Nevada Case Discussion Only

[weezer]

Snipped ** ". . . When simpson is being criminally victimized and their activity when he is suspected of committing a crime."

not sure what this means -- help

[weezer]

I don't understand what part of 'there were no stolen items' that isn't clear. Someone please show me where anyone -- other than orenthal -- substantiates there were stolen items.

[William Anthony]

Snipped **

not sure what this means -- help

Sure. There was no investigation done to determine whether he was or not being criminally victimized.

[William Anthony]

I don't understand what part of 'there were no stolen items' that isn't clear. Someone please show me where anyone -- other than orenthal -- substantiates there were stolen items.

I think that will be determined in a California court. However, either way it goes, they were either stolen from Simpson or Mr. Goldman. If as many claim, LE had prior knowledge of the dispute between Simpson and Mr. Goldman, then Riccio's report was a report of property stolen from either or both of them.

[martin II]

I don't understand what part of 'there were no stolen items' that isn't clear. Someone please show me where anyone -- other than orenthal -- substantiates there were stolen items.

Beadsley to Riccio: " I can get you some items stolen from OJ"

Fumong to Oj : "oj, did not take it MIKE TOOK IT"

[William Anthony]

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/13A-12-200.8.htm

I do not think that LE's duties differ substantially form state to state in this regard and, as such, the FBI had a good faith basis to seize the property traveling in interstate commerce to see, if it was stolen or property subject to the judgment of enforcement or others were in receipt of stolen property, imho.

[William Anthony]

Let me give an example.

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from you home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. Is it your position that the police should wait until you return home, which you are on vacation unbeknown to me, to investigate? Would you expect the police to go to the car and question the occupants to see if you had given them permission to take things from your home?

[martin II]

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/13A-12-200.8.htm

I do not think that LE's duties differ substantially form state to state in this regard and, as such, the FBI had a good faith basis to seize the property traveling in interstate commerce to see, if it was stolen or property subject to the judgment of enforcement or others were in receipt of stolen property, imho.

For all the FBI and LA le knew, the info that Riccio brought them could have been just the tip of a larger crime operation that fence some of the large amount of personal items lost to hollywood celebraties in home thiefs and robberies. imo

[martin II]

Let me give an example.

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from you home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. Is it your position that the police should wait until you return home, which you are on vacation unbeknown to me, to investigate? Would you expect the police to go to the car and question the occupants to see if you had given them permission to take things from your home?

Very good example.

[William Anthony]

For all the FBI and LA le knew, the info that Riccio brought them could have been just the tip of a larger crime operation that fence some of the large amount of personal items lost to hollywood celebraties in home thiefs and robberies. imo

But they could choose to do nothing, unless the case involved those they considered normal celebrity cases.:)

[martin II]

Correction OJ I did not

[martin II]

I just hope that the le person that transported Besdsley to and from court was not one of those Riccio tapped saying 'LA DID NOT GET HIM BUT WE WILL"

[weezer]

Let me give an example.

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from you home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. Is it your position that the police should wait until you return home, which you are on vacation unbeknown to me, to investigate? Would you expect the police to go to the car and question the occupants to see if you had given them permission to take things from your home?

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from your home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. The police go to the location and question the occupants about the stuff. The 'occupants' then raise holy hell and file a lawsuit because they are being 'profiled' -- :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from your home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. The police go to the location and question the occupants about the stuff. The 'occupants' then raise holy hell and file a lawsuit because they are being 'profiled' -- :shrug:

The occupants lose based on the concept of reasonable suspicion. I think your example would hold more water, if the occupants were seen simply leaving your driveway, with nothing in hand and they were Black and I lived in a White neighborhood.

[William Anthony]

I see my thoughts on the argument of intent is not a novel idea as it pertains to the need for uniformity of laws. I would have argued vehemently in favor that to not provide the uniformity results in due process violation. The lawyer here argues the concept in a way when he points to "willfully". Knowingly means knowing and intentional. The lawyer points to other jurisdictions to indicate the need for uniformity. I would argue it stronger so as a defendant would know how to conform his conduct from state to state.

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/people/campbell/obstruction/reply_brief.html

“2. General Intent vs. Specific Intent

In its Answering Brief, the Respondent asserts:

Appellant argues that "evil intent" is required as an element of the offense. No Nevada law supports this argument. In fact, the plain language of the statute indicates that the offense is more analogous to a strict liability or general intent crime: when a person willfully does the act that hinders or delays the officer, the crime has been committed. Specific intent of the Defendant is not an element of the offense.

The contention that no Nevada law supports an argument is not valid itself if no Nevada law refutes the argument either. Nevada is a relatively young state,thinly populated until recently, that has not had an opportunity to build case law on many issues. In situations like this, the Courts have no choice but to look to the cases in other states and U.S. jurisdictions for analogous rulings. Fortunately, obstruction is a common law crime which is closely duplicated in the statutes of nearly every other state and federal jurisdiction. The enforcement of such statutes in all American jurisdictions must adhere to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution or be ultimately be annulled by the U.S. Supreme Court; thus the experience of other jurisdictions can clearly be instructional.

Respondent, in fact, has provided no case citations to support its suggestion that NRS 197.100 is "analogous" to a strict liability or general intent crime. Such an analogy cannot be held consistent with Constitutional case law. In practice, a citizen faced with an ambiguous situation in which fundamental rights might be lost must often make an immediate decision based on incomplete information, and this decision cannot be penalized if made in good faith. (See Citations in Opening Brief.) To rule otherwise would essentially be saying that a citizen must always do what a law enforcement officer says regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what constitutionally guaranteed rights might be permanently sacrificed.

What commonly distinguishes a general intent crime from a specific intent crime is the ruling of courts on specific offenses. At trial and in its Opening Brief, Appellant provided many case authorities supporting a specific-intent interpretation of obstruction statutes. One persuasive authority cited was a federal case, U.S. vs. McDonald, (1879) Fed Case #15,667 (cited in 48 ALR 746 and attached to the Opening Brief) which indicates in explicit language that obstruction is a specific intent crime, as embodied in the Court's rigorous definition of "willfully." As a supplemental authority, U.S. vs. McDonald is further affirmed by U.S. vs. Terry, (1889; D.C.) 32 Fed 317, which confirms, in a federal case, that where "willfully" appears in the obstruction statute, "bad intent"--that is, willful intention to commit a crime--is required for conviction and not simply an intentional act alone.

Thus, the Appellant has provided in its opening brief persuasive cases from other jurisdictions to support its definition of "willfully" and the specific-intent requirement thereby implied. The burden, then, is on the Respondent to provide other citations to indicate that these cases have been overturned or are otherwise invalid. The Respondent has provided no citations whatsoever to support its own arbitrary definition of "willfully." Respondent only argues that the "plain language of the statute" supports its definition. That language, however, is far from plain and requires case law for interpretation. The Respondent's implication that the statute alone is all that need be consulted, not case law, is a philosophy running counter to the legal positivism upon which all American jurisprudence is based.

The record clearly shows that the subjective intent of the Defendant was to prevent an unreasonable search and seizure. The crime of obstruction requires intent specific to show that the accused indeed intended to obstruct or delay. That the Defendant did not intend, since there can be no obstruction of an unlawful search and seizure. (See Citations in Opening Brief)”

[William Anthony]

The occupants lose based on the concept of reasonable suspicion. I think your example would hold more water, if the occupants were seen simply leaving your driveway, with nothing in hand and they were Black and I lived in a White neighborhood.

Correction-if the occupants were seen simply leaving my driveway,...

[serpentsfall]

LE did not hesitate to start an investigation,if that is true, to see if they could charge Simpson with another crime. My point is more to the arbitrariness with which LE decided what reports of suspected criminal activity would be investigated and considering all this in the context of whether Simpson could have received a fair trial, or whether public opinion was so against him that he could never have and what effect did that have on Stewart.

They certainly didn't start a "report of a stolen ring" investigation. If one began it was most likely about witness tampering. Here's an example for you to consider: A husband and wife are separating and one spouse takes and hides all their joint assets. Do police get involved and investigate the theft? No - because its a civil matter. They wouldn't get anything else done if they devoted resources to every civil dispute regarding property. Its the same principle that applies to why they did not get involved when Riccio came to them: he was describing a civil dispute over ownership of personal property.

[martin II]

The occupants lose based on the concept of reasonable suspicion. I think your example would hold more water, if the occupants were seen simply leaving your driveway, with nothing in hand and they were Black and I lived in a White neighborhood.

Look. le only profiles blacks, hispanics, Arabs and maby Indians or someone trying to pay for a plane ticket with cash.hahaha

[martin II]

They certainly didn't start a "report of a stolen ring" investigation. If one began it was most likely about witness tampering. Here's an example for you to consider: A husband and wife are separating and one spouse takes and hides all their joint assets. Do police get involved and investigate the theft? No - because its a civil matter. They wouldn't get anything else done if they devoted resources to every civil dispute regarding property. Its the same principle that applies to why they did not get involved when Riccio came to them: he was describing a civil dispute over ownership of personal property.

you think that is the same as Riccio telling le 'I know someone that offered to sell me ojs stolen stuff"? Selling stolen goods is a crime. whereas one party hiding goods owned jointly may not be.

[martin II]

They certainly didn't start a "report of a stolen ring" investigation. If one began it was most likely about witness tampering. Here's an example for you to consider: A husband and wife are separating and one spouse takes and hides all their joint assets. Do police get involved and investigate the theft? No - because its a civil matter. They wouldn't get anything else done if they devoted resources to every civil dispute regarding property. Its the same principle that applies to why they did not get involved when Riccio came to them: he was describing a civil dispute over ownership of personal property.

For some reason the DAs office found it necessary to tip off freds lawyer that Beadsley had made the statement about that ring to one of their investigators. i assume they thought they would give fred a little assistance in his efforts to collect some cash that they assumed belonged to him.imo

[William Anthony]

They certainly didn't start a "report of a stolen ring" investigation. If one began it was most likely about witness tampering. Here's an example for you to consider: A husband and wife are separating and one spouse takes and hides all their joint assets. Do police get involved and investigate the theft? No - because its a civil matter. They wouldn't get anything else done if they devoted resources to every civil dispute regarding property. Its the same principle that applies to why they did not get involved when Riccio came to them: he was describing a civil dispute over ownership of personal property.

No, they started an investigation to see if Simpson had given or offered Beardsley anything in exchange for his testimony, witness tampering-a crime. The court has yet to determine who owns the property. Riccio reported a crime. The difference is LE investigated to prove Simpson innocent but not to prove he was a victim.

[William Anthony]

For some reason the DAs office found it necessary to tip off freds lawyer that Beadsley had made the statement about that ring to one of their investigators. i assume they thought they would give fred a little assistance in his efforts to collect some cash that they assumed belonged to him.imo

Well, they can be helpful or harmful, depending on their predilections.

[William Anthony]

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from your home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. The police go to the location and question the occupants about the stuff. The 'occupants' then raise holy hell and file a lawsuit because they are being 'profiled' -- :shrug:

Who would they file suit against, you?:shrug: I mean LE was acting pursuant to a report. What made you think the occupants of the car were Black? Let's discuss the Nevada case.

[martin II]

For some reason the DAs office found it necessary to tip off freds lawyer that Beadsley had made the statement about that ring to one of their investigators. i assume they thought they would give fred a little assistance in his efforts to collect some cash that they assumed belonged to him.imo

Thanks for this william. It is very informative.
sorry i posted in the wrong place.

[martin II]

I see my thoughts on the argument of intent is not a novel idea as it pertains to the need for uniformity of laws. I would have argued vehemently in favor that to not provide the uniformity results in due process violation. The lawyer here argues the concept in a way when he points to "willfully". Knowingly means knowing and intentional. The lawyer points to other jurisdictions to indicate the need for uniformity. I would argue it stronger so as a defendant would know how to conform his conduct from state to state.

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/people/campbell/obstruction/reply_brief.html

“2. General Intent vs. Specific Intent

In its Answering Brief, the Respondent asserts:

Appellant argues that "evil intent" is required as an element of the offense. No Nevada law supports this argument. In fact, the plain language of the statute indicates that the offense is more analogous to a strict liability or general intent crime: when a person willfully does the act that hinders or delays the officer, the crime has been committed. Specific intent of the Defendant is not an element of the offense.

The contention that no Nevada law supports an argument is not valid itself if no Nevada law refutes the argument either. Nevada is a relatively young state,thinly populated until recently, that has not had an opportunity to build case law on many issues. In situations like this, the Courts have no choice but to look to the cases in other states and U.S. jurisdictions for analogous rulings. Fortunately, obstruction is a common law crime which is closely duplicated in the statutes of nearly every other state and federal jurisdiction. The enforcement of such statutes in all American jurisdictions must adhere to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution or be ultimately be annulled by the U.S. Supreme Court; thus the experience of other jurisdictions can clearly be instructional.

Respondent, in fact, has provided no case citations to support its suggestion that NRS 197.100 is "analogous" to a strict liability or general intent crime. Such an analogy cannot be held consistent with Constitutional case law. In practice, a citizen faced with an ambiguous situation in which fundamental rights might be lost must often make an immediate decision based on incomplete information, and this decision cannot be penalized if made in good faith. (See Citations in Opening Brief.) To rule otherwise would essentially be saying that a citizen must always do what a law enforcement officer says regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what constitutionally guaranteed rights might be permanently sacrificed.

What commonly distinguishes a general intent crime from a specific intent crime is the ruling of courts on specific offenses. At trial and in its Opening Brief, Appellant provided many case authorities supporting a specific-intent interpretation of obstruction statutes. One persuasive authority cited was a federal case, U.S. vs. McDonald, (1879) Fed Case #15,667 (cited in 48 ALR 746 and attached to the Opening Brief) which indicates in explicit language that obstruction is a specific intent crime, as embodied in the Court's rigorous definition of "willfully." As a supplemental authority, U.S. vs. McDonald is further affirmed by U.S. vs. Terry, (1889; D.C.) 32 Fed 317, which confirms, in a federal case, that where "willfully" appears in the obstruction statute, "bad intent"--that is, willful intention to commit a crime--is required for conviction and not simply an intentional act alone.

