due process of law. We not only have rights in this country, we also have obligations. Apples and oranges. With your interest in the law, have you ever considered doing something with your time that would really make a difference, such as volunteering to advocate for abused and neglected kids in court? It might give you some insight into why many posters fail to share your concern about Nevada's maybe, possibly, could be due rights issues that need fine tuning.

As you said you are not here to make friends, please allow me that same privilege? I am not here to win a popularity contest and my principles do not depend on how many other people share them. Regardless of what LE should know or knows, nothing precludes them from doing their duty and only their duty. They had no idea what theory of the law that prosecution may want to pursue in order to bring charges. The court would decide if there was, in fact and absolute bar to any theory brought by the prosecution, not LE. Why do you try to deny LE's failure in this instance to do their duty by the statute? LE had a sworn obligation. We have somewhat discussed our obligations and one of them may very well be to disobey certain laws under certain circumstances but LE does not have that right due to their oath. The rest of your posts seems to be personal. However, let me ask if you considered that children and spouses are sometimes abused, when their parent, guardian, spouse or sibling is denied Due Process, denied equal opportunities of employment, wages, promotion, hiring, termination, education and housing, to name a few ways that they are systematically abused. I think it is a personal decision as to which battle a person decides to engage in. I reserve the right to decide which battles I will wage but thanks for the interest.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 07:21 AM

Irrespective of who asked whom to do what, LE received a report of stolen property and did nothing. I don't think that anyone said Simpson asked Riccio to go to LE. The information was, IIRC, that Riccio told Simpson what LE said. I think we all expect LE to do all in their power to prevent crime. Riccio also told them of the sting, IIRC. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

When you say, "I think we all expect LE to do all in their power to prevent crime. Riccio also told them of the sting, IIRC." can you explain to me what else you think LE could have done? They can't arrest Riccio for a crime he tells them he's considering maybe doing at some point in the future. Note that in his preliminary hearing testimony Riccio says he told the FBI he and OJ were just planning to have Beardsley come to Riccio's place of business where there were video cameras, Riccio would get Beardsley to make statements about the items being stolen on tape and the Riccio would then call the cops. That probably would not have been illegal (depending on signs about videotaping in the business), yet the FBI told him to not even do that without first contacting an attorney. LE may know the law, but they are not attorneys and therefore should NOT be giving legal advice (they suggested Riccio talk with an attorney.) What, exactly, do you think LE should have done beyond what they did?

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 07:40 AM

When you say, "I think we all expect LE to do all in their power to prevent crime. Riccio also told them of the sting, IIRC." can you explain to me what else you think LE could have done? They can't arrest Riccio for a crime he tells them he's considering maybe doing at some point in the future. Note that in his preliminary hearing testimony Riccio says he told the FBI he and OJ were just planning to have Beardsley come to Riccio's place of business where there were video cameras, Riccio would get Beardsley to make statements about the items being stolen on tape and the Riccio would then call the cops. That probably would not have been illegal (depending on signs about videotaping in the business), yet the FBI told him to not even do that without first contacting an attorney. LE may know the law, but they are not attorneys and therefore should NOT be giving legal advice (they suggested Riccio talk with an attorney.) What, exactly, do you think LE should have done beyond what they did?

You are right that they should not be giving legal advice and not making legal decisions, such as the statute of limitations ran out. What I mean when I say to prevent crime in light of their knowledge of the sting, if they had an inkling of a belief that the sting was illegal, was to investigate the report of stolen property or being in possession of stolen property, contacted Simpson to see if the property had in deed been stolen and seized the items if necessary. Of course, Simpson and the co-defendants migh have tried to take them from LE in the same manner that they did Fromong and Beardsley.:)

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 07:51 AM

As you said you are not here to make friends, please allow me that same privilege? I am not here to win a popularity contest and my principles do not depend on how many other people share them. Regardless of what LE should know or knows, nothing precludes them from doing their duty and only their duty. They had no idea what theory of the law that prosecution may want to pursue in order to bring charges. The court would decide if there was, in fact and absolute bar to any theory brought by the prosecution, not LE. Why do you try to deny LE's failure in this instance to do their duty by the statute? LE had a sworn obligation. We have somewhat discussed our obligations and one of them may very well be to disobey certain laws under certain circumstances but LE does not have that right due to their oath. The rest of your posts seems to be personal. However, let me ask if you considered that children and spouses are sometimes abused, when their parent, guardian, spouse or sibling is denied Due Process, denied equal opportunities of employment, wages, promotion, hiring, termination, education and housing, to name a few ways that they are systematically abused. I think it is a personal decision as to which battle a person decides to engage in. I reserve the right to decide which battles I will wage but thanks for the interest.

LE does not have an obligation to interfere in a civil matter. Riccio told them Gilbert had been Simpson's manager. This was not new news - I remember reading about items being "missing" from the house when LE went to seize OJ's Heisman when it happened - and I live far from LA! Its just a fact of life that LE also has a duty to prioritize the use of its limited resources. Tracking OJ's "missing" items 10+ years later was put in its proper priority: its a civil case; see an attorney.

To the second bolded issue, the family/juvenile court system, behind its cloak of secrecy, is even more rife with due process abuses than the criminal/civil courts. That's why I think you'd be a good person to have see it first-hand. Each of our posts reflects our personal view. I'm simply stating that from all I've read, and I've read your posts for a long, long time, you often seem to see issues from a very detached "in a perfect life" position. Nothing wrong with that, but we all have to live and operate in the real world.

martin II

01-29-2009, 07:57 AM

They did NOT receive a report about stolen property. They received an inquiry about some items that the reporter had heard from another source (who was not the alleged thief) were stolen ten years earlier. There was no theft report ever filed on the items - they told Riccio how to proceed and he failed to do so. The police did not "do nothing" - they just didn't do what Riccio wanted them to do, which was essentially to drop everything and appear in some video he was planning to make for sale.

Riccio testified that he had a scheduled meeting with the FBI on a issue involving some Anna Nicole items he was selling or trying to sell. With ojs approval they decided to info9rm the FBI of Beadsleys efforts to sell the stolen items belonging to oj simpson. He stated that after this information
was given the agents exited the room and returned to tell him they were not interested because oj was inviolved.
He testified that he got the same reaction when he approached la le.
That is what i remember from his testimony.

It seems regardless of Riccios 'IDEA' to involve the media , like the tv COPS program he did report info on a crime. Now if le had assisted him and and found fumong/beadsley with the goods without proof of ownership of the goods they would have been busted and there would not have been a incident at the palace hotel. imo.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 08:00 AM

You are right that they should not be giving legal advice and not making legal decisions, such as the statute of limitations ran out. What I mean when I say to prevent crime in light of their knowledge of the sting, if they had an inkling of a belief that the sting was illegal, was to investigate the report of stolen property or being in possession of stolen property, contacted Simpson to see if the property had in deed been stolen and seized the items if necessary. Of course, Simpson and the co-defendants migh have tried to take them from LE in the same manner that they did Fromong and Beardsley.:)

So they should investigate everything, even if someone is only thinking about doing somethig that may or may not be illegal IF they do it? Or only when it involves OJ? How many hours or dollars of taxpayer money do you think they should budget for this type of investigation? President Obama - can we fund some job openings in LE for this?