Thus, the Appellant has provided in its opening brief persuasive cases from other jurisdictions to support its definition of "willfully" and the specific-intent requirement thereby implied. The burden, then, is on the Respondent to provide other citations to indicate that these cases have been overturned or are otherwise invalid. The Respondent has provided no citations whatsoever to support its own arbitrary definition of "willfully." Respondent only argues that the "plain language of the statute" supports its definition. That language, however, is far from plain and requires case law for interpretation. The Respondent's implication that the statute alone is all that need be consulted, not case law, is a philosophy running counter to the legal positivism upon which all American jurisprudence is based.

The record clearly shows that the subjective intent of the Defendant was to prevent an unreasonable search and seizure. The crime of obstruction requires intent specific to show that the accused indeed intended to obstruct or delay. That the Defendant did not intend, since there can be no obstruction of an unlawful search and seizure. (See Citations in Opening Brief)”

Thanks for this William.
It is very informative.

[martin II]

I come home and you live across the street. I see some people in your driveway carrying items from your home, whom I have never seen. your car isn't there. I follow the car when they leave and take the license plate number and tell the police where the car can be found. The police go to the location and question the occupants about the stuff. The 'occupants' then raise holy hell and file a lawsuit because they are being 'profiled' -- :shrug:

The occupants would have to prove they owned or had approval to have the stuff. imo

[William Anthony]

Thanks for this William.
It is very informative.

Thank you. I used it to try to explain my point. The Nevada robbery statute begins with the words that robbery is an unlawful taking of property. I have said that the statute was overly broad. Here is the legal definition of unlawful.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unlawful

I gave the example of taking a band aid because I cut my finger and the person, whose band aid it was, reported it to the police after they discovered I had taken it. I then could be charged with robbery, because I took it against the person's will. In fact the person did not have to own the band aid. It could have come from a box left behind by another visitor. I could produce a receipt that I bought a box and left it there on a previous visit and thought that the band aid came from the box I left behind. However, according to Nevada law I would not be allowed to state that defense, because it did not matter who owned the band aid. However, if they visited my home in California and did the same thing under the same circumstances, they would be allowed to assert that defense.

I would argue that criminal intent, be it specific or general, is an element of every crime which every state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone can be deprived of liberty. I would argue that the word unlawful, without more of a precise definition when used in the robbery statute is overly broad as unlawful does not automatically equal a crime. For instance, an unlawful act of gender discrimination is not a crime but it is a civil wrong or a tort. My argument would be analogous to the argument in the link as to willful, but in the opposite. The argument in the link is that the word willful when used in a criminal statute implies specific intent. My argument would be that, although the word unlawful appears in a criminal statute, there is no precise definition as to convey in intent, which criminal intent is a requirement of every crime.

[martin II]

Thank you. I used it to try to explain my point. The Nevada robbery statute begins with the words that robbery is an unlawful taking of property. I have said that the statute was overly broad. Here is the legal definition of unlawful.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unlawful

I gave the example of taking a band aid because I cut my finger and the person, whose band aid it was, reported it to the police after they discovered I had taken it. I then could be charged with robbery, because I took it against the person's will. In fact the person did not have to own the band aid. It could have come from a box left behind by another visitor. I could produce a receipt that I bought a box and left it there on a previous visit and thought that the band aid came from the box I left behind. However, according to Nevada law I would not be allowed to state that defense, because it did not matter who owned the band aid. However, if they visited my home in California and did the same thing under the same circumstances, they would be allowed to assert that defense.

I would argue that criminal intent, be it specific or general, is an element of every crime which every state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone can be deprived of liberty. I would argue that the word unlawful, without more of a precise definition when used in the robbery statute is overly broad as unlawful does not automatically equal a crime. For instance, an unlawful act of gender discrimination is not a crime but it is a civil wrong or a tort. My argument would be analogous to the argument in the link as to willful, but in the opposite. The argument in the link is that the word willful when used in a criminal statute implies specific intent. My argument would be that, although the word unlawful appears in a criminal statute, there is no precise definition as to convey in intent, which criminal intent is a requirement of every crime.

I agree
i can remember many cases where prosecutors have argued
'this defendant intended to rob this victim because he -----"

[William Anthony]

I agree
i can remember many cases where prosecutors have argued
'this defendant intended to rob this victim because he -----"

Here is the statute, which I think is vague and overly broad.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.380.html

“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.

Last modified: February 25, 2006”

From what I gather but the statute is so vague and I only gather this by the concentration on the element of force that is what concerned the legislature. However, the first element is the unlawful taking as the statute is written. IIRC, and I will look again, the Supreme Court has said that a property owner can use some degree of force to reclaim his property. If that is true, then the Nevada law in not in line with that principle, imho.

[William Anthony]

I agree
i can remember many cases where prosecutors have argued
'this defendant intended to rob this victim because he -----"

Yes, that is the case in most, if not all the cases I have heard. However, in this case, it seems the argument is that it does not matter whether he intended to rob them or not. The fact that he took property from them is enough, regardless of whether he believed it or not.

Here is another example. I walk up to you on a dark and deserted street with my hands in my jacket pockets and say to you in a loud voice to give me your money. You do. Have I robbed you under the Nevada statute?

[serpentsfall]

Yes, that is the case in most, if not all the cases I have heard. However, in this case, it seems the argument is that it does not matter whether he intended to rob them or not. The fact that he took property from them is enough, regardless of whether he believed it or not.

Here is another example. I walk up to you on a dark and deserted street with my hands in my jacket pockets and say to you in a loud voice to give me your money. You do. Have I robbed you under the Nevada statute?

Where do you get that OJ didn't intend to rob them? Just because he used the word "sting" to describe the illegal act he inteded to do? His only defense was that he thought the robbery was "justified"; the truth is that he didn't think the victims would report it.

[William Anthony]

Where do you get that OJ didn't intend to rob them? Just because he used the word "sting" to describe the illegal act he inteded to do? His only defense was that he thought the robbery was "justified"; the truth is that he didn't think the victims would report it.

Oh now, come on we both know that intent is for the finder of fact. I said that he was not allowed to make the argument that he never intended to rob anyone as he was simply conducting a sting to reclaim his property. I think that you may have misunderstood his argument. His argument as I understood it was that he had no criminal intent.

You did not answer my question. However, I know you did not have to. That question dealt with the robbery statute being over broad, as to what is an unlawful taking. Let's say my defense was that I was simply panhandling and talked loud because I was hard or hearing. It might still be a robbery by this.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/casesummaries_2.html

Let's take it a step further and say that I thought you had stolen my money and the circumstances are the same, except I tell you give me my money. I would not be allowed to assert that defense.

[William Anthony]

Where do you get that OJ didn't intend to rob them? Just because he used the word "sting" to describe the illegal act he inteded to do? His only defense was that he thought the robbery was "justified"; the truth is that he didn't think the victims would report it.

Let's take my example a step further. Let's say I told you, Give me your money. I promise I am not going to harm you and you give it to me and panhandling is allowed by law. Is that robbery under the Nevada statute?

[serpentsfall]

Let's take my example a step further. Let's say I told you, Give me your money. I promise I am not going to harm you and you give it to me and panhandling is allowed by law. Is that robbery under the Nevada statute?

Let's put it this way: I'm not an attorney so I don't give legal advice; but that's not something I would say to anyone. Why would anyone mention they won't harm you unless that is an option under the circumstances? There is a big difference in my mind between the words "Give me YOUR money" and "Can you give me some money?" or "Do you have some money to spare?" Notice the difference is that a panhandler is asking a question, whereas a robber is making a statement or demand.

[William Anthony]

Let's put it this way: I'm not an attorney so I don't give legal advice; but that's not something I would say to anyone. Why would anyone mention they won't harm you unless that is an option under the circumstances? There is a big difference in my mind between the words "Give me YOUR money" and "Can you give me some money?" or "Do you have some money to spare?" Notice the difference is that a panhandler is asking a question, whereas a robber is making a statement or demand.

I am not asking for legal advice, just an opinion. That's what the point is. You are making an inference from my statements. Notice that I have never said that I was American or spoke English fluently. The point is that may be my way of asking and my saying I won't harm you is my way of reassuring you that you are not in danger, if you do not give me money. That is for the trier of fact to determine. However, I should be allowed the chance to assert the defense to negate the element of intent. I have never mentioned the tone, other than being loud, meaning the statement could be said to reflect an actual question. If panhandling is not allowed on that street, then I have committed an "Unlawful taking" and could therefore be charged with robbery. If panhandling is allowed, then, it would be up to the trier of fact to determine if my intent was to use force but the way the statute is written, even if I used forced, it would not be robbery, if the taking was lawful, according to my interpretation or rather what I would argue as to the statute being over broad and ambiguous.

[serpentsfall]

Oh now, come on we both know that intent is for the finder of fact. I said that he was not allowed to make the argument that he never intended to rob anyone as he was simply conducting a sting to reclaim his property. I think that you may have misunderstood his argument. His argument as I understood it was that he had no criminal intent.

You did not answer my question. However, I know you did not have to. That question dealt with the robbery statute being over broad, as to what is an unlawful taking. Let's say my defense was that I was simply panhandling and talked loud because I was hard or hearing. It might still be a robbery by this.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/casesummaries_2.html

Let's take it a step further and say that I thought you had stolen my money and the circumstances are the same, except I tell you give me my money. I would not be allowed to assert that defense.

I think the problem you're having begins with your bolding of the words "unlawful taking" in the statute that is going on from that point to describe what unlawful taking is - robbery.

[William Anthony]

I think the problem you're having begins with your bolding of the words "unlawful taking" in the statute that is going on from that point to describe what unlawful taking is - robbery.

Your are correct and what is unlawful. The statute says that an unlawful taking is robbery. Under what circumstances is the taking unlawful? This is what I mean by overly broad, vague and ambiguous. You cannot have a robbery absent an unlawful taking and you can not have a defense to robbery unless you are allowed to provide a defense showing that the taking was not unlawful/intent. I hope I am saying this clearly.

[serpentsfall]

Here is the statute, which I think is vague and overly broad.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.380.html

“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.

Last modified: February 25, 2006”

From what I gather but the statute is so vague and I only gather this by the concentration on the element of force that is what concerned the legislature. However, the first element is the unlawful taking as the statute is written. IIRC, and I will look again, the Supreme Court has said that a property owner can use some degree of force to reclaim his property. If that is true, then the Nevada law in not in line with that principle, imho.

William, this is an example of "spin" - you're adding emphais where it doesn't belong to support your position instead of reading the statute as it is written. "Too broad" would be leaving the definition of "unlawful taking of personal property" up to interpetation. This statute is describing what an unlawful taking of personal property (aka Robbery) IS. The crime is based on who has possession of property and who takes the property from them by force or threat of force, not who owns the property. I don't know how the judge could have made that any clearer to Galanter or you. Just because you don't agree, or don't like the law, doesn't make it so.

[martin II]

Where do you get that OJ didn't intend to rob them? Just because he used the word "sting" to describe the illegal act he inteded to do? His only defense was that he thought the robbery was "justified"; the truth is that he didn't think the victims would report it.


Everone testified that they went to the hotel to retreive ojs goods. No one testified that they went to rob anyone. "Fumong is quoted as telling oj take your stuff and leave "
Riccio testified that Fumong was very willing to give oj the stuff but for some unknown reason MJCcLINTON pulled out his gun.
So i don't think it is correct to promote the idea that oj went with the intent to rob. That may be the prosecutions position but i think it is not factual.

[serpentsfall]

I am not asking for legal advice, just an opinion. That's what the point is. You are making an inference from my statements. Notice that I have never said that I was American or spoke English fluently. The point is that may be my way of asking and my saying I won't harm you is my way of reassuring you that you are not in danger, if you do not give me money. That is for the trier of fact to determine. However, I should be allowed the chance to assert the defense to negate the element of intent. I have never mentioned the tone, other than being loud, meaning the statement could be said to reflect an actual question. If panhandling is not allowed on that street, then I have committed an "Unlawful taking" and could therefore be charged with robbery. If panhandling is allowed, then, it would be up to the trier of fact to determine if my intent was to use force but the way the statute is written, even if I used forced, it would not be robbery, if the taking was lawful, according to my interpretation or rather what I would argue as to the statute being over broad and ambiguous.

I don't think your intent matters if you come up on the street and demand a citizen to give you their money. A lot would go into a jury's decision regarding the victim's reasonable or unreasonable fear of force. Did the guy act like he head a weapon in his pants? Was he with a group of thugs who said nothing but had weapons? Did he block the victim's path of retreat in any way? Did the victim say no and the guy continued insisting or follow the victim? The guy doesn't have to use actual force; he only has to intimidate the victim into unwillingly turning over the money. If the guy needs the money because he's hungry, a junkie needing a fix, or thinks the stuff you've got is his doesn't matter.

[William Anthony]

William, this is an example of "spin" - you're adding emphais where it doesn't belong to support your position instead of reading the statute as it is written. "Too broad" would be leaving the definition of "unlawful taking of personal property" up to interpetation. This statute is describing what an unlawful taking of personal property (aka Robbery) IS. The crime is based on who has possession of property and who takes the property from them by force or threat of force, not who owns the property. I don't know how the judge could have made that any clearer to Galanter or you. Just because you don't agree, or don't like the law, doesn't make it so.

I beg to differ. This is not a matter of spin but interpretation. I have posted a link on the argument in the difference of the requirement of intent, which is analogous to my reasoning in this case. It may seem plain to you but it is not to me. For instance, if you do not use force, is the taking unlawful by the Nevada statue on robbery. Certainly, you are not saying that a property owner does not have the right to reclaim his property with some use of force. If the Nevada law allows a defense of claim of right to breaking and entering/burglary, does not that claim extend to an alleged robbery committed in the commission of the burglary, or better yet, shouldn't it? Suppose for instance, I burgle were you are and the property in your possession is mine and I tell you that I am calling 911. You immediately grab the property and start to leave am I not allowed to keep you there until LE arrives or to take my property and leave? Should I not be allowed that defense to show there was no criminal intent on my part or that the taking was not unlawful. This is what I mean by ambiguous, vague and over broad.

[William Anthony]

I don't think your intent matters if you come up on the street and demand a citizen to give you their money. A lot would go into a jury's decision regarding the victim's reasonable or unreasonable fear of force. Did the guy act like he head a weapon in his pants? Was he with a group of thugs who said nothing but had weapons? Did he block the victim's path of retreat in any way? Did the victim say no and the guy continued insisting or follow the victim? The guy doesn't have to use actual force; he only has to intimidate the victim into unwillingly turning over the money. If the guy needs the money because he's hungry, a junkie needing a fix, or thinks the stuff you've got is his doesn't matter.

I beg to differ as mens rea, or intent is an element of every crime.

[serpentsfall]

Everone testified that they went to the hotel to retreive ojs goods. No one testified that they went to rob anyone. "Fumong is quoted as telling oj take your stuff and leave "
Riccio testified that Fumong was very willing to give oj the stuff but for some unknown reason MJCcLINTON pulled out his gun.
So i don't think it is correct to promote the idea that oj went with the intent to rob. That may be the prosecutions position but i think it is not factual.

Everyone? Not exactly. Fromong and Beardsley went there intending to sell memorabilia. Would you expect any of the co-defendants to use the "R" word? Of course not. They went to get ojs goods, but they did it in an illegal manner. They did it knowing their mere numbers and catching the victims off-guard would be a show-of-force. OJ said he wanted the event to be intimidating, and they succeeded. Of course Fromong said "take the stuff". He didn't want to get shot or beaten or who knows what. The intimidation, the angry "Nobody leaves this room" was sufficient to make it a kidnapping and robbery. Even without guns I think it would have qualified as a robbery. The guns made it armed robbery. OJ's intent doesn't matter. Did you not hear the judge explain it over and over to Galanter?

[serpentsfall]

I beg to differ. This is not a matter of spin but interpretation. I have posted a link on the argument in the difference of the requirement of intent, which is analogous to my reasoning in this case. It may seem plain to you but it is not to me. For instance, if you do not use force, is the taking unlawful by the Nevada statue on robbery. Certainly, you are not saying that a property owner does not have the right to reclaim his property with some use of force. If the Nevada law allows a defense of claim of right to breaking and entering/burglary, does not that claim extend to an alleged robbery committed in the commission of the burglary, or better yet, shouldn't it? Suppose for instance, I burgle were you are and the property in your possession is mine and I tell you that I am calling 911. You immediately grab the property and start to leave am I not allowed to keep you there until LE arrives or to take my property and leave? Should I not be allowed that defense to show there was no criminal intent on my part or that the taking was not unlawful. This is what I mean by ambiguous, vague and over broad.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Now you're back to wanting to hold the more serious crime of robbery to the more minimal standard that applies to burglary. If Riccio had gotten Fromong and Beardsley to leave the items in the room and go with him and have a cup of coffee, given OJ a room key so he and the guys could enter the empty room and take OJ's stuff and leave with it I think you'd have a viable argument. That would be burglary. But that is not what they did.

[William Anthony]

http://www.cicilianolaw.com/CM/Criminal-Defense/Burglary.asp

“Burglary charges can results from alleged efforts to enter banks, houses and businesses with the intent of committing a crime, as well as charges related to shoplifting and the forging of checks. Many people pick up burglary charges without realizing it. We can defend both your burglary charges and other charges related to your burglary charge. We can work to prove lack of intent for burglary, and will fight the charges of theft, forgery and other accusations.”

[serpentsfall]

I beg to differ as mens rea, or intent is an element of every crime.

Tell it to the judge. We'll see if there's an appeal - haven't seen it filed yet.

[William Anthony]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Now you're back to wanting to hold the more serious crime of robbery to the more minimal standard that applies to burglary. If Riccio had gotten Fromong and Beardsley to leave the items in the room and go with him and have a cup of coffee, given OJ a room key so he and the guys could enter the empty room and take OJ's stuff and leave with it I think you'd have a viable argument. That would be burglary. But that is not what they did.

Not according to the Nevada statute as robbery can be accomplished through false pretense. Yes the coulda, shoulda, woulda, are arguments to be made on appeal. Should the statute be revised, can it be revised and, and, by it not being revised, should that allow Simpson's Due Process rights to be violated.

[serpentsfall]

http://www.cicilianolaw.com/CM/Criminal-Defense/Burglary.asp

“Burglary charges can results from alleged efforts to enter banks, houses and businesses with the intent of committing a crime, as well as charges related to shoplifting and the forging of checks. Many people pick up burglary charges without realizing it. We can defend both your burglary charges and other charges related to your burglary charge. We can work to prove lack of intent for burglary, and will fight the charges of theft, forgery and other accusations.”

And again I agree if OJ had simply committed burglary he could mount the defense he claimed. But it won't work to defend burglary that is a secondary offese to the commission of robbery and kidnapping.

[William Anthony]

Tell it to the judge. We'll see if there's an appeal - haven't seen it filed yet.

I am only stating my opinion as you are yours. I try to back it up with links on legal issues pursuant to case law. I firmly believe that Simpson's appellate lawyers are aware of the old adage that haste makes waste.

[serpentsfall]

Not according to the Nevada statute as robbery can be accomplished through false pretense. Yes the coulda, shoulda, woulda, are arguments to be made on appeal. Should the statute be revised, can it be revised and, and, by it not being revised, should that allow Simpson's Due Process rights to be violated.

You act like Simpson's case is something new and special. It's not. People commit robbery to get back stuff they can't easily get through civil courts every day. OJ's not as special as everyone likes to think he is - he's only more well known.

[William Anthony]

And again I agree if OJ had simply committed burglary he could mount the defense he claimed. But it won't work to defend burglary that is a secondary offese to the commission of robbery and kidnapping.

I don't know why you consider burglary a secondary offense. The burglary led to the robbery. If he had not entered the room, he could not have reclaimed the property he thought was his or committed robbery, depending on how you view that situation. The burglary statute says that the burglary must have occurred with the intent to commit another crime. The case law says that there must be a specific intent to commit burglary. If you believe the property is yours, then there can be no specific intent, if that is believed by the trier of fact. Assuming your argument is valid, that the burglary attached to the robbery, how can you show that you did not have intent to commit a robbery and, consequently, the specific intent to commit burglary, if you are deprived of that defense.

[William Anthony]

You act like Simpson's case is something new and special. It's not. People commit robbery to get back stuff they can't easily get through civil courts every day. OJ's not as special as everyone likes to think he is - he's only more well known.

It' not that Simpson's case is special, albeit well known, it is that his notoriety brought forth the question of whether or not he and others like him have been deprived Due Process.

[serpentsfall]

I am only stating my opinion as you are yours. I try to back it up with links on legal issues pursuant to case law. I firmly believe that Simpson's appellate lawyers are aware of the old adage that haste makes waste.

Well, if by links on legal issues you mean advertisements by attorneys pitching they'll get you out of burglary charges based on your intent I'm personally not interested. If the links are blogs and websites much like this were people, even professionals, are debating what the law should be instead of what it is I'm also personally not interested. It appears to me the laws, as written, are working pretty effectively in Nevada.

[serpentsfall]

It' not that Simpson's case is special, albeit well known, it is that his notoriety brought forth the question of whether or not he and others like him have been deprived Due Process.

And I have no doubt the issue has been appealed before. If the Nevada Supreme Court has overturned a conviction on this law based on there being a due process error in the law I feel pretty confident it would have been addressed already. If you can show me such a case I'd glady read it. Aside from that, I'm not interested in crusading to change laws that appear to me to be working in a state I don't even live in. This country, IMO, doesn't need to spend its resources enacting laws to excuse OJ Simpson's bad judgment and behavior.

[William Anthony]

Well, if by links on legal issues you mean advertisements by attorneys pitching they'll get you out of burglary charges based on your intent I'm personally not interested. If the links are blogs and websites much like this were people, even professionals, are debating what the law should be instead of what it is I'm also personally not interested. It appears to me the laws, as written, are working pretty effectively in Nevada.

I thought my post was clear when I said pursuant to case law. I thought you had been reading my posts for sometime and I presumed you had read the links. The link to the lawyers is only a persuasive link to support my position of the mens rea involved in burglary charges. I have provided actual case law in links that say that kidnapping and burglary are specific intent crimes in Nevada.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=serpentsfall;9160208]William, this is an example of "spin" - you're adding emphais where it doesn't belong to support your position instead of reading the statute as it is written. "Too broad" would be leaving the definition of "unlawful taking of personal property" up to interpetation. This statute is describing what an unlawful taking of personal property (aka Robbery) IS. The crime is based on who has possession of property and who takes the property from them by force or threat of force, not who owns the property. I don't know how the judge could have made that any clearer to Galanter or you. Just because you don't agree, or don't like the law, doesn't make it so.[/QUOTE

If the link posted states that the u.s. Supreme court stated that a person can use some degree of force to retrieve his goods,would that impact on the case and do you aree with that?

[William Anthony]

And I have no doubt the issue has been appealed before. If the Nevada Supreme Court has overturned a conviction on this law based on there being a due process error in the law I feel pretty confident it would have been addressed already. If you can show me such a case I'd glady read it. Aside from that, I'm not interested in crusading to change laws that appear to me to be working in a state I don't even live in. This country, IMO, doesn't need to spend its resources enacting laws to excuse OJ Simpson's bad judgment and behavior.

You misunderstand and I have showed the link that the argument has perviously been made as to general intent v. specific intent and the need for uniformity. Just because a law has not been overturned does not mean that it should not be and sometimes it takes many cases to overturn a law. I am mindful of the Plessy v. Furgeson case that was upheld under the doctrine of separate but equal until Brown v. The Board of Education. It is not Simpson's rights but the rights of all that are concerned in the law and the precedents that have been decided by laws that need overturning.

[martin II]

You act like Simpson's case is something new and special. It's not. People commit robbery to get back stuff they can't easily get through civil courts every day. OJ's not as special as everyone likes to think he is - he's only more well known.

If the statue is unfair to oj it is unfair to everyone. right?

[William Anthony]

It appears that robbery and burglary are crimes of the same magnitude by Nevada law.

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.

“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 § 162; RL § 6427; NCL § 10109]—(NRS A 1961, 53; 1967, 470; 1993, 253; 1995, 1187)

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.

It would appear that the punishment is more severe but the severity/class of the crimes are the same.

[martin II]

And I have no doubt the issue has been appealed before. If the Nevada Supreme Court has overturned a conviction on this law based on there being a due process error in the law I feel pretty confident it would have been addressed already. If you can show me such a case I'd glady read it. Aside from that, I'm not interested in crusading to change laws that appear to me to be working in a state I don't even live in. This country, IMO, doesn't need to spend its resources enacting laws to excuse OJ Simpson's bad judgment and behavior.

What i am thinking is that your feelings on oj simpson may be preventing you from recognizing that if a law is unfair to him it is unfair to you regardless of where you live.The objective should be to have fair laws in every State.

The poll tax laws were employed in the State of Mississippi against blacks. It was only after national outrage surfaced that this law was striken.

[William Anthony]

I have tried unsuccessfully to find a case more on point. However, when we review the Dred Scott decision, in which it is stated that the slave was no more than any other property, we can see that, although slavery was subsequently disallowed, that the allowance for retrieval of other property by property owners would be the same and this is what I found.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/9372/Prigg-v-Pennsylvania.html

“The owner of a slave "is clothed with entire authority, in every state in the Union, to seize and recapture his slave, whenever he can do it without any breach of the peace, or any illegal violence." (emphasis added)

I would note that the slave retriever was initially charged with kidnapping. Thus, the precedent is that the it was not illegally violent for the owner's agent to use some degree of force to retrieve his property. I seriously doubt that the woman and children agreed pleasantly to follow the agent and would suspect that they were bound and forced in some manner and maybe at gun point prior. If anyone can find a more current case and more on point by the United States Supreme Court, it would be greatly appreciated. The point is that the owner of property is clothed with entire authority in every state.

[serpentsfall]

What i am thinking is that your feelings on oj simpson may be preventing you from recognizing that if a law is unfair to him it is unfair to you regardless of where you live.The objective should be to have fair laws in every State.

The poll tax laws were employed in the State of Mississippi against blacks. It was only after national outrage surfaced that this law was striken.

Well, you'd be wrong. I'm not anti-OJ Simpson. I hate that he got himself into this mess. That said, I simply don't think the Nevada robbery/kidnapping laws are "unfair". I don't want it to be legal for my fellow citizens to think there is any excuse for pulling a gun on any other citizen except in self-defense. It is not OK to trick someone into a hotel room for the purpose of robbing them, even if you believe the things you are retrieving are yours. OJ had an attorney at his disposal and chose not to pursue the return of the items through legal means - a civil action. Why he chose not to pursue the matter through civil court only he knows for sure. There may be laws across this country worthy of change, I just don't agree with you that this is one of them.

[serpentsfall]

If the statue is unfair to oj it is unfair to everyone. right?

Yes. I just don't agree the statute was unfair to OJ. He was advised not to take the action he did. He wouldn't listen. He's now a convicted felon. If he's got a legitimate appeal it will be heard. I don't think, based on the law, that he will prevail. If I wanted to get on a soapbox for a cause, I'd whine about Galanter's pathetic legal advice/defense strategy and how hard it is to win an appeal based on the claim of ineffective counsel.

[serpentsfall]

You misunderstand and I have showed the link that the argument has perviously been made as to general intent v. specific intent and the need for uniformity. Just because a law has not been overturned does not mean that it should not be and sometimes it takes many cases to overturn a law. I am mindful of the Plessy v. Furgeson case that was upheld under the doctrine of separate but equal until Brown v. The Board of Education. It is not Simpson's rights but the rights of all that are concerned in the law and the precedents that have been decided by laws that need overturning.

Exactly. Your argument has been made before - unsuccessfully. This board is about OJ Simpson's case. I don't see any "Let's advocate here about laws some of us think need to be changed" threads. Based on the laws on the books at the time OJ committed his crime, he was rightfully found guilty. You're wasting bandwidth here advocating that there is something so unique about OJ's case that the Supreme Court will rule the law unjust and his verdict overturned (or that it ought to be). There is nothing except the name OJ Simpson that is unique about this case. This case does not rise to the level - or even close - of those civil rights cases!

[William Anthony]

Exactly. Your argument has been made before - unsuccessfully. This board is about OJ Simpson's case. I don't see any "Let's advocate here about laws some of us think need to be changed" threads. Based on the laws on the books at the time OJ committed his crime, he was rightfully found guilty. You're wasting bandwidth here advocating that there is something so unique about OJ's case that the Supreme Court will rule the law unjust and his verdict overturned (or that it ought to be). There is nothing except the name OJ Simpson that is unique about this case. This case does not rise to the level - or even close - of those civil rights cases!