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 08:06 AM

LE does not have an obligation to interfere in a civil matter. Riccio told them Gilbert had been Simpson's manager. This was not new news - I remember reading about items being "missing" from the house when LE went to seize OJ's Heisman when it happened - and I live far from LA! Its just a fact of life that LE also has a duty to prioritize the use of its limited resources. Tracking OJ's "missing" items 10+ years later was put in its proper priority: its a civil case; see an attorney.

To the second bolded issue, the family/juvenile court system, behind its cloak of secrecy, is even more rife with due process abuses than the criminal/civil courts. That's why I think you'd be a good person to have see it first-hand. Each of our posts reflects our personal view. I'm simply stating that from all I've read, and I've read your posts for a long, long time, you often seem to see issues from a very detached "in a perfect life" position. Nothing wrong with that, but we all have to live and operate in the real world.

There was no civil matter. I supplied the statute with their duties, after receiving a report of stolen and/or being in possession of stolen property. At the point that they would have investigated and Fromong and/or Beardsley would have produced receipts for the property, then it would have rightly become a civil matter, imho. You seemed focused on the statute of limitations, which is not in LE's purview to determine, since no charges had been brought at that point.

Because the system is not perfect, does not mean we should not strive to make it perfect as possible. Thank you for what you have said about my posts and I am really glad you have started posting. I don't know how long you have read them but I once made a post about a female defense attorney that switched to a civil lawyer, because she told me she had not spent money going to college to become a debt collector. After thinking about what she said, I decided that civil law would be my area of the law. My interest in criminal law is only tangential. I post here because of my interest in the law. Perhaps, at sometime in the future I will consider your suggestion to volunteer. Believe me, this is not the time.:)

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 08:09 AM

So they should investigate everything, even if someone is only thinking about doing somethig that may or may not be illegal IF they do it? Or only when it involves OJ? How many hours or dollars of taxpayer money do you think they should budget for this type of investigation? President Obama - can we fund some job openings in LE for this?

Just reports of crime. Can President Obama fund some job openings for investigators to investigate LE that are receiving paychecks but not doing their jobs?

martin II

01-29-2009, 08:15 AM

They did NOT receive a report about stolen property. They received an inquiry about some items that the reporter had heard from another source (who was not the alleged thief) were stolen ten years earlier. There was no theft report ever filed on the items - they told Riccio how to proceed and he failed to do so. The police did not "do nothing" - they just didn't do what Riccio wanted them to do, which was essentially to drop everything and appear in some video he was planning to make for sale.

I don't think le had any responsibility to be involved in in camera string for riccios recorder. smile but i do think they could have just went to Fumongs house and looked for stolen property that he had no proof of just as they do when they get a tip of drugs being sold at a location or some other illegal activity. It is not that they had to drop all of their work. le is quite flexable in the work they have to do.imo

I think we all do what has interest to us and i am sure you do the same when you choose to read appeals of previous court cases. right?

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 08:17 AM

Riccio testified that he had a scheduled meeting with the FBI on a issue involving some Anna Nicole items he was selling or trying to sell. With ojs approval they decided to info9rm the FBI of Beadsleys efforts to sell the stolen items belonging to oj simpson. He stated that after this information
was given the agents exited the room and returned to tell him they were not interested because oj was inviolved.
He testified that he got the same reaction when he approached la le.
That is what i remember from his testimony.

It seems regardless of Riccios 'IDEA' to involve the media , like the tv COPS program he did report info on a crime. Now if le had assisted him and and found fumong/beadsley with the goods without proof of ownership of the goods they would have been busted and there would not have been a incident at the palace hotel. imo.

And Riccio would need OJ's "approval" to discuss this issue with the FBI why??

Unfortunately, Riccio didn't bring his recorder along for those meetings. His versions seem to evolve with each retelling. That the FBI left the room and returned before telling him "no" tells me they didn't just blow him off. Have you considered the possibility that the FBI suspected Riccio, the dealmaker, was simply trying to use them to set OJ up? Riccio wasn't on buddy/buddy terms with the FBI at the time; his role in exploiting a recently deceased "celebrity" for money was being investigated. The drama over the struggle with OJ's book was going on at the time. They'd have been fools not to suspect Riccio's motive for insisting on talking about OJ's memorabilia.

martin II

01-29-2009, 08:26 AM

And I'm not sure you'd acknowledge it if you heard or read it anyway, so I'm not going to search for a link. Sorry.

Very seldon do i request a link from posters and have not requested on from you. it is enough for me to allow others to evaluate posters post as this helps me NOT to get PERSONAL with others. SORRY.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 08:33 AM

I don't think le had any responsibility to be involved in in camera string for riccios recorder. smile but i do think they could have just went to Fumongs house and looked for stolen property that he had no proof of just as they do when they get a tip of drugs being sold at a location or some other illegal activity. It is not that they had to drop all of their work. le is quite flexable in the work they have to do.imo

I think we all do what has interest to us and i am sure you do the same when you choose to read appeals of previous court cases. right?

You do realize the issue of OJ's "stolen" memorabilia was not new news to LE, right? The news was full at the time of the Goldmans' fight to get OJ's book, and it was common knowledge that OJ had no remorse about hiding his assets. Civil attorneys for Goldman were known to be in a continual process of looking for OJ's assets. How can you compare LE's refusal to be drug into the OJ civil case seach-for-hidden-assets fray with a current crime drug bust? Manpower would have had to be diverted from active current cases to pursue the matter.

I am interested in the law, our legal system, and whether it really works. Just as there is often a difference between theory and practice, I believe there is a lot of grey area between laws and how they are applied.

martin II

01-29-2009, 08:33 AM

And Riccio would need OJ's "approval" to discuss this issue with the FBI why??

Unfortunately, Riccio didn't bring his recorder along for those meetings. His versions seem to evolve with each retelling. That the FBI left the room and returned before telling him "no" tells me they didn't just blow him off. Have you considered the possibility that the FBI suspected Riccio, the dealmaker, was simply trying to use them to set OJ up? Riccio wasn't on buddy/buddy terms with the FBI at the time; his role in exploiting a recently deceased "celebrity" for money was being investigated. The drama over the struggle with OJ's book was going on at the time. They'd have been fools not to suspect Riccio's motive for insisting on talking about OJ's memorabilia.

Riccio was the master manipulator of this whole event.He manipulated and caused both parties to come togeather for a larger purpose that neither party
understood. He then handeled the DELETED files tapes and tricked vegas DA into giving him immuinity in exchange for crime evidence.

He walked free so in a way he was the smarter of all involved including vegas DA and the judge.

I am sure the FBI may have looked at him as a crook and distrusted him but it was a crime being reported especially since they frequently use criminals to tip them off to other criminal activity involving larger crimes.imo

weezer

01-29-2009, 08:46 AM

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 08:46 AM

Very seldon do i request a link from posters and have not requested on from you. it is enough for me to allow others to evaluate posters post as this helps me NOT to get PERSONAL with others. SORRY.

You'll notice I provided one anyway. When it comes to message boards, unlike real life, I'm usually willing to provide a basis for what I put forth if possible. I don't hold others to the same standard; but I also don't feel compeled to respond when others are clearly posting what they "feel" or simply want to post their "opinion". I never feel I'm either the victor or the defeated after bouncing ideas on various issues back and forth here. Very often, even if it ends with "we'll have to agree to disagree" I've been given an opportunity to consider an issue from another perspective.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 08:57 AM

Riccio was the master manipulator of this whole event.He manipulated and caused both parties to come togeather for a larger purpose that neither party
understood. He then handeled the DELETED files tapes and tricked vegas DA into giving him immuinity in exchange for crime evidence.