Just because an argument was made unsuccessfully before, does not mean to stop making it. It simply means to find creative ways of making it until such time as the ideology of the Supreme Court has evolved to the point that they are receptive to your arguments. I don't know, if you are aware of the struggle that FDR had to undergo to get his New Deal Administration into effect. The moderator of this board has said that the appeal is allowed to be discussed. Therefore, since no appeal has yet been formally filed to the best of my knowledge but has been promised, it is relevant to discuss the basis of any appeal heretofore contemplated, imho. IMHO, any case that rises to the level of a violation of fundamental rights is on par with the civil rights cases, although I respect your sentiments in that area. I think those unfortunates, who were suffering during the Great Depression, might disagree with the importance of the cases. I have previously and repeated said that the verdict was the correct one under the Nevada law. However, that does not end the inquiry as to whether or not Simpson's Due process rights were violated by not being allowed to assert a defense to a ambiguous, over broad and vague criminal statute. President Obama has recently signed the LedBetter bill that will allow a different manner to toll the statute of limitations on equal pay violations.

[martin II]

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

That may be because you do not know his true full circle of friends.

[martin II]

Exactly. Your argument has been made before - unsuccessfully. This board is about OJ Simpson's case. I don't see any "Let's advocate here about laws some of us think need to be changed" threads. Based on the laws on the books at the time OJ committed his crime, he was rightfully found guilty. You're wasting bandwidth here advocating that there is something so unique about OJ's case that the Supreme Court will rule the law unjust and his verdict overturned (or that it ought to be). There is nothing except the name OJ Simpson that is unique about this case. This case does not rise to the level - or even close - of those civil rights cases!

Hold on if you can. Any discussion on the case facts and the expected appeal
is great matter for discussion here.Just because you agree with all nevada law does not mean that these issues brougth forth by William should not be presented and duscussed. We have lots of bandwidth available for such discussions. If no pro and con we would be left with your post about what a common criminal oj is. It is one thing to refuse to understand some issues interesting to some, but to suggest that no discussion should take place on appeal possibilities would be imo a effort to remain uninformed.imo
martinii

[William Anthony]

Hold on if you can. Any discussion on the case facts and the expected appeal
is great matter for discussion here.Just because you agree with all nevada law does not mean that these issues brougth forth by William should not be presented and duscussed. We have lots of bandwidth available for such discussions. If no pro and con we would be left with your post about what a common criminal oj is. It is one thing to refuse to understand some issues interesting to some, but to suggest that no discussion should take place on appeal possibilities would be imo a effort to remain uninformed.imo
martinii

I will admit that I am a tad confused, especially since the poster downloads appellate decisions weekly. :shrug:

[serpentsfall]

Hold on if you can. Any discussion on the case facts and the expected appeal
is great matter for discussion here.Just because you agree with all nevada law does not mean that these issues brougth forth by William should not be presented and duscussed. We have lots of bandwidth available for such discussions. If no pro and con we would be left with your post about what a common criminal oj is. It is one thing to refuse to understand some issues interesting to some, but to suggest that no discussion should take place on appeal possibilities would be imo a effort to remain uninformed.imo
martinii

You two are welcome to have at it to your hearts' content. But you both know its highly unlikely that it will be an issue the Nevada or US Supeme Courts will hear, so its much more a discussion of what you two (and others) would like to see happen than anything that is likely to happen.

[serpentsfall]

I will admit that I am a tad confused, especially since the poster downloads appellate decisions weekly. :shrug:

When you look at real appeals every week you get a feel for the difference between issues that are likely to be heard on appeal and those that are on somebody's wish-it-were-so list. You keep providing links to the opinions of like-minded people who also wish your viewpoint was so.

[William Anthony]

When you look at real appeals every week you get a feel for the difference between issues that are likely to be heard on appeal and those that are on somebody's wish-it-were-so list. You keep providing links to the opinions of like-minded people who also wish your viewpoint was so.

You are looking at real appeals from a circuit court, I would assume. I truly do not know the ideology of the Ohio appellate circuit court. However, it is rumored that the ninth circuit, which Nevada is a part of, is the most liberal. Therefore, they might entertain issues that others would not. That is the point of making an argument, which is to provide case law that would support your argument. You have not supplied one case that supports any of your contentions. In fairness, even if you were to so do, there might not be the exact same grounds that I have considered but, if you can find one, I am interested in reading it. I am sure that many women and Blacks felt like there were appeals on their wish-it-were-so list, until one came along that was ruled in their favor. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

You two are welcome to have at it to your hearts' content. But you both know its highly unlikely that it will be an issue the Nevada or US Supeme Courts will hear, so its much more a discussion of what you two (and others) would like to see happen than anything that is likely to happen.

Certainly, you realize that the Nevada supreme court is not end all of the appellate process.

[serpentsfall]

You are looking at real appeals from a circuit court, I would assume. I truly do not know the ideology of the Ohio appellate circuit court. However, it is rumored that the ninth circuit, which Nevada is a part of, is the most liberal. Therefore, they might entertain issues that others would not. That is the point of making an argument, which is to provide case law that would support your argument. You have not supplied one case that supports any of your contentions. In fairness, even if you were to so do, there might not be the exact same grounds that I have considered but, if you can find one, I am interested in reading it. I am sure that many women and Blacks felt like there were appeals on their wish-it-were-so list, until one came along that was ruled in their favor. Thanks.

Women and blacks? Every defendant who files an appeal is hoping for a ruling in their favor. I believe most of my "arguments" have come from the explanations of Nevada law given by Judge Glass from the bench to the lawyers and jury regarding the case at hand.

[serpentsfall]

Certainly, you realize that the Nevada supreme court is not end all of the appellate process.

Duh! Really??

[martin II]

When you look at real appeals every week you get a feel for the difference between issues that are likely to be heard on appeal and those that are on somebody's wish-it-were-so list. You keep providing links to the opinions of like-minded people who also wish your viewpoint was so.

Appeals courts can be tricky. you and i don't know what their feelings will be on the eventual appeal when it is filed or what the appeal will be basec on.
Meantime it is proper for william to give us referances to prior appeal decission and CASE LAW for discussion. I find it unfair that you reject his potential positions just because you stand by all nevada laws. What will be your position if in face nevada law is overturned on specific issues.
The kidnapping charge does not sound like kidnapping to me. it sounds like overcharging by the da.

[martin II]

When you look at real appeals every week you get a feel for the difference between issues that are likely to be heard on appeal and those that are on somebody's wish-it-were-so list. You keep providing links to the opinions of like-minded people who also wish your viewpoint was so.

Your anti oj and Galanter post seem to come from a like minded person.Or one tract minded person.

[William Anthony]

Women and blacks? Every defendant who files an appeal is hoping for a ruling in their favor. I believe most of my "arguments" have come from the explanations of Nevada law given by Judge Glass from the bench to the lawyers and jury regarding the case at hand.

Yes, you have and now we are discussing the appeal.

[William Anthony]

Duh! Really??

Yes, really because you keep saying what the Nevada supreme court will likely not do. I was not sure that the Supreme Court and, in some instances, the appellate courts make res judicata.

[martin II]

You two are welcome to have at it to your hearts' content. But you both know its highly unlikely that it will be an issue the Nevada or US Supeme Courts will hear, so its much more a discussion of what you two (and others) would like to see happen than anything that is likely to happen.

Thanks for you OPINION on how nevada appeals court will rule based on what you read about Ohio.

[serpentsfall]

Your anti oj and Galanter post seem to come from a like minded person.Or one tract minded person.

Martin, I don't need your carp. I am not anti-OJ. If you and William want to have the board to yourselves, have at it. Its probably time for Deepwater to shut this down for lack of anybody wanting to spar with you, at least until such time as OJ actually files an appeal. Til then, I'm outta here.

[martin II]

Martin, I don't need your carp. I am not anti-OJ. If you and William want to have the board to yourselves, have at it. Its probably time for Deepwater to shut this down for lack of anybody wanting to spar with you, at least until such time as OJ actually files an appeal. Til then, I'm outta here.

You were invited to continue posting. If others opinions cause you not to post, i have no control over your decision.imo

I see no reason the thread should be closed because all do not agree with your concept of the law. This is a discussion of opinions.

[William Anthony]

Martin, I don't need your carp. I am not anti-OJ. If you and William want to have the board to yourselves, have at it. Its probably time for Deepwater to shut this down for lack of anybody wanting to spar with you, at least until such time as OJ actually files an appeal. Til then, I'm outta here.

Were we sparing? I thought we were having an intelligent discussion with an exchange of ideas. I did see that you were becoming somewhat testy in your posts but I thought that I could have explained my position to you. I don't know how many ways to say this. I have never defended Simpson. However, I have questioned certain issues related to the Nevada case. IIRC, I never said you were wrong but you have said that of me. I just took it as the fact that you had a firm belief in your opinion. I thought we were having an intelligent discussion and did not take anything you said personally. I thought I had an opportunity to discuss things with someone who was able to defend their positions and I think that is what you posted you requested. I am amazed to see you take this approach, because you no longer want to discuss things in a civil manner. Is this supposed to be a thread where only those that agree with the fact that Simpson is guilty and in the penitentiary can post and, if there are questions about the process that led him to be in that place, then all efforts are made to shut the forum down, because it becomes too thought provoking to defend an opinion. I asked you for links to support your views and have stated that I am glad to have you on board. Those things still hold true. If you can provide links to support your positions and I am not able to provide something to support my opposing view, then the only rational and civil thing for me to do is acknowledge it. I would not seek to have the thread closed in that event.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The kidnapping charge does not sound like kidnapping to me. it sounds like overcharging by the da.


Sure Martin, you know more about kidnapping than the judge :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Have you heard of judge J. Glass
she decides the case as she feels
her decision are always the last
never the need for appeals.

How can judge J. Glass reconcile her ethical code of conduct with allowing the prosecution to exclude Black jurors?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

“Commentary Canon 3B(5)

A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

(6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This Section 3B(6) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, or other similar factors, are issues in the proceeding.”

[William Anthony]

How can the religious exclusion be reconciled with the Nevada constitution?

Interesting article.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html#anchor3

[William Anthony]

Well, I guess the words, "legitimate advocacy" could be argued to allow the prosecution to support the exclusion of jurors on the basis of religion as would the words peace and safety of the state in Nevada's constitution. I guess it then would be a matter of interpretation based on the ideology of those hearing the argument. The prevailing ideology was that women and Blacks should not be allowed to vote. Now we have a Black President and women who have run for President and Vice President. Who knows who knows the law best and the way an issue is likely to be decided depends on the ideology of those hearing the arguments pro and con.

[martin II]

Have you heard of judge J. Glass
she decides the case as she feels
her decision are always the last
never the need for appeals.

How can judge J. Glass reconcile her ethical code of conduct with allowing the prosecution to exclude Black jurors?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

“Commentary Canon 3B(5)

A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

(6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This Section 3B(6) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, or other similar factors, are issues in the proceeding.”


Obviously the prosecution believed those two women were too religious and the wrong skin color to serve as jurors. My question is was all other jurors questioned about religion as those two were?

[William Anthony]

Obviously the prosecution believed those two women were too religious and the wrong skin color to serve as jurors. My question is was all other jurors questioned about religion as those two were?

I know that on the jury question form for selection, there were questions about religion. I do not know to what extent the jurors were questioned about their religious beliefs, other than those two Black women.

[martin II]

I know that on the jury question form for selection, there were questions about religion. I do not know to what extent the jurors were questioned about their religious beliefs, other than those two Black women.

Well according to Stewarts lawyer the jury foreperson failed to inform the prosecution and the judge that he had been dismissed from a previous job because of some racial comments he had made on the job. How does this jive with his signature on the jury form swearing to tell the truth?

[William Anthony]

Well according to Stewarts lawyer the jury foreperson failed to inform the prosecution and the judge that he had been dismissed from a previous job because of some racial comments he had made on the job. How does this jive with his signature on the jury form swearing to tell the truth?

That is an interesting question. I wonder how he answered the question about religion-I am only religious, when I don't have to tell the truth. :)

[martin II]

if anyone has the jury questionaire, please post it. thanks.

[serpentsfall]

if anyone has the jury questionaire, please post it. thanks.

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

you'll have to scroll down the list of documents

[weezer]

Obviously the prosecution believed those two women were too religious and the wrong skin color to serve as jurors. My question is was all other jurors questioned about religion as those two were?

I've always heard that a lawyer should never ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Since the jurors all answered the same questions, maybe, just maybe, it was the answers to those questions that warranted their exclusion.

[weezer]

Everyone remember the appeal was going to consist of in the civil case? Here's a walk down memory lane:

1. jury selection
2. judicial rulings
3. attorney performance
4. admissibility of evidence
5. jury deliberations

hey, maybe orenthal's lawyers can just drag that old appeal out, dust it off, change dates and try again! :eek:

[weezer]

If orenthal buys a television, etc., for his cell, can the Goldmans file to have it taken as part of the civil case?

If orenthal buys something with money from his pension, or receives a gift, can the Goldmans claim that item?

[weezer]

Here's a thought -- what if Fred Goldman had entered orenthal's hotel room and began removing items that he believed belonged to him (watches, etc). Anyone want to guess what would have happened? :eek:

[tv]

Weezer, I'm sure glad you're back! You're one of the few I don't have on ignore in this thread...it was getting kind of boring. :) Well, back to lurker mode! :seeya:

[weezer]

Weezer, I'm sure glad you're back! You're one of the few I don't have on ignore in this thread...it was getting kind of boring. :) Well, back to lurker mode! :seeya:

Thanks! Wonderful trip to the snow but awfully good to be back. I was real close to orenthal's new digs and told the group I ought to swing by and take a pic just for you guys! LOL

[weezer]

has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed?

I found this: FILING A TIMELY APPEAL TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT
In a minority of other states, filing a timely notice of appeal is not considered jurisdictional. In Nevada, however, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is considered a fundamental jurisdictional requirement. To ensure that this crucial step is taken properly, the attorney must file a timely notice of appeal in accordance with the applicable statutes. In the most common situation – an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction – the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 30 days after entry of the judgment of conviction. The 30-day rule applies to most appeals in criminal cases. The judgment is deemed entered when it is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. However, the defendant is allowed to file a notice of appeal after the judge has orally pronounced the decision but before the judgment has been entered, in which case the notice of appeal is deemed filed on the day the judgment of conviction is entered. The notice of appeal must be signed by the attorney and must be filed with the clerk of the District Court, not the clerk of the Supreme Court."

[William Anthony]

Everyone remember the appeal was going to consist of in the civil case? Here's a walk down memory lane:

1. jury selection
2. judicial rulings
3. attorney performance
4. admissibility of evidence
5. jury deliberations

hey, maybe orenthal's lawyers can just drag that old appeal out, dust it off, change dates and try again! :eek:

Maybe, the same issues applied and especially after judge J. Glass mentioned Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

[William Anthony]

If orenthal buys a television, etc., for his cell, can the Goldmans file to have it taken as part of the civil case?

If orenthal buys something with money from his pension, or receives a gift, can the Goldmans claim that item?

I think Mr. Goldman might try.

[William Anthony]

Weezer, I'm sure glad you're back! You're one of the few I don't have on ignore in this thread...it was getting kind of boring. :) Well, back to lurker mode! :seeya:

Such formality isn't required. You can simply not post. I did not know that you were in the lurking mood. Well, anyway let's discuss the Nevada case only.

[William Anthony]

has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed?

I found this: FILING A TIMELY APPEAL TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT
In a minority of other states, filing a timely notice of appeal is not considered jurisdictional. In Nevada, however, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is considered a fundamental jurisdictional requirement. To ensure that this crucial step is taken properly, the attorney must file a timely notice of appeal in accordance with the applicable statutes. In the most common situation – an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction – the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 30 days after entry of the judgment of conviction. The 30-day rule applies to most appeals in criminal cases. The judgment is deemed entered when it is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. However, the defendant is allowed to file a notice of appeal after the judge has orally pronounced the decision but before the judgment has been entered, in which case the notice of appeal is deemed filed on the day the judgment of conviction is entered. The notice of appeal must be signed by the attorney and must be filed with the clerk of the District Court, not the clerk of the Supreme Court."

I think you may be confusing the actual appeal with the Notice Of Appeal.

[William Anthony]

I've always heard that a lawyer should never ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Since the jurors all answered the same questions, maybe, just maybe, it was the answers to those questions that warranted their exclusion.

Maybe, the exclusion was based on the race and religion of the person answering the queston.

[weezer]

Maybe, the exclusion was based on the race and religion of the person answering the queston.

Nah -- I'm thinking it was smart lawyering. You of all people should appreciate that. ;)

[weezer]

I think you may be confusing the actual appeal with the Notice Of Appeal.

I wasn't confused --

I guess you were confused by the question.

[weezer]

Maybe, the same issues applied and especially after judge J. Glass mentioned Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

are you saying she was wrong to quote orenthal?

[William Anthony]

are you saying she was wrong to quote orenthal?

I am saying that the totality of the circumstances should be considered on appeal in order to prove that Judge J. Glass' rulings may be the result of her bias.

[William Anthony]

Nah -- I'm thinking it was smart lawyering. You of all people should appreciate that. ;)

Being a smart lawyer and making proper exclusions is one thing and having rulings that violate Due Process by a judge that is rumored to be pro prosecution is another. I think you can appreciate that.

[William Anthony]

I wasn't confused --

I guess you were confused by the question.

No just by the quote, which dealt mainly with the Notice Of Appeal as a prior requirement to actual filing of an appeal, under Nevada law. Do you know the statue of limitations that the defense has to file an appeal, under Nevada law?

[weezer]

No just by the quote, which dealt mainly with the Notice Of Appeal as a prior requirement to actual filing of an appeal, under Nevada law. Do you know the statue of limitations that the defense has to file an appeal, under Nevada law?

Hello? THAT was the question!

[weezer]

Being a smart lawyer and making proper exclusions is one thing and having rulings that violate Due Process by a judge that is rumored to be pro prosecution is another. I think you can appreciate that.

I actually find it humorous to read a student poster on a blog presume to know more about the law than a sitting judge or a prosecutor. Even one that has received accolades from 'real' lawyers. In fact, I'm laughing out loud right now. Thank you -- I needed that.

[William Anthony]

Hello? THAT was the question!

Having some training in the law, I realize that one should attempt to make their questions as specific as possible, so as to get the desired answer and try to eliminate any superfluous verbiage but include that which is necessary. It seems you first asked does anyone know if the appeal was filed. However, you now seem to want, by responding to my question in this manner, to know the statute of limitations had expired on which the defense had time to appeal. Do you know of what an appeal is composed, so that I can determine, if we are, in fact, discussing the same thing.

[William Anthony]

I actually find it humorous to read a student poster on a blog presume to know more about the law than a sitting judge or a prosecutor. Even one that has received accolades from 'real' lawyers. In fact, I'm laughing out loud right now. Thank you -- I needed that.

I truly understand. I find it tedious to read posts that do not understand the reasons for an appeal but consider that they have had no formal training and very little actual experience in bringing a lawsuit and participating therein. The fact that appeals are allowed presupposes that, although real lawyers, practice law, they do not know all their is to the law. I find it laughable when those, who handle cases pro se, have a better understanding of the law than some practicing lawyers. In all instances that may not be the case, the lawyer may be trying to slip something past a pro se lawyer and, even those who practice law. Having had some training and practical experience, I realize this. I took the time to answer this only because it involved the law. However, I do see that it is becoming personal and attacking. So, can we discuss the Nevada case only?

[martin II]

If orenthal buys a television, etc., for his cell, can the Goldmans file to have it taken as part of the civil case?

If orenthal buys something with money from his pension, or receives a gift, can the Goldmans claim that item?

i think oj can use his pension money for whatever he needs.Fred has not been able to take anything he has purchased in the last 13 years. but maby fred would like to take whatever he has purchased ,paid for during this period like clothes, food and even money spent for his kids schooling expenses.:cool:

[martin II]

When you look at real appeals every week you get a feel for the difference between issues that are likely to be heard on appeal and those that are on somebody's wish-it-were-so list. You keep providing links to the opinions of like-minded people who also wish your viewpoint was so.

It has been my experience that one never knows what the u.s. supreme court will hear. It is like a crap shoot. but if they see a constitutional issue
at stake they usually hear the case.

[weezer]

Having some training in the law, I realize that one should attempt to make their questions as specific as possible, so as to get the desired answer and try to eliminate any superfluous verbiage but include that which is necessary. It seems you first asked does anyone know if the appeal was filed. However, you now seem to want, by responding to my question in this manner, to know the statute of limitations had expired on which the defense had time to appeal. Do you know of what an appeal is composed, so that I can determine, if we are, in fact, discussing the same thing.

actually, it was a very simple question: has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed? obviously the response from you would be "No."

how about anyone else? anyone heard/read anything?

[weezer]

i think oj can use his pension money for whatever he needs.Fred has not been able to take anything he has purchased in the last 13 years. but maby fred would like to take whatever he has purchased ,paid for during this period like clothes, food and even money spent for his kids schooling expenses.:cool:

are both kids still in school?

[William Anthony]

actually, it was a very simple question: has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed? obviously the response from you would be "No."

how about anyone else? anyone heard/read anything?

That is what confused me, when you included a link about a Notice Of Appeal and I simply was not sure that you understood the difference or what was contained in an appeal, which is why I asked.

http://www.nvbar.org/Publications/NevadaLawyer/2006/September/appeal.htm

“A motion for reconsideration in habeas corpus proceedings does not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal.[39]”

[weezer]

That is what confused me, when you included a link about a Notice Of Appeal and I simply was not sure that you understood the difference or what was contained in an appeal, which is why I asked.

http://www.nvbar.org/Publications/NevadaLawyer/2006/September/appeal.htm

“A motion for reconsideration in habeas corpus proceedings does not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal.[39]”

it's a very simple question: has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed?

[weezer]

found this on the timeline:

". . .Habeas Corpus — Fixing an Injustice
Habeas corpus is a writ allowing a citizen to challenge a conviction and imprisonment on the basis of errors and violations at the trial level, including sentencing. A habeas corpus petition can be filed within one year of an unsuccessful criminal appeal.

While an appeal is limited to issues considered at trial, habeas corpus is wide-ranging: new evidence or new witnesses, evidence excluded at trial, overruled motions, a judge's error in interpreting the law, a prosecutor's tactics. It also applies to critical mistakes by your original defense lawyer (ineffective assistance of counsel).

Appeals are heard by the Nevada Supreme Court. Habeas corpus petitions are submitted in District Court. Essentially, we are asking the same judge in the same court where you were convicted to acknowledge a mistake. . ."

[William Anthony]

it's a very simple question: has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed?

Then I would ask that, in the future, you would not include the unnecessary and superfluous verbiage contained in the link about a Notice of Appeal. This is the kind of inclusion that an appellate court may cause an appellate court some confusion and disdain. The court may not look favorably on the inclusion of material not relevant to the issue.

However, to clear up the apparent confusion that may be caused by a lack of understanding of a person not trained in the legal process, I will supply this information.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice+of+appeal

[William Anthony]

it's a very simple question: has anyone heard anything about the appeal being filed?

Then I would ask that, in the future, you would not include the unnecessary and superfluous verbiage contained in the link about a Notice of Appeal. This is the kind of inclusion that an appellate court may cause an appellate court some confusion and disdain. The court may not look favorably on the inclusion of material not relevant to the issue.

However, to clear up the apparent confusion that may be caused by a lack of understanding of a person not trained in the legal process, I will supply this information.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice+of+appeal

“Notice of Appeal

A notice of appeal—a written document filed by the appellant with the court and a copy of which is sent to the appellee—is the initial step in the appeals process. It informs the court and the party in whose favor a judgment or order has been made that the unsuccessful party seeks a review of the case. Failure to file a notice of appeal according to the statutory requirements will preclude appeal.”

[weezer]

Then I would ask that, in the future, you would not include the unnecessary and superfluous verbiage contained in the link about a Notice of Appeal. This is the kind of inclusion that an appellate court may cause an appellate court some confusion and disdain. The court may not look favorably on the inclusion of material not relevant to the issue.

However, to clear up the apparent confusion that may be caused by a lack of understanding of a person not trained in the legal process, I will supply this information.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice+of+appeal

“Notice of Appeal

A notice of appeal—a written document filed by the appellant with the court and a copy of which is sent to the appellee—is the initial step in the appeals process. It informs the court and the party in whose favor a judgment or order has been made that the unsuccessful party seeks a review of the case. Failure to file a notice of appeal according to the statutory requirements will preclude appeal.”

okay -- so orenthal lost the first appeal. NOW has anyone heard/read anything on THE appeal?

[weezer]

". . .Don't Miss the Deadline to Appeal —
You may have as little as 10 days from the date of conviction to file an appeal. In Nevada, most criminal appeals are heard in the "fast track" system. Briefs are submitted and the Supreme Court usually rules within 90 to 120 days. Appeals in federal courts will take longer, sometimes over a year.

Appeals are limited to what actually happened at trial. This means that you will not be able to bring in additional evidence. . ."

[William Anthony]

okay -- so orenthal lost the first appeal. NOW has anyone heard/read anything on THE appeal?

That was a motion for a new trial. It may be that the defense is asking for an appeal of that motion or they may be looking to file a writ of habeas corpus.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motion+for+a+new+trial

[weezer]

That was a motion for a new trial. It may be that the defense is asking for an appeal of that motion or they may be looking to file a writ of habeas corpus.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motion+for+a+new+trial

and as I understand it, had to be done before other appeals could be filed. Now, same question: has anyone heard/read anything on THE appeal?

[William Anthony]

and as I understand it, had to be done before other appeals could be filed. Now, same question: has anyone heard/read anything on THE appeal?

I think your question is premature and, as I previously stated, I think the defense is aware of the caveat, that haste makes waste.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/remedies/34.726.html

1. Unless there is good cause shown for delay, a petition that challenges the validity of a judgment or sentence must be filed within 1 year after entry of the judgment of conviction or, if an appeal has been taken from the judgment, within 1 year after the Supreme Court issues its remittitur.

[weezer]

2008: Glass - affirmed in part & reversed in part - 3, reversed - 1

[weezer]

anyone know if orenthal's home in florida is still protected since he put it up for collateral after the judge found out he didn't pay anything toward his earlier bail?

[William Anthony]

2008: Glass - affirmed in part & reversed in part - 3, reversed - 1

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/advOpinions/123NevAdvOpNo35.html

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:maybtNloiVoJ:www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/unpublished/1127962.PDF+judge+jackie+glass+affirmed+in+part+an d+reversed+in+part&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It appears that judge J. Glass may not know the law as well as some may think.

[William Anthony]

anyone know if orenthal's home in florida is still protected since he put it up for collateral after the judge found out he didn't pay anything toward his earlier bail?

I would think the fact that it is protected is a given based on his current condition.

[weezer]

I would think the fact that it is protected is a given based on his current condition.

hmmm -- I'm just wondering if it is still 'protected' :shrug:

[weezer]

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/advOpinions/123NevAdvOpNo35.html

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:maybtNloiVoJ:www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/unpublished/1127962.PDF+judge+jackie+glass+affirmed+in+part+an d+reversed+in+part&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It appears that judge J. Glass may not know the law as well as some may think.

LOL -- and much better than others may think. ;)

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- I'm just wondering if it is still 'protected' :shrug:

The law allows you to do what you desire with what is yours but may not allow you to reclaim it in Nevada.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- and much better than others may think. ;)

I guess that remains to be seen. :)

[weezer]

The law allows you to do what you desire with what is yours but may not allow you to reclaim it in Nevada.

it's my understanding of the homestead law that you must be a resident and it must be your principle dwelling -- at the present time, orenthal is neither. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

I guess that remains to be seen. :)

oh I don't know -- her record so far is pretty good. I was reading on one of the sites that the wait for a case to go to the supreme court is about two years.

[weezer]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/data/session/2005/senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0312.pdf

[martin II]

it's my understanding of the homestead law that you must be a resident and it must be your principle dwelling -- at the present time, orenthal is neither. :rolleyes:

his home is the state where he lived before being sent to jail and he has a home in florida.