He walked free so in a way he was the smarter of all involved including vegas DA and the judge.

I am sure the FBI may have looked at him as a crook and distrusted him but it was a crime being reported especially since they frequently use criminals to tip them off to other criminal activity involving larger crimes.imo

I totally agree on Riccio. It sticks in my craw that he was allowed to take the money and skate. He should have had to plea to at least felony conspiracy. I'll give Riccio this: he read OJ Simpson like a book and played him like a violin. What a shame for all involved that OJ took the bait and ran with it.

Riccio didn't report a definite planned criminal activity about to happen -it was more of a proposed "what if" scenario. What you seem to be envisioning would come dangerously close to entrapment.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 09:09 AM

wonder why orenthal didn't call LE in vegas and report the 'stolen' items? and if LE didn't want to get involved, wonder why orenthal didn't call his bud Linda Deutsch and give her the scoop that his stolen 'family heirlooms' were in a hotel room and he was going after them?

I assume you mean after the robbery in the hotel room, ala "Mission accomplished - The eagle has landed - If you get a call from from guys at the Palace Station, I just got my stuff back from them and I'll meet you here to show you that the items are mine"? OJ had said he didn't think Fromong and Beardsley would call LE.

I'll have to go back and review what OJ said to the cops when Riccio put them on the line following the robbery.

OJ was never in favor of taping the robbery or taking it public. You'd have thought as often as Riccio brought it up OJ would have had a clue that Riccio intended to document the event somehow.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 09:34 AM

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 09:36 AM

[QUOTE=serpentsfall;9158767" I've been given an opportunity to consider an issue from another perspective.
[/QUOTE]

IMHO, that is an intelligent way of looking at a discussion.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 09:48 AM

You do realize the issue of OJ's "stolen" memorabilia was not new news to LE, right? The news was full at the time of the Goldmans' fight to get OJ's book, and it was common knowledge that OJ had no remorse about hiding his assets. Civil attorneys for Goldman were known to be in a continual process of looking for OJ's assets. How can you compare LE's refusal to be drug into the OJ civil case seach-for-hidden-assets fray with a current crime drug bust? Manpower would have had to be diverted from active current cases to pursue the matter.

I am interested in the law, our legal system, and whether it really works. Just as there is often a difference between theory and practice, I believe there is a lot of grey area between laws and how they are applied.

Why do you say drug into a civil case, when they received a report of stolen property and possession of stolen property that would have been placed in the flow of interstate commerce, which they had the jurisdiction to investigate?

weezer

01-29-2009, 10:38 AM

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 10:56 AM

It is my understanding that Riccio called local LE and got the same response or a similar one to the FBI's response. Maybe, he did not think it was newsworthy or did not want to go public with it for whatever reason. Wonder why LE did not leak it to the media? Perhaps, if LE had, that would have prevented a mess.

One would think if you're going to argue that LE should have done something you'd be sure what LE agency you're talking about. Just saying. Testimony was that Riccio initially contacted LAPD. I don't know that Riccio knew the location of the items in question at that time. If they were with Fromong, I believe he lives in Nevada - so the items would not have been within LAPD'S jurisdiction. Then Riccio spoke with the FBI, not as a result of a separate meeting to specifically discuss the items but as a side issue during the course of the FBI investigation into Riccio on another matter. What would you expect LE to "leak" to the press? A rumor that something else might someday be coming down the pike involving OJ? That would be extremely unprofessional. I recall absolutely no testimony that Riccio contacted Nevada authorities before the crime occurred. If you've got a link, I'm willing to read it.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 11:05 AM

Why do you say drug into a civil case, when they received a report of stolen property and possession of stolen property that would have been placed in the flow of interstate commerce, which they had the jurisdiction to investigate?

Once again, LE did NOT receive a report of stolen property. They received, at best, a request for information to help Riccio and his partner determine whether the items would be legally considered "stolen". Riccio's stated reason for going to LE was because he was leery of Beardsley who was claiming the items were stolen, and Riccio did not want to get involved with selling stolen merchandise. All police were able to honestly tell him was that there was no record of a theft report filed for any such items. Do you forget that OJ was "in the news" at the time all this was taking place because of his very public fight with Goldman over rights to his book? All Riccio brought to LE was a rumor, and I don't think any police department anywhere in the USA would have handled the matter differently.

martin II

01-29-2009, 11:06 AM

You'll notice I provided one anyway. When it comes to message boards, unlike real life, I'm usually willing to provide a basis for what I put forth if possible. I don't hold others to the same standard; but I also don't feel compeled to respond when others are clearly posting what they "feel" or simply want to post their "opinion". I never feel I'm either the victor or the defeated after bouncing ideas on various issues back and forth here. Very often, even if it ends with "we'll have to agree to disagree" I've been given an opportunity to consider an issue from another perspective.

you and i have both posted our FEELINGS AND OPINIONS about the case so in that regard we have done the same in our post.I have read feelings as to why judge glass ruled and her treatment of defense objections and i realize that these are just opinions and not really facts as no one knows what her motivations were. imo

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 11:22 AM

you and i have both posted our FEELINGS AND OPINIONS about the case so in that regard we have done the same in our post.I have read feelings as to why judge glass ruled and her treatment of defense objections and i realize that these are just opinions and not really facts as no one knows what her motivations were. imo

Regarding ongoing speculation on the effect of Judge Glass' commenting on Simpson's "Golddigger" statement, I would opine that in reviewing the issue posters should consider that there is a subtle difference in the judge's role during a bench trial, where the judge takes on the role of the jury, vesus a jury trial, where the judge more protectively oversees and directs what evidence comes before the jury for its consideration. In the case at hand, Judge Glass had the obligation to sentence the defendants. I'd point out that a pre-sentence investigation report is neither "testimony" nor "evidence". Judge Glass, in determining the appropriate sentence, was not under the same constraint in determining sentence as the jury was in determining guilt. Therefore, I don't think her consideration or mention of Simpson's "Golddigger" comment was out of bounds considering it was made in that phase of the trial. If I'm mistaken about when it was said, somebody please correct me and I'll re-think my position on the matter.

martin II

01-29-2009, 11:24 AM

One would think if you're going to argue that LE should have done something you'd be sure what LE agency you're talking about. Just saying. Testimony was that Riccio initially contacted LAPD. I don't know that Riccio knew the location of the items in question at that time. If they were with Fromong, I believe he lives in Nevada - so the items would not have been within LAPD'S jurisdiction. Then Riccio spoke with the FBI, not as a result of a separate meeting to specifically discuss the items but as a side issue during the course of the FBI investigation into Riccio on another matter. What would you expect LE to "leak" to the press? A rumor that something else might someday be coming down the pike involving OJ? That would be extremely unprofessional. I recall absolutely no testimony that Riccio contacted Nevada authorities before the crime occurred. If you've got a link, I'm willing to read it.