[weezer]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qTXhe87o3OAC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=florida+homestead+convicted+felon&source=web&ots=cVH3lAcz4E&sig=xYfN-W0i5AXr_QZMRUsGaGmFpK4&hl=en&ei=Jt-NSZK5GNWDtweQr6mqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Section 522(o) states that the value of a property claimed as a homestead must be reduced by the amount of value that was generated through disposition of nonexempt property, with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, and made within 10 years before the bankruptcy was filed. . ."

so I wonder if the monies orenthal received from hawking memorabilia falls into this category? what about the money from the book deal?

[martin II]

anyone know if orenthal's home in florida is still protected since he put it up for collateral after the judge found out he didn't pay anything toward his earlier bail?

i have seen many cases where family member put up assets and or money for bail of a family member.I know of no requiremtnt that bail must come only from the defendant.Any asset that was put up for ojs bail was released when he was jailed after the trial.imo

[martin II]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qTXhe87o3OAC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=florida+homestead+convicted+felon&source=web&ots=cVH3lAcz4E&sig=xYfN-W0i5AXr_QZMRUsGaGmFpK4&hl=en&ei=Jt-NSZK5GNWDtweQr6mqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Section 522(o) states that the value of a property claimed as a homestead must be reduced by the amount of value that was generated through disposition of nonexempt property, with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, and made within 10 years before the bankruptcy was filed. . ."

so I wonder if the monies orenthal received from hawking memorabilia falls into this category? what about the money from the book deal?


this does not fall under the thread of CASE DISCUSSIONS ONLY.

[weezer]

i have seen many cases where family member put up assets and or money for bail of a family member.I know of no requiremtnt that bail must come only from the defendant.Any asset that was put up for ojs bail was released when he was jailed after the trial.imo

the article I read stated orenthal put his home up for collateral for the bail.

now I'm wondering, if as a convicted felon, RESIDING in another state, is orenthal still considered a florida resident and thus still entitled to his homestead exemption.

[weezer]

this does not fall under the thread of CASE DISCUSSIONS ONLY.

sure it does -- :eek:

[weezer]

the article I read stated orenthal put his home up for collateral for the bail.

now I'm wondering, if as a convicted felon, RESIDING in another state, is orenthal still considered a florida resident and thus still entitled to his homestead exemption.

looks like I found one part of the answer: Another case of interest is, In re Lloyd 07-13502, which, as described in an article on the Florida Asset Protection Blog by Jonathan Alper, Esq., a Florida resident moved to California in 2003, declared bankruptcy in 2007 and still was able to claim the homestead exemption for the home she maintained and rented out in Florida.

now I wonder if the fact that he put the house up as collateral voided the homestead exemption?

also, what if the person is a convicted felon?

[martin II]

the article I read stated orenthal put his home up for collateral for the bail.

now I'm wondering, if as a convicted felon, RESIDING in another state, is orenthal still considered a florida resident and thus still entitled to his homestead exemption.
a story i read said his girlfriend and his daughter put up his bail.

[weezer]

a story i read said his girlfriend and his daughter put up his bail.

now come on martin, where in the world do you think those two got money?!

". . .At today’s bail revocation hearing, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass was all over O.J. Simpson, strongly chastising him for not paying his previous $125,000 bail, saying, "I don’t know, Mr. Simpson, what the heck you were thinking, or maybe that’s the problem, you weren’t," adding, "I don’t know if it’s just arrogance. I don’t know if it’s ignorance. But you’ve been locked up at the Clark County Detention Center since Friday because of arrogance or ignorance, or both." With that, she doubled Simpson’s bail to $250,000. She told him he was to stay put in jail until 15% of the bail, in cash, was paid. O.J.’s attorney told the court that Simpson’s home would be put up as collateral. . ."

[martin II]

sure it does -- :eek:

How so?
Florida homestead law was never a part of the vegas trial and i am surprised that don't know that but now you know.

[martin II]

now come on martin, where in the world do you think those two got money?!

Without the bail bondsmans document you seem to be just creating noise that is definately off topic. you don't know what assets were put up and by who.

[weezer]

How so?
Florida homestead law was never a part of the vegas trial and i am surprised that don't know that but now you know.

I don't know why you keep harping on this thread only being about the vegas trial.

[weezer]

Without the bail bondsmans document you seem to be just creating noise that is definately off topic. you don't know what assets were put up and by who.

there was a hearing about orenthal's bail being doubled -- did you forget that?

now, back to my original question: anyone know if when orenthal used his florida home as collateral in nevada, is the home still protected?

[martin II]

Here is the statute, which I think is vague and overly broad.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.380.html

“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.

Last modified: February 25, 2006”

From what I gather but the statute is so vague and I only gather this by the concentration on the element of force that is what concerned the legislature. However, the first element is the unlawful taking as the statute is written. IIRC, and I will look again, the Supreme Court has said that a property owner can use some degree of force to reclaim his property. If that is true, then the Nevada law in not in line with that principle, imho.

That is one of the solid issues for the appeals court to consider,

[weezer]

That is one of the solid issues for the appeals court to consider,

maybe if orenthal had limited his taking to stuff he claimed as his -- but he didn't. Remember: take it all. take everything.

[William Anthony]

maybe if orenthal had limited his taking to stuff he claimed as his -- but he didn't. Remember: take it all. take everything.

That's why he said give back the cell phone. I only want what is mine and I will return the other items. Intent-claim of right.

[William Anthony]

there was a hearing about orenthal's bail being doubled -- did you forget that?

now, back to my original question: anyone know if when orenthal used his florida home as collateral in nevada, is the home still protected?

Yes, it is.

[martin II]

there was a hearing about orenthal's bail being doubled -- did you forget that?

now, back to my original question: anyone know if when orenthal used his florida home as collateral in nevada, is the home still protected?

A Florida bales bondnesman informed the court that he was prepared to post ojs bail. Which he did. ojs current location was mandated by a court and is temporary.I see no effect on his homestead status.
But you are free to post opinions from like minded sources as we all do with the exception on Williams post that deal with case law and supreme court decisions.

[weezer]

That's why he said give back the cell phone. I only want what is mine and I will return the other items. Intent-claim of right.

and then he said he didn't care what happened to the stuff. Intent - armed robbery.

[weezer]

A Florida bales bondnesman informed the court that he was prepared to post ojs bail. Which he did. ojs current location was mandated by a court and is temporary.I see no effect on his homestead status.
But you are free to post opinions from like minded sources as we all do with the exception on Williams post that deal with case law and supreme court decisions.

I think you are wrong about the bail -- I posted where florida law doesn't stipulate any set amount of time or residence to qualify as homestead. I get that part. What I wonder is if orenthal put the house up as collateral, did that violate the protection?

[William Anthony]

and then he said he didn't care what happened to the stuff. Intent - armed robbery.

That could mean that he did not care, if Fromong and Beardsley were in possession of or sold stuff that was not his, according to his belief, after they returned it.

[William Anthony]

I think you are wrong about the bail -- I posted where florida law doesn't stipulate any set amount of time or residence to qualify as homestead. I get that part. What I wonder is if orenthal put the house up as collateral, did that violate the protection?

that was asked and answered.

[William Anthony]

On the issue of the exclusion of jurors based on religion, read this.

http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/25.php

"In the Satanism case, Flanagan v. State, Dale Flanagan and his friend, Randolph Moore, murdered Flanagan’s grandparents in order to collect insurance proceeds and an inheritance. In an effort to obtain the death penalty, the prosecutor offered evidence of the defendants’ membership in a satanic cult. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the death sentences on the ground that the free exercise of Satanism could not be penalized in the absence of proof that the religious practice, as opposed to greed, motivated the killings."

The argument then would be that the free exercise of religion cannot be held as a valid exercise to exclude jurors in the absence of proof that the religious practice motivated a juror to be unable to do their sworn duty. It would require more than an inference but proof.

[weezer]

On the issue of the exclusion of jurors based on religion, read this.

http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/25.php

"In the Satanism case, Flanagan v. State, Dale Flanagan and his friend, Randolph Moore, murdered Flanagan’s grandparents in order to collect insurance proceeds and an inheritance. In an effort to obtain the death penalty, the prosecutor offered evidence of the defendants’ membership in a satanic cult. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the death sentences on the ground that the free exercise of Satanism could not be penalized in the absence of proof that the religious practice, as opposed to greed, motivated the killings."

The argument then would be that the free exercise of religion cannot be held as a valid exercise to exclude jurors in the absence of proof that the religious practice motivated a juror to be unable to do their sworn duty. It would require more than an inference but proof.

not quite sure what a posting about the death penalty has to do with this case but okay. . .

[weezer]

that was asked and answered.

was it? I didn't see anything linked to back up the poster's OPINION. ;)

[William Anthony]

not quite sure what a posting about the death penalty has to do with this case but okay. . .

It has to do with the argument anti the jurors' exclusions based on the religious challenges in this case. The argument would be that the deprivation of life is not more precious than the deprivation of liberty and, consequently, defendants should not have their Due Process rights violated, without proof that the exclusion of jurors based on their religion would prejudice the state, because jurors have a free right to the exercise of religion and it would take proof to infringe upon that right, not merely suspicion.

[William Anthony]

was it? I didn't see anything linked to back up the poster's OPINION. ;)

I don't think a link is required when something is common KNOWLEDGE.

[martin II]

maybe if orenthal had limited his taking to stuff he claimed as his -- but he didn't. Remember: take it all. take everything.

"Take it all" comment was made by McClinton not oj.

[William Anthony]

"Take it all" comment was made by McClinton not oj.

It may have been made by Fromong. :)

[martin II]

I think you are wrong about the bail -- I posted where florida law doesn't stipulate any set amount of time or residence to qualify as homestead. I get that part. What I wonder is if orenthal put the house up as collateral, did that violate the protection?

What i think is that ojs friend the Auto Body shop owner put up assets to the bail bondsman in Florida to cause the additional bail to be satisfied. The bail money has to be returned when the defendant appears in court and in this case remanded to jail. Even if oj did put up his house for bail it is now a mute issue as bail is no longer required and that doc. has been cancelled.

[weezer]

I don't think a link is required when something is common KNOWLEDGE.

common knowledge for who? are you saying florida homestead laws are common knowledge to posters on this board?

[weezer]

It has to do with the argument anti the jurors' exclusions based on the religious challenges in this case. The argument would be that the deprivation of life is not more precious than the deprivation of liberty and, consequently, defendants should not have their Due Process rights violated, without proof that the exclusion of jurors based on their religion would prejudice the state, because jurors have a free right to the exercise of religion and it would take proof to infringe upon that right, not merely suspicion.

are you sure that religious exclusion was the deciding factor in the jurors not being picked?

[weezer]

What i think is that ojs friend the Auto Body shop owner put up assets to the bail bondsman in Florida to cause the additional bail to be satisfied. The bail money has to be returned when the defendant appears in court and in this case remanded to jail. Even if oj did put up his house for bail it is now a mute issue as bail is no longer required and that doc. has been cancelled.

thank you for posting "what i think"

I'm doing research now to see what I can find on the bail and it's effects on the title to the home.

[martin II]

It may have been made by Fromong. :)

I think you are correct as that is what Riccio said.

[William Anthony]

common knowledge for who? are you saying florida homestead laws are common knowledge to posters on this board?

Why, of course I am not saying that. I am saying that it is commonly known that the only way a person's property cannot be protected, if he uses it for bail, is that he does not appear in court. I think it is common knowledge that, if someone places their home as collateral for a loan and pays off the loan, they do not lose the home, because they complied with their obligations on which the collateral was offered.

[William Anthony]

are you sure that religious exclusion was the deciding factor in the jurors not being picked?

No, I am not sure that religion was the deciding factor. I think the prosecution said that it was their religious beliefs that might have made them less likely to convict. Because I tend to be unsure, I think the exclusions might actually have been based on race.

[William Anthony]

I think you are correct as that is what Riccio said.

Take everything, so I can get paid for things that I never had.:)

[William Anthony]

thank you for posting "what i think"

I'm doing research now to see what I can find on the bail and it's effects on the title to the home.

A lien is placed on it for the amount of bail, until the trial is over.

[weezer]

No, I am not sure that religion was the deciding factor. I think the prosecution said that it was their religious beliefs that might have made them less likely to convict. Because I tend to be unsure, I think the exclusions might actually have been based on race.

not a real shock that that is what you think. ;)

[weezer]

A lien is placed on it for the amount of bail, until the trial is over.

do you think the protection was in jeopardy during the time the loan was outstanding?

[William Anthony]

not a real shock that that is what you think. ;)

I base what I think on precedent, research, history and case law, not supposition and blind faith, in anything man made or said.

[weezer]

I base what I think on precedent, research, history and case law, not supposition and blind faith, in anything man made or said.

whatever. the moderator has instructed that this thread is case discussion only. you'll need to take your discussion elsewhere. sorry.

[William Anthony]

do you think the protection was in jeopardy during the time the loan was outstanding?

Jeopardy of what and what kind of protection?

[weezer]

Jeopardy of what and what kind of protection?

I'm not sure but what I've been able to read so far is raising big questions for me. I'll finish my research and then share if anyone is interested.

[William Anthony]

whatever. the moderator has instructed that this thread is case discussion only. you'll need to take your discussion elsewhere. sorry.

That is what we are discussing-the Batson challenge and what and why we believe as to the basis of the appeal, which all originated from the Nevada case.
There is no need to be sorry.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure but what I've been able to read so far is raising big questions for me. I'll finish my research and then share if anyone is interested.

Jeopardy of what and what have you been reading. Please, post a link?

[weezer]

That is what we are discussing-the Batson challenge and what and why we believe as to the basis of the appeal, which all originated from the Nevada case.
There is no need to be sorry.

no william -- no one was discussing the Batson challenge because it is not relevent to orenthal's case. you're right -- I'm not sorry. I take it back.

[William Anthony]

no william -- no one was discussing the Batson challenge because it is not relevent to orenthal's case. you're right -- I'm not sorry. I take it back.

I thought you knew that the Third Circuit and some other circuits has extended and the Nevada Supreme court has extended the Batson challenge to include exclusions based on religion but realized you may not have been aware or forgot we were discussing the possible basis of the appeal, which is why I said there was no need to be sorry.