initially beadsley had inforned riccio that they could do the deal in LA and the seller fumong would present the goods there. i believe this is why riccio went to la le. I believe riccios idea to turn it into a media event was silly but when oj informed riccio that he would be in vegas for the wedding riccio and beadsley set the deal up there. but remember the goods were origionally in brentwood and fumong brought them across state lines to vegas. the other small issue is why fumong was able to get by with bringing that gun in his truck to the hotel.did he have a permit if you know.

one other issue that i dont understand is:
Riccio made tapes in the hotel room with his recorder hidden.While le detectives were at this crime scene (hotel) investigating, they were also taped by riccios hidden recorder and he was able to sneak, steal the recorder from the crime scene under their "nose"

I consider the tapes to be crime scene evidence, so how was it that the DA did not demand the tapes from riccio instead of making a immunity deal to get them.imo

martin II

01-29-2009, 11:36 AM

Regarding ongoing speculation on the effect of Judge Glass' commenting on Simpson's "Golddigger" statement, I would opine that in reviewing the issue posters should consider that there is a subtle difference in the judge's role during a bench trial, where the judge takes on the role of the jury, vesus a jury trial, where the judge more protectively oversees and directs what evidence comes before the jury for its consideration. In the case at hand, Judge Glass had the obligation to sentence the defendants. I'd point out that a pre-sentence investigation report is neither "testimony" nor "evidence". Judge Glass, in determining the appropriate sentence, was not under the same constraint in determining sentence as the jury was in determining guilt. Therefore, I don't think her consideration or mention of Simpson's "Golddigger" comment was out of bounds considering it was made in that phase of the trial. If I'm mistaken about when it was said, somebody please correct me and I'll re-think my position on the matter.

i dissagree with glass bringing the civil trial issues to this trial but my larger complaint is how many times glass showed disdain for defense lawyers by screeming "SIT DOWN MR GALANTER" and other comments, some in front of the jury. "come to the bench" would have been a more appropiate order. imo.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 11:41 AM

initially beadsley had inforned riccio that they could do the deal in LA and the seller fumong would present the goods there. i believe this is why riccio went to la le. I believe riccios idea to turn it into a media event was silly but when oj informed riccio that he would be in vegas for the wedding riccio and beadsley set the deal up there. but remember the goods were origionally in brentwood and fumong brought them across state lines to vegas. the other small issue is why fumong was able to get by with bringing that gun in his truck to the hotel.did he have a permit if you know.

one other issue that i dont understand is:
Riccio made tapes in the hotel roomm with his recorder hidden.While le detectives were at this crime scene (hotel) investigating, they were also taped by riccios hidden recorder and he was able to sneak, steal the recorder from the crime scene under their "nose"

I consider the tapes to be crime scene evidence, so how was it that the DA did not demand the tapes from riccio instead of making a immunity deal to get them.imo

Are you intentionally ignoring evidence that OJ didn't just casually say "I'll be in Vegas for a wedding" so Riccio said "Let's make it convenient for Fromong and do it there!" This went down in Vegas because of the outstanding civil order in California. Do you have any reason to doubt that? I don't think any of us, including Riccio, can verify who, how or when the items crossed the state line - or anywhere it traveled - between Rockingham and Las Vegas. My understanding was that Fromong had a concealed carry permit for his gun, which is why he didn't hesitate to go get it immediately after the robbery.

I have no answer as to why they let Riccio skate. I could maybe see limited immunity - I wouldn't like it, but I could see it. I'd have liked to see him at least fined the amount of money he received for the tapes from TMZ! Part of the problem is that the recorder was hidden and LE didn't know it existed until they heard the tape played in public.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 11:49 AM

i dissagree with glass bringing the civil trial issues to this trial but my larger complaint is how many times glass showed disdain for defense lawyers by screeming "SIT DOWN MR GALANTER" and other comments, some in front of the jury. "come to the bench" would have been a more appropiate order. imo.

I believe, if we could read the trial transcript, you'd realize that she covered herself by often cautioning the jury that her interactions with the attorneys was not evidence or testimony, that they were not to infer anything from them, and any interactions were not to be considered in their deliberations. That's about all it takes to cover the issue on appeal.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 12:27 PM

I have not read or heard that riccio contacted local LE --

you're kidding about the 'leak to media' statement, right?

http://www.lvrj.com/news/10993046.html

I am as serious as you were when you wondered why Simpson did not leak it.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 12:29 PM

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 12:37 PM

Once again, LE did NOT receive a report of stolen property. They received, at best, a request for information to help Riccio and his partner determine whether the items would be legally considered "stolen". Riccio's stated reason for going to LE was because he was leery of Beardsley who was claiming the items were stolen, and Riccio did not want to get involved with selling stolen merchandise. All police were able to honestly tell him was that there was no record of a theft report filed for any such items. Do you forget that OJ was "in the news" at the time all this was taking place because of his very public fight with Goldman over rights to his book? All Riccio brought to LE was a rumor, and I don't think any police department anywhere in the USA would have handled the matter differently.

As you have stated your feelings about what opinions and feelings and how you support yours, link to LE telling him there was no record of a theft report filed for any such items. Let's look into your theory. Someone told me that 2 months ago they killed someone, who lived alone, and hid the body. I tell police what the person said. The police can say oh well, that's a rumor, we are not getting involved to assist you by investigating whether or not there was a murder.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 12:40 PM

I believe, if we could read the trial transcript, you'd realize that she covered herself by often cautioning the jury that her interactions with the attorneys was not evidence or testimony, that they were not to infer anything from them, and any interactions were not to be considered in their deliberations. That's about all it takes to cover the issue on appeal.

I don't how the appellate court will consider that and I have provided links, IIRC, were the judge's demeanor, statements and conduct resulted in prejudice.

martin II

01-29-2009, 12:53 PM

Are you intentionally ignoring evidence that OJ didn't just casually say "I'll be in Vegas for a wedding" so Riccio said "Let's make it convenient for Fromong and do it there!" This went down in Vegas because of the outstanding civil order in California. Do you have any reason to doubt that? I don't think any of us, including Riccio, can verify who, how or when the items crossed the state line - or anywhere it traveled - between Rockingham and Las Vegas. My understanding was that Fromong had a concealed carry permit for his gun, which is why he didn't hesitate to go get it immediately after the robbery.

I have no answer as to why they let Riccio skate. I could maybe see limited immunity - I wouldn't like it, but I could see it. I'd have liked to see him at least fined the amount of money he received for the tapes from TMZ! Part of the problem is that the recorder was hidden and LE didn't know it existed until they heard the tape played in public.

OK but when le or the da realized riccio had crime scene evidence that had been removed from the crime scene they had the authority and responsibility to go take it and charge him.They didn't.
Riccio should have been charged as a conspiritor just like everyone was. He was a part of this planned event that turned into some crimes. or maby one could say no one went to the hotel with intent to commit crimes but as it turned out McClinton and Alexander pulled out guns and caused all to be involved in something that none of the crew thought would happen.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 12:56 PM

See link in post above. Beardsley was in California. Professional or not, it is not without precedent. Pun intended.

Speaking of leaks, I find it interesting that Linda Deutsch came up with copies of the FBI reports. I don't recall them being entered as evidence at trial. Her article reflects Riccio talking to the FBI twice. Hmm...Riccio didn't mention that on the stand that I recall. And as I recall the evidence it was only Riccio, not Simpson, who wanted to have it on tape. And I'm somewhat amused by Riccio's quote, "I went along with O.J.'s plan".

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 12:58 PM

OK but when le or the da realized riccio had crime scene evidence that had been removed from the crime scene they had the authority and responsibility to go take it and charge him.They didn't.
Riccio should have been charged as a conspiritor just like everyone was. He was a part of this planned event that turned into some crimes. or maby one could say no one went to the hotel with intent to commit crimes but as it turned out McClinton and Alexander pulled out guns and caused all to be involved in something that none of the crew thought would happen.

You're preaching to the choir, Martin!

martin II

01-29-2009, 01:05 PM

I believe, if we could read the trial transcript, you'd realize that she covered herself by often cautioning the jury that her interactions with the attorneys was not evidence or testimony, that they were not to infer anything from them, and any interactions were not to be considered in their deliberations. That's about all it takes to cover the issue on appeal.

i don't think that little statement covers her as far as her comments and treatment of defense lawyers at all.imo

martin II

01-29-2009, 01:08 PM

You're preaching to the choir, Martin!

posting my opinions to the thread is more accurate.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 01:10 PM

I don't how the appellate court will consider that and I have provided links, IIRC, were the judge's demeanor, statements and conduct resulted in prejudice.

And I'm just saying context may be important to the interpretation of those links. If the judge is acting as the trier of fact, and there is reason to believe that said judge has demonstrated bias or prejudice that will directly affect that judge's decision, that's a more direct issue than when a defendant's fate lies in the hands of a jury of peers. Obvious bias and prejudice in the 100% sole determiner of fact in a case presents harmful error. The chance that 12 of 12 jurors would be negatively swayed by something they detect is a judge is much less likely to result in harmful error. Just something I'm tossing out there to keep in mind when we're citing things from different articles, websites, etc.

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 01:13 PM

i don't think that little statement covers her as far as her comments and treatment of defense lawyers at all.imo

How so?

weezer

01-29-2009, 01:24 PM

Speaking of leaks, I find it interesting that Linda Deutsch came up with copies of the FBI reports. I don't recall them being entered as evidence at trial. Her article reflects Riccio talking to the FBI twice. Hmm...Riccio didn't mention that on the stand that I recall. And as I recall the evidence it was only Riccio, not Simpson, who wanted to have it on tape. And I'm somewhat amused by Riccio's quote, "I went along with O.J.'s plan".

I am so hoping that at the end of the day evidence is found to implicate her in the cover-up/witness tampering after the armed robbery!

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 01:46 PM

And I'm just saying context may be important to the interpretation of those links. If the judge is acting as the trier of fact, and there is reason to believe that said judge has demonstrated bias or prejudice that will directly affect that judge's decision, that's a more direct issue than when a defendant's fate lies in the hands of a jury of peers. Obvious bias and prejudice in the 100% sole determiner of fact in a case presents harmful error. The chance that 12 of 12 jurors would be negatively swayed by something they detect is a judge is much less likely to result in harmful error. Just something I'm tossing out there to keep in mind when we're citing things from different articles, websites, etc.

You may be right but I the links I spoke of where from case law. Don't forget the questionable charges she substantiated. I am not saying to take those actions in isolation. I agree that with even those things it may not reach that level but the argument should be made. Many, who think Simpson guilty, still question her demeanor.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 01:53 PM

. Do you have any reason to doubt that? I don't think any of us, including Riccio, can verify who, how or when the items crossed the state line - or anywhere it traveled - between Rockingham and Las Vegas.

We can be sure it did travel across state lines and an investigation would have shed light on whether or not they were stolen.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 01:57 PM

I am so hoping that at the end of the day evidence is found to implicate her in the cover-up/witness tampering after the armed robbery!

I think she is successful enough and intelligent enough not to become involved in those type of things.

weezer

01-29-2009, 01:59 PM

I think she is successful enough and intelligent enough not to become involved in those type of things.

you would think. the last I heard, the flurry of calls between her and orenthal, and her and beardsley right after the armed robbery were being looked at very carefully.

weezer

01-29-2009, 02:03 PM

hey, I was wondering -- if , as some believe, it was LE's duty to follow up on a 'maybe' crime that might happen 'sometime' somewhere, what exactly was the duty of the attorney that told orenthal not to do it?

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 02:11 PM

you would think. the last I heard, the flurry of calls between her and orenthal, and her and beardsley right after the armed robbery were being looked at very carefully.

That appeases me as I know some type of investigation is being done of suspected criminal conduct, although it may be an arbitrary decision as to who gets investigated, and I believe in the presumption of innocence.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 02:12 PM

weezer

01-29-2009, 02:27 PM

I guess it would depend on whether or not there was an attorney-client relationship.

testimony was that orenthal was told by his sister and his attorney not to what he was planning. what was the duty of the attorney?

serpentsfall

01-29-2009, 02:28 PM

I think she is successful enough and intelligent enough not to become involved in those type of things.

And yet she allowed herself to be a go-between after the robbery to put Beardsley and Simpson in touch with each other...

weezer

01-29-2009, 02:30 PM

And yet she allowed herself to be a go-between after the robbery to put Beardsley and Simpson in touch with each other...

I thought the number of calls was wild -- she was busy, busy, busy that night.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 02:33 PM

And yet she allowed herself to be a go-between after the robbery to put Beardsley and Simpson in touch with each other...

Was she in search of a story? Go-between for what? I think LE will turn over every stone to find something to implicate Simpson in another crime, if one was committed, while ignoring reports that crimes had been committed against his property, if any were committed.

William Anthony

01-29-2009, 02:50 PM

testimony was that orenthal was told by his sister and his attorney not to what he was planning. what was the duty of the attorney?

I guess it would depend on whether or not there was an attorney-client relationship.

martin II

01-29-2009, 02:55 PM

I thought the number of calls was wild -- she was busy, busy, busy that night.

most reporters are when they smell a story. Ask Geraldo. HAHAHA

martin II

01-29-2009, 02:58 PM

I thought the number of calls was wild -- she was busy, busy, busy that night.

That may be because you are not a reporter.right?

martin II

01-29-2009, 05:59 PM

Linda Deutsch was not even part of the vegas trial so why are we discussing her.

Redmama

01-29-2009, 08:45 PM

The law varies from state to state. It is not set in stone. There is no answer that can be given in plain English. It depends on the ideology of the people interpreting the law, or declaring what the law is, if you will. That is precise as anyone can get. I will try.

1. Under Nevada law, it appears that, if they are moved, it does not require any significant distance.

2. That has yet to be decided.

3. Provided that he did not transfer title, his attempts to get them back would depend on the interpretation of the statute, which, under Nevada law, the answer would be no. However, Marbury v. Madison said any law repugnant to the Constitution cannot stand. The Constitution says that no one can be deprived of property or liberty without due process of law.

4. Anyone can report a crime whether or not they are the victim.

1. Well if that is the law, I would say that they were not kidnapped – I have to add I would have felt kidnapped - maybe held hostage is a better phrase.

2. They were not reported stolen, so I would assume they were not stolen - at least in the eyes of the law. I would report my stuff stolen. I also think that he could have found a different avenue to get them back if they are his and he wasn't worried about others laying claim – as has been mentioned – though the civil court. There is always another way to deal with things, when you feel like you are not being heard. Especially when it is just about “stuff.” You really have to pick your battles in this life. My ex had a bunch of family memento’s of mine…it's been 15 years. He sold some of them in a garage sale. I had to just decide it wasn’t worth it.