[martin II]

do you think the protection was in jeopardy during the time the loan was outstanding?

no
martinii

[martin II]

no william -- no one was discussing the Batson challenge because it is not relevent to orenthal's case. you're right -- I'm not sorry. I take it back.

Wrong.
Baston challange was a issue in jury selection and very possibly in the appeal.

[weezer]

I thought you knew that the Third Circuit and some other circuits has extended and the Nevada Supreme court has extended the Batson challenge to include exclusions based on religion but realized you may not have been aware or forgot we were discussing the possible basis of the appeal, which is why I said there was no need to be sorry.

here you go william -- read the sixth issue (pages 9 and 10).

[William Anthony]

no
martinii

I am interested in knowing what she is reading and have requested a link.

[William Anthony]

here you go william -- read the sixth issue (pages 9 and 10).

Pages 9 and 10 of what? Links, please to this and the other requested one?

[weezer]

here you go william -- read the sixth issue (pages 9 and 10).

sorry

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/unpublished/949678.PDF

[weezer]

batson/nevada

http://nevadalawjournal.org/pdf/fordVsState.pdf

[William Anthony]

sorry

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/unpublished/949678.PDF

That is a case based on racial discrimination when it pertains to jury selection and has nothing to do with religious exclusions that have been brought pursuant to a Batson challenge or what the standard should be in that instance. However, I have cited the dicta in the case I supplied and the free exercise of religion without penalty thereof and how an argument can be made that the prosecution's exclusions were invalid and the fact that they were Black can also be considered under less scrutiny as provided in your link. However, inevitably the question would be whether a speculation can be made that Blacks are more religious in that they would be more likely to let God impose vengeance than White religious potential jurors. Please, provide the link to what you have been reading that causes you to speculate on the jeopardy and protection of Simpson's Florida home?

[weezer]

That is a case based on racial discrimination when it pertains to jury selection and has nothing to do with religious exclusions that have been brought pursuant to a Batson challenge or what the standard should be in that instance. However, I have cited the dicta in the case I supplied and the free exercise of religion without penalty thereof and how an argument can be made that the prosecution's exclusions were invalid and the fact that they were Black can also be considered under less scrutiny as provided in your link. However, inevitably the question would be whether a speculation can be made that Blacks are more religious in that they would be more likely to let God impose vengeance than White religious potential jurors. Please, provide the link to what you have been reading that causes you to speculate on the jeopardy and protection of Simpson's Florida home?

here's one on gender:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=115nvadvopno10&invol=2

[William Anthony]

here's one on gender:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=115nvadvopno10&invol=2

I will not read this one at this time, because I am sure you realize that the issue here is religion and the case you provided a link to was not to be considered as precedent. Please, provide a link as you stated you would, because I am interested in reading what caused your speculation as to Simpson's home?

[weezer]

batson/religion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/021135p.pdf

[weezer]

I will not read this one at this time, because I am sure you realize that the issue here is religion and the case you provided a link to was not to be considered as precedent. Please, provide a link as you stated you would, because I am interested in reading what caused your speculation as to Simpson's home?

I have many 'windows' open and taking notes. I will be happy to share any pertinent links when I've completed researching.

[weezer]

did either defense attorney raise the issue of religion as a Batson challenge during the trial?

[William Anthony]

I have many 'windows' open and taking notes. I will be happy to share any pertinent links when I've completed researching.

How about just one?

[William Anthony]

did either defense attorney raise the issue of religion as a Batson challenge during the trial?

The prosecution made it a reason as that was their reason given.

[weezer]

". . .Peremptory challenges allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to remove potential jurors without giving a reason, but a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Batson vs. Kentucky, prohibits the dismissal of jurors because of their race.

Lawyers for Simpson and Stewart challenged the removal of the jurors under the Batson case, saying prosecutors were systematically eliminating black jurors from the jury.

The first challenge involved a fifth-grade school teacher and church pastor who has worked in prison ministry.

District Attorney David Roger said the woman seemed to be "forgiving by nature" and unsure if she wanted to sit on the jury.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter accused prosecutors of systematically removing the only black juror who, at that time, was the only black person among the first 12 potential jurors.

"The systematic requirement is met because this is the one bite of the apple," Galanter said.

Glass denied the challenge.

"Through the last four days, there has been no evidence to me that the state has made a purposeful effort to discriminate against African-American jurors," she said.

A short time later, prosecutors wanted to excuse another black woman from the jury pool.

The bookkeeper was a devout Christian who had written in her juror questionnaire that she couldn't send anyone to jail, Roger said.

She had also said she believed her brother was wrongfully convicted of child abuse in the mid-1980s, he said.

Defense lawyers renewed their challenge, which was again rejected by Glass. . ."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/28279434.html

[weezer]

The prosecution made it a reason as that was their reason given.

that wasn't the question. did either defense attorney raise religion as a batson challenge?

[William Anthony]

". . .Peremptory challenges allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to remove potential jurors without giving a reason, but a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Batson vs. Kentucky, prohibits the dismissal of jurors because of their race.

Lawyers for Simpson and Stewart challenged the removal of the jurors under the Batson case, saying prosecutors were systematically eliminating black jurors from the jury.

The first challenge involved a fifth-grade school teacher and church pastor who has worked in prison ministry.

District Attorney David Roger said the woman seemed to be "forgiving by nature" and unsure if she wanted to sit on the jury.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter accused prosecutors of systematically removing the only black juror who, at that time, was the only black person among the first 12 potential jurors.

"The systematic requirement is met because this is the one bite of the apple," Galanter said.

Glass denied the challenge.

"Through the last four days, there has been no evidence to me that the state has made a purposeful effort to discriminate against African-American jurors," she said.

A short time later, prosecutors wanted to excuse another black woman from the jury pool.

The bookkeeper was a devout Christian who had written in her juror questionnaire that she couldn't send anyone to jail, Roger said.

She had also said she believed her brother was wrongfully convicted of child abuse in the mid-1980s, he said.

Defense lawyers renewed their challenge, which was again rejected by Glass. . ."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/28279434.html

Yes, those are the issue and, referencing the link I supplied, the argument would be that proof is required to dismiss potential jurors based on religion and that the religious exclusions were really a pretext for racial discrimination. I have read, IIRC, that one juror said she would find it difficult to send someone to jail, IIRC, not that she wouldn't. I hope the appeal and briefs are made open to the public.

[weezer]

Yes, those are the issue and, referencing the link I supplied, the argument would be that proof is required to dismiss potential jurors based on religion and that the religious exclusions were really a pretext for racial discrimination. I have read, IIRC, that one juror said she would find it difficult to send someone to jail, IIRC, not that she wouldn't. I hope the appeal and briefs are made open to the public.

I think the batson challenge will fall flat -- race and religion.

". . .the peremptory challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs. . ."

[William Anthony]

that wasn't the question. did either defense attorney raise religion as a batson challenge?

They raised the Batson challenge. The prosecution gave religion as an excuse, which the Nevada Supreme court has saw fit to extend religion to a Batson challenge. In other words, the Nevada supreme court has ruled that religious reasons to exclude jurors, when given in regard to a Batson challenge are permissible under certain circumstances. The question on appeal now becomes were the reasons given sufficient by the case law relevant to the exclusion of Blacks and others based on religion. To that questions, arguments will be made pro and con.

[weezer]

They raised the Batson challenge. The prosecution gave religion as an excuse, which the Nevada Supreme court has saw fit to extend religion to a Batson challenge. In other words, the Nevada supreme court has ruled that religious reasons to exclude jurors, when given in regard to a Batson challenge are permissible under certain circumstances. The question on appeal now becomes were the reasons given sufficient by the case law relevant to the exclusion of Blacks and others based on religion. To that questions, arguments will be made pro and con.

so they stood up and hollered 'batson challenge' and it covered everything? no. they raised the batson challenge based on race. the prosecutor gave a race neutral reason for excluding them (link provided above). the court accepted the reasons. the jurors were not excluded because they were religious but rather their demonstrated religiosity and statements made on the juror questionnaire. ". . .the peremptory challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs. . ."

[William Anthony]

I think the batson challenge will fall flat -- race and religion.

". . .the peremptory challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs. . ."

You may be right or wrong, just as I may be. However, the issue has not been conclusively resolved and needs to be, imho. I think that the right argument by the right lawyer to the right court at the right time may find the exclusions unconstitutional as it relates to the deprivation of the free exercise of religion and being penalized therefor, without a proper standard of proof.

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

“Several jurisdictions have wrestled with the issue of challenges based on religion. The most recent is State v. Fuller (2004, 862 A.2d 1130 [N.J.]), a case in which the defendant was charged with first-degree armed robbery. During jury selection, the prosecutor used four of his first five peremptory challenges to excuse African Americans. When defense counsel objected under State v. Gilmore (1986, 511 A.2d 1150), a New Jersey case that prohibited discrimination in jury selection "on the basis of religious principles, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex," the prosecutor responded that two of the potential jurors (including the non-African American) were excused not because of their race but because they were "demonstrative about their religions."

The "demonstrativeness" apparently consisted of the white juror stating that he worked as a missionary and the African-American juror wearing black garb and a skullcap, from which the prosecutor inferred that he was "obviously Muslim." Neither juror indicated that his religious beliefs would interfere with his serving fairly on the jury. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury convicted the defendant on both counts.

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed, based on the majority's distinction between excluding members of cognizable religious groups--which would constitute impermissible discrimination--and excluding individuals who merely appeared to be religious (State v. Fuller, 2002, 812 A.2d 389). The New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently overruled the appellate court, finding that the prosecutor's belief concerning religious jurors "suggests the very stereotypes that have been used to justify a policy of blanket exclusion that the law condemns" (State v. Fuller, 2004).

Divided opinions

Other jurisdictions have, like New Jersey in Fuller, prohibited challenges based on religion, including Colorado (Fields v. People, 1987, 732 P.2d 1145) and California (People v. Wheeler, 1978, 583 P.2d 748). Some courts have distinguished between level of religiosity and religious affiliation, such as the Third Circuit in U.S. v. DeJesus (2003, 347 F.3d 500), and at least one state--Minnesota--has ruled that all religious challenges are acceptable (Minnesota v. Davis, 1993, 504 N.W.2d 767). Religion is an interesting test case because, unlike the characteristics universally protected under Batson (race and sex), religion is not--with rare exceptions--knowable from simple visual inspection.

Attorneys who use this tactic clearly believe that religiosity or religious affiliation affect decision-making. This assumption has obvious implications for trial consulting, as the judicious exercise of peremptory challenges is a major role for consultants aiding in jury selection. Supporting the assumption, several mock juror studies have shown that jurors' religiosity, religious affiliation and specific religious beliefs are associated with verdicts, especially in capital cases.

For example, jurors with more conservative religious views tend to be more punitive. Thus, although most attorneys are vehemently opposed to eliminating the practice of peremptory challenges--which would also curtail the activities of many psychologists working as trial consultants--there is some indication that the New Jersey Supreme Court got it right in Fuller.”

[William Anthony]

so they stood up and hollered 'batson challenge' and it covered everything? no. they raised the batson challenge based on race. the prosecutor gave a race neutral reason for excluding them (link provided above). the court accepted the reasons. the jurors were not excluded because they were religious but rather their demonstrated religiosity and statements made on the juror questionnaire. ". . .the peremptory challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs. . ."

The fact that Black jurors were excluded and the prosecution gave a reason that judge J. Glass, accepted as race neutral does not end the basis of an appeal. The defense must now point to case law and other information to show that the reasons given by the prosecution were a pretext for racial discrimination or that the reason given for the exclusions were not valid to exclude the jurors based on religion or a combination thereof. The fact is that the prosecution alleged the exclusion was for religious reasons, now making it an appellate issue.

[William Anthony]

". . .Peremptory challenges allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to remove potential jurors without giving a reason, but a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Batson vs. Kentucky, prohibits the dismissal of jurors because of their race.

Lawyers for Simpson and Stewart challenged the removal of the jurors under the Batson case, saying prosecutors were systematically eliminating black jurors from the jury.

The first challenge involved a fifth-grade school teacher and church pastor who has worked in prison ministry.

District Attorney David Roger said the woman seemed to be "forgiving by nature" and unsure if she wanted to sit on the jury.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter accused prosecutors of systematically removing the only black juror who, at that time, was the only black person among the first 12 potential jurors.

"The systematic requirement is met because this is the one bite of the apple," Galanter said.

Glass denied the challenge.

"Through the last four days, there has been no evidence to me that the state has made a purposeful effort to discriminate against African-American jurors," she said.

A short time later, prosecutors wanted to excuse another black woman from the jury pool.

The bookkeeper was a devout Christian who had written in her juror questionnaire that she couldn't send anyone to jail, Roger said.

She had also said she believed her brother was wrongfully convicted of child abuse in the mid-1980s, he said.

Defense lawyers renewed their challenge, which was again rejected by Glass. . ."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/28279434.html

You left this out of the link.

"Outside the courthouse, Galanter said the rejected Batson challenges could eventually lead to appeals.

But first, the trial."

[William Anthony]

I think the batson challenge will fall flat -- race and religion.

". . .the peremptory challenge of a juror on the basis of the juror's relevant personal values is not improper even though those views may be founded in the juror's religious beliefs. . ."

I hope the defense will rely on this language from the Fuller case in their argument.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently overruled the appellate court, finding that the prosecutor's belief concerning religious jurors "suggests the very stereotypes that have been used to justify a policy of blanket exclusion that the law condemns" (State v. Fuller, 2004)"

[William Anthony]

Then we have the issues related to the jury foreman, which I think will be an issue on appeal.

[weezer]

The fact that Black jurors were excluded and the prosecution gave a reason that judge J. Glass, accepted as race neutral does not end the basis of an appeal. The defense must now point to case law and other information to show that the reasons given by the prosecution were a pretext for racial discrimination or that the reason given for the exclusions were not valid to exclude the jurors based on religion or a combination thereof. The fact is that the prosecution alleged the exclusion was for religious reasons, now making it an appellate issue.

you may be right but it is my understanding that because religion was not the basis of the batson challenge, it would only be plain error review. so if the defense tries to raise the issue of religion-based Batson challenge, is this where the government argues that the defense failed to preserve this particular objection?