3. Again, then, pick your battles – at least TRY another avenue first.

4. I think we ALL should report crimes…absolutely. But I’m not so sure this was verbalized as a crime – more as a disagreement that should have been settled by other means. As I’ve stated numerous times, I would NOT have trusted Riccio to do it for me – he definitely is not trustworthy. Granted I don’t know him, but the first time I heard him speak about this issue, I knew there was something up – he just sounded like he was up to something. I’d like to be on the jury in a trial against him. Oooooops now that I’ve written that, I guess they won’t pick me – shhhhhhh – don’t tell anybody!

And again, William, thanks for answering me in English.

Redmama

01-29-2009, 08:53 PM

your post is definately OT.

Wow... and what, could you be a little nicer - obviously she is someone new - allow her to get up to speed before shutting her down.

Welcome to the board Misty Moppens - I've been where you are - please stay around. I had to look up OT (off topic) when I first started reading!

martin II

01-29-2009, 11:20 PM

1. Well if that is the law, I would say that they were not kidnapped – I have to add I would have felt kidnapped - maybe held hostage is a better phrase.

2. They were not reported stolen, so I would assume they were not stolen - at least in the eyes of the law. I would report my stuff stolen. I also think that he could have found a different avenue to get them back if they are his and he wasn't worried about others laying claim – as has been mentioned – though the civil court. There is always another way to deal with things, when you feel like you are not being heard. Especially when it is just about “stuff.” You really have to pick your battles in this life. My ex had a bunch of family memento’s of mine…it's been 15 years. He sold some of them in a garage sale. I had to just decide it wasn’t worth it.

3. Again, then, pick your battles – at least TRY another avenue first.

4. I think we ALL should report crimes…absolutely. But I’m not so sure this was verbalized as a crime – more as a disagreement that should have been settled by other means. As I’ve stated numerous times, I would NOT have trusted Riccio to do it for me – he definitely is not trustworthy. Granted I don’t know him, but the first time I heard him speak about this issue, I knew there was something up – he just sounded like he was up to something. I’d like to be on the jury in a trial against him. Oooooops now that I’ve written that, I guess they won’t pick me – shhhhhhh – don’t tell anybody!

And again, William, thanks for answering me in English.

I think oj knew Mike Gilbert had taken his items but did know where they were
since he and gilbert were no longer doing business. i think he may have put the issue on the back burner and given up on getting that stuff back until Riccio was contacted by Beadsley and informed that he had the stuff for sale
and Riccio called oj and told him he could help him get his stuff back.

OJS first mistake was not telling Riccio you go get it and bring it to me.His second mistake was allowing himself to be manipulated by Riccio into going to the Palace Station Hotel.

His misfortune was that he was in Nevada where the DA has a history of charging most robberies as kidnapping even though most kidnapping charges never stand up in court. This time he had a judge that agreed with the prosecution and as a hard azz allowed her bias against the defendants to show in how she handeled the case.imo

Stuff can always be replaced.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 06:01 AM

1. Well if that is the law, I would say that they were not kidnapped – I have to add I would have felt kidnapped - maybe held hostage is a better phrase.

2. They were not reported stolen, so I would assume they were not stolen - at least in the eyes of the law. I would report my stuff stolen. I also think that he could have found a different avenue to get them back if they are his and he wasn't worried about others laying claim – as has been mentioned – though the civil court. There is always another way to deal with things, when you feel like you are not being heard. Especially when it is just about “stuff.” You really have to pick your battles in this life. My ex had a bunch of family memento’s of mine…it's been 15 years. He sold some of them in a garage sale. I had to just decide it wasn’t worth it.

3. Again, then, pick your battles – at least TRY another avenue first.

4. I think we ALL should report crimes…absolutely. But I’m not so sure this was verbalized as a crime – more as a disagreement that should have been settled by other means. As I’ve stated numerous times, I would NOT have trusted Riccio to do it for me – he definitely is not trustworthy. Granted I don’t know him, but the first time I heard him speak about this issue, I knew there was something up – he just sounded like he was up to something. I’d like to be on the jury in a trial against him. Oooooops now that I’ve written that, I guess they won’t pick me – shhhhhhh – don’t tell anybody!

And again, William, thanks for answering me in English.

I don't think anyone is upholding how Simpson went about getting his property back, if it was his property. What I am saying is that it may have been the wrong course to take but was it criminal. In some states it would not have been but in Nevada is was considered robbery. However, Nevada law says that robbery is a general intent and the thought that he believed the property was his would have negated that criminal intent but the jury was instructed they could not consider this. Therefore, he was not allowed a defense to general intent but held to a strict liability standard, which might have violated his Due Process rights. Ricco told LE that he had been in contact with someone that said he had Simpson's stolen property and told Simpson, who was trying to get it back with a sting operation, and told him someone was attempting to sell Simpson's stolen property. Riccio reported the crime of possession of stolen property, which LE could have easily verified by contacting Beardsley, Fromong or Simpson.

I'll bet if someone told them that Someone had coffee and pastries they were sellling and said they had stolen them from Starbucks, LE would have went to the location in full force, smile.

martin II

01-30-2009, 07:07 AM

I think oj knew Mike Gilbert had taken his items but did know where they were
since he and gilbert were no longer doing business. i think he may have put the issue on the back burner and given up on getting that stuff back until Riccio was contacted by Beadsley and informed that he had the stuff for sale
and Riccio called oj and told him he could help him get his stuff back.

OJS first mistake was not telling Riccio you go get it and bring it to me.His second mistake was allowing himself to be manipulated by Riccio into going to the Palace Station Hotel.

His misfortune was that he was in Nevada where the DA has a history of charging most robberies as kidnapping even though most kidnapping charges never stand up in court. This time he had a judge that agreed with the prosecution and as a hard azz allowed her bias against the defendants to show in how she handeled the case.imo

Stuff can always be replaced.

my above post however is based on the stuff that was stolen was not mine it was ojs. i cannot say how he should have felt about his stuff especially the pictures of his dead father and mother and some other items. People can get very close to items like this and most people that loose stuff from thief feel strongly violated. i know i did when i went to a persons house to retrieve a item stolen from me.

martin II

01-30-2009, 07:15 AM

I don't think anyone is upholding how Simpson went about getting his property back, if it was his property. What I am saying is that it may have been the wrong course to take but was it criminal. In some states it would not have been but in Nevada is was considered robbery. However, Nevada law says that robbery is a general intent and the thought that he believed the property was his would have negated that criminal intent but the jury was instructed they could not consider this. Therefore, he was not allowed a defense to general intent but held to a strict liability standard, which might have violated his Due Process rights. Ricco told LE that he had been in contact with someone that said he had Simpson's stolen property and told Simpson, who was trying to get it back with a sting operation, and told him someone was attempting to sell Simpson's stolen property. Riccio reported the crime of possession of stolen property, which LE could have easily verified by contacting Beardsley, Fromong or Simpson.

I'll bet if someone told them that Someone had coffee and pastries they were sellling and said they had stolen them from Starbucks, LE would have went to the location in full force, smile.

A few days ago a person was selling some designer cosmetics on ebay at a big discount. someone reported it to le and it took them all of 2-3 days for le to arrest the seller.Regardless of their busy schedule.:cool:

martin II

01-30-2009, 07:24 AM

I don't think anyone is upholding how Simpson went about getting his property back, if it was his property. What I am saying is that it may have been the wrong course to take but was it criminal. In some states it would not have been but in Nevada is was considered robbery. However, Nevada law says that robbery is a general intent and the thought that he believed the property was his would have negated that criminal intent but the jury was instructed they could not consider this. Therefore, he was not allowed a defense to general intent but held to a strict liability standard, which might have violated his Due Process rights. Ricco told LE that he had been in contact with someone that said he had Simpson's stolen property and told Simpson, who was trying to get it back with a sting operation, and told him someone was attempting to sell Simpson's stolen property. Riccio reported the crime of possession of stolen property, which LE could have easily verified by contacting Beardsley, Fromong or Simpson.

I'll bet if someone told them that Someone had coffee and pastries they were sellling and said they had stolen them from Starbucks, LE would have went to the location in full force, smile.

All of the defendants testified that they only had intent to help simpson retreive his stolen goods. The reason there were 4-5 people with him is based on fumong telling beadsley that he had thousands of ojs items for sale
and these extra people would be needed to carry these thousands of item away.Riccio said fumong only had a very few oj items. so fumongs lie caused the other people to be there when they were not really needed as there were only 3-4 boxes of stuff that he brought to the hotel to sell.imo

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 07:47 AM

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 08:15 AM

All of the defendants testified that they only had intent to help simpson retreive his stolen goods. The reason there were 4-5 people with him is based on fumong telling beadsley that he had thousands of ojs items for sale
and these extra people would be needed to carry these thousands of item away.Riccio said fumong only had a very few oj items. so fumongs lie caused the other people to be there when they were not really needed as there were only 3-4 boxes of stuff that he brought to the hotel to sell.imo

Assuming Fromong and Beardsley were going to willingly surrender the items after talking with OJ, and two guys were able to carry the stuff in, wouldn't two guys (plus Fromong and Beardsley would probably help OJ carry the stuff to his car under a "friendly" scenario) be enough to carry the stuff out? Of couse, if you're going into it thinking your gonna grab and run, you'd have to plan a one trip exit. Just a thought.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 08:17 AM

If the robbery was such a serious crime, how do you justify slapping people on the wrist and saying let that teach you a lesson?

Didn't everybody but Riccio come away with a felony conviction?

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 08:27 AM

Didn't everybody but Riccio come away with a felony conviction?

Did anyone except Stewart and Simpson come away with incarceration?

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 08:36 AM

Linda Deutsch was not even part of the vegas trial so why are we discussing her.

Simply because there was testimony in the Nevada trial that she was the person who, after the robbery, put Simpson in touch with Beardsley and was the co-author of an article about Riccio's conversation with the FBI.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 08:44 AM

Did anyone except Stewart and Simpson come away with incarceration?

With prison overcrowding, plea bargains to avoid prison tends to be the rule, not the exception. And I think one has already violated probation and may yet end up in the slammer.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 08:59 AM

my above post however is based on the stuff that was stolen was not mine it was ojs. i cannot say how he should have felt about his stuff especially the pictures of his dead father and mother and some other items. People can get very close to items like this and most people that loose stuff from thief feel strongly violated. i know i did when i went to a persons house to retrieve a item stolen from me.

We've had stuff stolen so I also understand how it feels. Some stuff was never recovered and some stuff we found and got back on our own (with police alerted and on "standby" in case there was a problem.) I don't think there was much OJ could have done about recovering the family photos purchased by someone at sheriff's sale. I'm amazed that once he found out where they were, and heard they would be offered for sale, that he didn't just buy them back.

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:24 AM

We've had stuff stolen so I also understand how it feels. Some stuff was never recovered and some stuff we found and got back on our own (with police alerted and on "standby" in case there was a problem.) I don't think there was much OJ could have done about recovering the family photos purchased by someone at sheriff's sale. I'm amazed that once he found out where they were, and heard they would be offered for sale, that he didn't just buy them back.

I believe one idea that riccio said he had was to have le in the next hotel room as they tried to retrieve ojs goods as a standby.That did not work.
I have no proof that the family photos in the hotel room was ever purchased by anyone from a sheriffs sale as i think these type low money value items were not on the judges list of items to be turned over.
It certainly would have been a better idea if oj had given Riccio a fist full of cash and told him to go buy the items and bring them to me, but i guess he felt violated by his ex business partner Mike and allowed his anger to make decisions for him. What he forgot was that he was still a target for most DAS
based on the CA case.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 09:26 AM

With prison overcrowding, plea bargains to avoid prison tends to be the rule, not the exception. And I think one has already violated probation and may yet end up in the slammer.

Yes, and the quid pro quo for plea bargaining in a case like this is usually it is granted in regard to the defendant telling the truth. However, with such an allegedly serious crime it would seem that some minimal amount of prison time would have been enforced. The jury did not feel they were telling the truth but I guess that did not matter in regard to the deal.

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:32 AM

With prison overcrowding, plea bargains to avoid prison tends to be the rule, not the exception. And I think one has already violated probation and may yet end up in the slammer.

The two guys that made a adult decision on their own to bring guns which is what bumped up the charges to something very serious got probation along with the two others But one decided to get high and is now facing probation violation. Based on their life styles i believe Alexander and MCClinton will also
violate their probation before the term is over.It will really be a comedy if all eventually having escaped jail will eventually put themselves in jail.imo

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:40 AM

Yes, and the quid pro quo for plea bargaining in a case like this is usually it is granted in regard to the defendant telling the truth. However, with such an allegedly serious crime it would seem that some minimal amount of prison time would have been enforced. The jury did not feel they were telling the truth but I guess that did not matter in regard to the deal.

Pleas are usually based on the defendant/witness telling the truth.After these witnesses testified it must have been obvious to the prosecution and the judge they some were not being truthful in their testimony.It was obvious to the jury that they were all not believable. So why did the DA and judge allow the pleas to stand.imo

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:44 AM

Simply because there was testimony in the Nevada trial that she was the person who, after the robbery, put Simpson in touch with Beardsley and was the co-author of an article about Riccio's conversation with the FBI.

Ok i was not aware that anyone testified about her in the trial.I was under the impression that her name came up after the trial when some DA investigator informed Goldman that Beadsley told him he had the ring.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 09:46 AM

Pleas are usually based on the defendant/witness telling the truth.After these witnesses testified it must have been obvious to the prosecution and the judge they some were not being truthful in their testimony.It was obvious to the jury that they were all not believable. So why did the DA and judge allow the pleas to stand.imo

Yes, that is another problem with the case. The jury did not believe the witnesses, which does not mean that the judge and prosecution didn't. That would mean that the judge and prosecution believed Simpson was there to reclaim his property but they claimed that was not a defense. How can a jury decide intent based on the tapes other than by listening to what was said on the tapes, which, according to my understanding, was that Simpson was there to reclaim his property.

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:51 AM

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 09:55 AM

The prosecution must have felt the egg on their faces when their star witnesses failed the truth test with the jury.