[weezer]

Then we have the issues related to the jury foreman, which I think will be an issue on appeal.

yep -- lots of talk. no walk. have you seen/read/heard anything other than defense lawyers running their mouths about this? thought not.

[William Anthony]

yep -- lots of talk. no walk. have you seen/read/heard anything other than defense lawyers running their mouths about this? thought not.

I do believe that the information that the foreman was allegedly concerned about the jurors' safety and why he wanted to continue deliberations past midnight and wanted the verdict rendered by that particular jury was made by him. I believe there were two alternate Black jurors. I think an investigation was made and it was found he failed to disclose on his juror questions that he was fired for making racial slurs. I suspect we will hear more about these issues during the appeal. It seems to me that, if he was so concerned about the jurors' safety due to the lateness of the hour, he would have asked the court to find lodging for them for the night after they rendered the verdict, since he suggested they stay longer to reach the verdict.

[William Anthony]

you may be right but it is my understanding that because religion was not the basis of the batson challenge, it would only be plain error review. so if the defense tries to raise the issue of religion-based Batson challenge, is this where the government argues that the defense failed to preserve this particular objection?

The Batson challenge includes religion. The prosecution asserted it as a defense, after which the defense renewed their objections and promised it as part of the appeal.

[William Anthony]

yep -- lots of talk. no walk. have you seen/read/heard anything other than defense lawyers running their mouths about this? thought not.

Have you heard that the foreman denied these things?

[weezer]

I hope the defense will rely on this language from the Fuller case in their argument.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently overruled the appellate court, finding that the prosecutor's belief concerning religious jurors "suggests the very stereotypes that have been used to justify a policy of blanket exclusion that the law condemns" (State v. Fuller, 2004)"

I know the government won't need help: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/021135p.pdf

Only one circuit has decided the issue on the merits. In United States v. DeJesus, 347 F.3d 500, 511 (3d Cir. 2003), the Third Circuit drew a distinction “between a strike motivated by religious beliefs and one motivated by religious affiliation.” Without determining the permissibility of the latter, the court held that strikes based on beliefs are valid and proper. Id; see also id. at 510 (accepting the government’s argument that the challenged venire members’ “unusual amount of religious activity suggested strong religious beliefs, which could prevent them from convicting the defendant”). The Seventh Circuit addressed the same question in United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109, 1114 (7th Cir. 1998), but did not resolve it because the court found no “plain” error. See id. (stating in dicta that “[i]t would be improper and perhaps unconstitutional to strike a juror on the basis of his being a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, etc.,” but it would be “proper to strike him on the basis of a belief that would prevent him from basing his decision on the evidence and instructions, even if the belief had a religious backing”).

[weezer]

The Batson challenge includes religion. The prosecution asserted it as a defense, after which the defense renewed their objections and promised it as part of the appeal.

now you know better than that william. the defense had to stipulate who/what they were basing their Batson challenge on. which was it? race or religion? if both, can you post where both were claimed?

The prosecution did not assert religion as a defense. The statements about religion were given as explanations to the challenge re race.

[weezer]

I do believe that the information that the foreman was allegedly concerned about the jurors' safety and why he wanted to continue deliberations past midnight and wanted the verdict rendered by that particular jury was made by him. I believe there were two alternate Black jurors. I think an investigation was made and it was found he failed to disclose on his juror questions that he was fired for making racial slurs. I suspect we will hear more about these issues during the appeal. It seems to me that, if he was so concerned about the jurors' safety due to the lateness of the hour, he would have asked the court to find lodging for them for the night after they rendered the verdict, since he suggested they stay longer to reach the verdict.

hmmm -- I served as foreperson on a jury and when the bailiff asked if we were going to finish that night, I encouraged the jury members to stick it out and come up with a verdict/decision. Wow! who knew that was a bad thing.

[weezer]

Have you heard that the foreman denied these things?

actually, except for the defense lawyers mouthing off right after the trial, I haven't heard/read/seen anything about the appeal. I find it interesting that you believe the foreman needed to do respond to talk.

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- I served as foreperson on a jury and when the bailiff asked if we were going to finish that night, I encouraged the jury members to stick it out and come up with a verdict/decision. Wow! who knew that was a bad thing.

Were you concerned for their safety due to the lateness of the hour and, therefore, encouraged them to stay longer?

[William Anthony]

actually, except for the defense lawyers mouthing off right after the trial, I haven't heard/read/seen anything about the appeal. I find it interesting that you believe the foreman needed to do respond to talk.

Have you heard that silence implies consent?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

[weezer]

Have you heard that silence implies consent?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

so when a defendant doesn't testify, it implies consent?

some things aren't worth responding to william.

[weezer]

Were you concerned for their safety due to the lateness of the hour and, therefore, encouraged them to stay longer?

nope -- I didn't want to have to come back the next day! :tongue: Besides, it was a child custody and the families needed an answer.

[William Anthony]

so when a defendant doesn't testify, it implies consent?

some things aren't worth responding to william.

You are right about certain things. However, a defendant responds through his lawyer or, if pro se, through himself in cross examination, direct examination and opening statement and closing argument and by not testifying is adhering to the principle that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and makes a determination on whether or not to take the stand based on the assessment of the prosecution's case and has made a statement when he enters a plea of not guilty.

[William Anthony]

nope -- I didn't want to have to come back the next day! :tongue: Besides, it was a child custody and the families needed an answer.

Ah, your motives were not so allegedly altruistic as his. :)

[weezer]

You are right about certain things. However, a defendant responds through his lawyer or, if pro se, through himself in cross examination, direct examination and opening statement and closing argument and by not testifying is adhering to the principle that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and makes a determination on whether or not to take the stand based on the assessment of the prosecution's case and has made a statement when he enters a plea of not guilty.

and in orenthal's case, he was found guilty in a court of law. guess that means the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt with or without his testimony. well, actually, he did testify kinda if you consider the tapes.

[William Anthony]

and in orenthal's case, he was found guilty in a court of law. guess that means the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt with or without his testimony. well, actually, he did testify kinda if you consider the tapes.

Oh yes, the admissibility of those tapes will be another issue addressed on appeal, imho.

[weezer]

Ah, your motives were not so allegedly altruistic as his. :)

I'm not as good as you are william -- I can't read another person's mind. I take people at face value until proven otherwise. The other jurors always had the right to do it differently.

[William Anthony]

I'm not as good as you are william -- I can't read another person's mind. I take people at face value until proven otherwise. The other jurors always had the right to do it differently.

I am not reading his mind but I am questioning the logic of his reasoning. If it doesn't fit, logic tells me not to force it to.

[weezer]

Oh yes, the admissibility of those tapes will be another issue addressed on appeal, imho.

again, another rabbit trail. especially when you consider galanter's statements on them being admitted. imo

I think the only person with a chance at any kind of appeal is stewart and only for his case not being severed. imo

[weezer]

I am not reading his mind but I am questioning the logic of his reasoning. If it doesn't fit, logic tells me not to force it to.

you are reading into his statements your interpretation. when I interpret his statements, they make perfect sense and fit nicely. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

again, another rabbit trail. especially when you consider galanter's statements on them being admitted. imo

I think the only person with a chance at any kind of appeal is stewart and only for his case not being severed. imo

I am not so sure, as Galantar's objection was on the tapes being conditionally admitted based on a latter proper authentication, as I can see it. Then you have the burglary and kidnapping charges and the argument about the vague, ambiguous, overly broad robbery statute, in connection with the intent element, coupled with the dismissal of the coercion charges and what that indicates, judge J. Glass' conduct and statements, and the conduct, statements and possible bias of the jury foreman in addition to the denial of severance.

[William Anthony]

you are reading into his statements your interpretation. when I interpret his statements, they make perfect sense and fit nicely. :shrug:

I am not surprised that his statements made perfect sense to you. I am questioning his logic and his need for that particular jury to reach a verdict on that particular day, in connection with his termination for using a racial slur.

[weezer]

I am not surprised that his statements made perfect sense to you. I am questioning his logic and his need for that particular jury to reach a verdict on that particular day, in connection with his termination for using a racial slur.

careful william -- you might pull a muscle with that stretch. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

careful william -- you might pull a muscle with that stretch. :tongue:

No need to stretch as that is the information received. Of course, I could just ignore it and say job well done. :)

[weezer]

I am not so sure, as Galantar's objection was on the tapes being conditionally admitted based on a latter proper authentication, as I can see it. Then you have the burglary and kidnapping charges and the argument about the vague, ambiguous, overly broad robbery statute, in connection with the intent element, coupled with the dismissal of the coercion charges and what that indicates, judge J. Glass' conduct and statements, and the conduct, statements and possible bias of the jury foreman in addition to the denial of severance.

galanter's objection was to the transcripts. orenthal's actions were within the definitions of all the charges brought against him. the judge's conduct was no different for orenthal than other cases heard in her court. the jury foreman did not force jury members to stay. I'm not sure what statements he made that you are referring to.

like I stated, I don't believe stewart or orenthal will prevail in an appeal but if anyone has a chance it might be stewart.

at any rate, there wouldn't be a different outcome because the circumstances are what they are.

[weezer]

No need to stretch as that is the information received. Of course, I could just ignore it and say job well done. :)

LOL -- I can't imagine that that foreman was/is any more involved in the simpson case than I am and I didn't know it was an anniversary date. Did you?

[William Anthony]

galanter's objection was to the transcripts. orenthal's actions were within the definitions of all the charges brought against him. the judge's conduct was no different for orenthal than other cases heard in her court. the jury foreman did not force jury members to stay. I'm not sure what statements he made that you are referring to.

like I stated, I don't believe stewart or orenthal will prevail in an appeal but if anyone has a chance it might be stewart.

at any rate, there wouldn't be a different outcome because the circumstances are what they are.

I have posted links that the defense objected to the tapes. I also remember that the prosecution played the tapes during their opening statement, at which time Galantar objected, stating that they had not been entered into evidence, but believed they would be later based upon a foundation for them and that he intended to use them. The fact that he intended to use and did use them does not mean, to me, that he waived any objection to their subsequent admissibility.

Since the jury's statement is that they relied solely on the tapes and if they are subsequently ruled inadmissible, then there is no evidence upon which to convict and a reversal may be required as a matter of law.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I can't imagine that that foreman was/is any more involved in the simpson case than I am and I didn't know it was an anniversary date. Did you?

Of course, he was involved more than you or I. He was the foreman. What the foreman knew is what is relevant and is there any evidence to support that he harbored some animus toward Simpson is the question, or to proof he did, if you will.

[martin II]

yep -- lots of talk. no walk. have you seen/read/heard anything other than defense lawyers running their mouths about this? thought not.

The jury foreperson stated in his questionair that "OJ GOT AWAY WITH MURDER" This after having been fired from his job for making racist comments on the job to the point where he was fired.
He was asked if he could be fair as a juror and was allowed on the panel by the judge by simply giving her the answer he knew she wanted to hear YES.
Then he took over the jury.imo

[weezer]

Of course, he was involved more than you or I. He was the foreman. What the foreman knew is what is relevant and is there any evidence to support that he harbored some animus toward Simpson is the question, or to proof he did, if you will.

Of course he was more involved in the trial -- duh! my point was that I didn't realize the anniversary date and I'm a simpson junkie -- so what makes you think he knew? no one was out to get orenthal. he's a thug and a thief who finally got caught and now he pays the price. to continue to blame everyone for his poor choices and bad behavior is sad.

[weezer]

The jury foreperson stated in his questionair that "OJ GOT AWAY WITH MURDER" This after having been fired from his job for making racist comments on the job to the point where he was fired.
He was asked if he could be fair as a juror and was allowed on the panel by the judge by simply giving her the answer he knew she wanted to hear YES.
Then he took over the jury.imo

you're making some serious accusations martin with nothing more to substantiate your statements than a bunch of talk by defense lawyers. shame on you.

[William Anthony]

Of course he was more involved in the trial -- duh! my point was that I didn't realize the anniversary date and I'm a simpson junkie -- so what makes you think he knew? no one was out to get orenthal. he's a thug and a thief who finally got caught and now he pays the price. to continue to blame everyone for his poor choices and bad behavior is sad.

"no one was out to get orenthal. he's a thug and a thief who finally got caught and now he pays the price."

"California couldn't get him but we will."

"Simpson got away with murder."

"We did not believe any of the witnesses."

"You called the Goldmans, goldiggers", even though I said the civil trial wasn't a part of this trial.

I do believe that the trial is not over until after sentencing.

[martin II]

hmmm -- I served as foreperson on a jury and when the bailiff asked if we were going to finish that night, I encouraged the jury members to stick it out and come up with a verdict/decision. Wow! who knew that was a bad thing.

normally juries stop at the end of the day, it was quoted by local media that it was unusual for them to deliberate until 10:30 at night.

i assume you voted to convict. haha




;







'

[William Anthony]

Of course he was more involved in the trial -- duh! my point was that I didn't realize the anniversary date and I'm a simpson junkie -- so what makes you think he knew? no one was out to get orenthal. he's a thug and a thief who finally got caught and now he pays the price. to continue to blame everyone for his poor choices and bad behavior is sad.

To not want to consider that a defendant's Due Process rights might have been violated is sadder, imho.

[weezer]

To not want to consider that a defendant's Due Process rights might have been violated is sadder, imho.

what more did you want for orenthal? he was represented in a court of law and found guilty. he had no rights denied. he was just simply guilty. listen to the tapes and you'll have to agree.

it is my opinion that you would argue violation of due process no matter who the defendant or the crime. :eek: I'm not so much that way. I believe that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes and defense lawyers held in distain when they use the laws made to protect us just to win.

[martin II]

I have posted links that the defense objected to the tapes. I also remember that the prosecution played the tapes during their opening statement, at which time Galantar objected, stating that they had not been entered into evidence, but believed they would be later based upon a foundation for them and that he intended to use them. The fact that he intended to use and did use them does not mean, to me, that he waived any objection to their subsequent admissibility.

Since the jury's statement is that they relied solely on the tapes and if they are subsequently ruled inadmissible, then there is no evidence upon which to convict and a reversal may be required as a matter of law.

Weezer
If the unauthenticated tapes are ruled inadmissible on appeal, what will your argument be at that point. i don't think you could stand to see oj released but maby you could.imo