I am not so sure. I believe the prosecution felt confident that they would get a conviction, despite what the jurors saw, for some reason.

martin II

01-30-2009, 09:56 AM

Yes, that is another problem with the case. The jury did not believe the witnesses, which does not mean that the judge and prosecution didn't. That would mean that the judge and prosecution believed Simpson was there to reclaim his property but they claimed that was not a defense. How can a jury decide intent based on the tapes other than by listening to what was said on the tapes, which, according to my understanding, was that Simpson was there to reclaim his property.

I will post this again
Every person that went into that room testified that the only intent they had was to help oj retrieve his property.No one testified that robbery was the intent.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 10:13 AM

I will post this again
Every person that went into that room testified that the only intent they had was to help oj retrieve his property.No one testified that robbery was the intent.

Let me say this. If I know the loudness of your normal speaking tone and I thought that you raised your voice on a tape, the only thing I can say for sure is that you raised your normal speaking tone. What may be inferred from the raising of your voice is a different matter. Whether those surreptitiously taped tapes based of questionable authentication and whether they resulted in prejudice should have been used to determine anything is a far different matter.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 10:47 AM

Let me say this. If I know the loudness of your normal speaking tone and I thought that you raised your voice on a tape, the only thing I can say for sure is that you raised your normal speaking tone. What may be inferred from the raising of your voice is a different matter. Whether those surreptitiously taped tapes based of questionable authentication and whether they resulted in prejudice should have been used to determine anything is a far different matter.

OJ would have gotten away with this had it not been for those tapes. For the life of me I cannot fathom why Galanter did not object to their admission.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 10:50 AM

Simply because there was testimony in the Nevada trial that she was the person who, after the robbery, put Simpson in touch with Beardsley and was the co-author of an article about Riccio's conversation with the FBI.

Yes, there was a hearing held in regard not to her alleged involvement in an alleged tampering with a witness charge, which was rumored to be under investigation, but was tangentially concerned therewith. At least we have a rumor the LE was doing its duty and not a refusal to get involved in some weird celebrity case.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 10:52 AM

The prosecution must have felt the egg on their faces when their star witnesses failed the truth test with the jury.

Yeah, and those are the kind of men OJ has for "friends"!

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 10:53 AM

OJ would have gotten away with this had it not been for those tapes. For the life of me I cannot fathom why Galanter did not object to their admission.

I am not as clear as you are that he never objected. He agreed to their used on a conditional showing of admissibility, would be my understanding.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 10:55 AM

Yeah, and those are the kind of men OJ has for "friends"!

I thought Martin was talking about the prosecution's experts. :)

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 10:55 AM

Yes, there was a hearing held in regard not to her alleged involvement in an alleged tampering with a witness charge, which was rumored to be under investigation, but was tangentially concerned therewith. At least we have a rumor the LE was doing its duty and not a refusal to get involved in some weird celebrity case.

Well, there's not as much legwork involved when you've already got the alleged culprits in custody. And even then you'll notice the cops didn't go look for the ring; they left it up to the civil courts to handle.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 11:01 AM

Well, there's not as much legwork involved when you've already got the alleged culprits in custody. And even then you'll notice the cops didn't go look for the ring; they left it up to the civil courts to handle.

What about the rumored investigation? That is the point. They were perfectly willing to start an investigation, if it could prove Simpson guilty of another crime, and I do not think any of us are privy to information that was/is obtained during the investigation or whether the investigation has been closed, if there was one. We will find out I believe. But, we did not hear any rumor that LE was investigating the report of Simpson's stolen property or those who may have been in possession of his stolen property. It seems to like an arbitrary decision by LE as to what reports of crime they will investigate, which is not in line with the oath they took, imho.

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 11:22 AM

What about the rumored investigation? That is the point. They were perfectly willing to start an investigation, if it could prove Simpson guilty of another crime, and I do not think any of us are privy to information that was/is obtained during the investigation or whether the investigation has been closed, if there was one. We will find out I believe. But, we did not hear any rumor that LE was investigating the report of Simpson's stolen property or those who may have been in possession of his stolen property. It seems to like an arbitrary decision by LE as to what reports of crime they will investigate, which is not in line with the oath they took, imho.

Police might have investigated whether there was witness tampering by Simpson, but what would be the point since he was already convicted? Beardsley likes to flap his jaws and the officer reported what he heard during the drive back to CA. It doesn't sound to me like they launched any big "get OJ for this too" investigation. And since this may start bordering on "off topic" I'll leave it at that.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 11:41 AM

Police might have investigated whether there was witness tampering by Simpson, but what would be the point since he was already convicted? Beardsley likes to flap his jaws and the officer reported what he heard during the drive back to CA. It doesn't sound to me like they launched any big "get OJ for this too" investigation. And since this may start bordering on "off topic" I'll leave it at that.

I beg to differ as to this being off topic, as you have previously defended as being on topic when you defended discussing Linda. I do not know how far back you have read but a lawyer posted his remarks about his decision to tell Beardsley to take the 5th, due to the rumor of a ancillary hearing being held in regard to the allegation of witness tampering. There was testimony in the Nevada case about Riccio's involvement with LE. We do not know the extent of the investigation but the point is that there was rumored to be one and there was never a rumor to one about Simpson's stolen property or being in possession of his stolen property. I think it is very relevant in regard to the Nevada case to discuss LE's inactivity when Simpson is being criminally victimized and their activity when he is suspected of committing a crime.

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 11:44 AM

serpentsfall

01-30-2009, 12:12 PM

I beg to differ as to this being off topic, as you have previously defended as being on topic when you defended discussing Linda. I do not know how far back you have read but a lawyer posted his remarks about his decision to tell Beardsley to take the 5th, due to the rumor of a ancillary hearing being held in regard to the allegation of witness tampering. There was testimony in the Nevada case about Riccio's involvement with LE. We do not know the extent of the investigation but the point is that there was rumored to be one and there was never a rumor to one about Simpson's stolen property or being in possession of his stolen property. I think it is very relevant in regard to the Nevada case to discuss LE's inactivity when Simpson is being criminally victimized and their activity when he is suspected of committing a crime.

I just know you've had some "issues" with keeping this open - I don't want to jeopardize anything. LE would have no basis for opening a theft investigation regarding OJ's items since he never filed a theft report. Here's what OJ had to say at the time:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/062897/simpson.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9712/19/briefs.am/simpson.heisman/

If OJ thought Gilbert had his other items illegally, I wonder why he didn't ask the civil court that ordered Gilbert to turn over the Heisman nameplate to also return the other items?

William Anthony

01-30-2009, 12:31 PM

I just know you've had some "issues" with keeping this open - I don't want to jeopardize anything. LE would have no basis for opening a theft investigation regarding OJ's items since he never filed a theft report. Here's what OJ had to say at the time:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/062897/simpson.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9712/19/briefs.am/simpson.heisman/

If OJ thought Gilbert had his other items illegally, I wonder why he didn't ask the civil court that ordered Gilbert to turn over the Heisman nameplate to also return the other items?

To answer your question first, perhaps, the only item that he knew Gilbert had stolen at that time was the nameplate.

LE had a duty to investigate reports of crimes or, if you will, reports of suspected crimes. That is what Riccio gave them and that was what his testimony amounted to in court in the Nevada case. His testimony was not about the Heisman Trophy and to the extent that you have mentioned that I will agree it is off topic. The discussion was about Linda, LE investigations or lack thereof, and witness tampering, all of which were mentioned during the Nevada trial, IIRC.