Nevada Case Discussion Only

[martin II]

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.

Are you suggesting that the prosecution does not abuse the law only to win.
Laws are also written to protect the rights of the accused whether you believe they should be or not.imo

[weezer]

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

and what do you believe the basis would be for the tapes being inadmissible?

[weezer]

Are you suggesting that the prosecution does not abuse the law only to win.
Laws are also written to protect the rights of the accused whether you believe they should be or not.imo

of course there is abuse on both sides -- no one denies that.

look, how about you post when you bring something other than argument to the table?

[martin II]

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

Are you ready to give William the link to what you have read that caused you to believe ojs homestead status is effected as a result of his bail issue?
now would be a good time. imo.

[William Anthony]

and what do you believe the basis would be for the tapes being inadmissible?

Lack of a proper foundation.

[weezer]

Weezer

Are you ready to give William the link to what you have read that caused you to believe ojs homestead status is effected as a result of his bail issue?
now would be a good time. imo.

and you would be involved in this how?

[weezer]

Lack of a proper foundation.

hmmm -- I don't think so.

[martin II]

and what do you believe the basis would be for the tapes being inadmissible?

The testimony of the le tape expert that he could not authenticate the tapes and was unable to retrieve deleted files on the tapes which could mean that the jury heard/used incomplete tapes in deliberations.imo

see Williams previous post on the prosecution responsibility to authenticate tape recordings prior to them being entered as evidence.imo

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- I don't think so.

Did you read the link I supplied on what was required to authenticate recorded evidence?

[weezer]

Did you read the link I supplied on what was required to authenticate recorded evidence?

going to be hard to get past the testimony from the thugs he took with him and the fact that he never disputed his own words on the tape.

[martin II]

and you would be involved in this how?

As a poster interested in what you read to form your comments made here.

[martin II]

going to be hard to get past the testimony from the thugs he took with him and the fact that he never disputed his own words on the tape.

if the appeals court rules the tapes inadmissable , Game over regardless of what was said.

[martin II]

going to be hard to get past the testimony from the thugs he took with him and the fact that he never disputed his own words on the tape.


http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...2.77-2611.html

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

Since the prosecutions own withess, tape 'EXPERT' testified that he could not authenticate the tapes it seems that the defense will have a solid issue to present unless the fix is already in. imo

[weezer]

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...2.77-2611.html

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

well then case settled. the tapes were offered for what they were.

[martin II]

well then case settled. the tapes were offered for what they were.

'Offered for what they were"?
i have no idea as to what point you intended to make but the appeals court will have to decide if the prosecution met the above standard required for recordings to be admitted,imo

[weezer]

all this talk got me interested in the tapes again. anyone remember this part?

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

interesting huh?

[William Anthony]

going to be hard to get past the testimony from the thugs he took with him and the fact that he never disputed his own words on the tape.

If the tapes are inadmissible, then it does not matter who said what.

[William Anthony]

all this talk got me interested in the tapes again. anyone remember this part?

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

interesting huh?

Interesting, for what reason, that Yale knew someone stole the stuff 2 years ago or that Yale was allegedly at some hotel?

[martin II]

all this talk got me interested in the tapes again. anyone remember this part?

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

interesting huh?

Only if one is attempting to make lime jelly out of cement.

[martin II]

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?

Based on his stated racial biase i believe he was more focus on the task he created for himself.

[martin II]

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.

Well then how is it that frequently you know what oj was thinking. or think you know.

[weezer]

Well then how is it that frequently you know what oj was thinking. or think you know.

in your haste to answer, you either didn't read or did not comprehend my post: 'unless proven otherwise' :seeya:

[Kayleighjo]

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.

Maybe he had some animus and the date was at the front of his mind or maybe it was just karma giving a swift kick to Simpson. I don't think we'll ever really know the answer.

[Kayleighjo]

Based on his stated racial biase i believe he was more focus on the task he created for himself.

Not trying to be rude here (honestly) but it's my opinion that you have a racial bias martin ... so do you think it's fair if I assume you can't be impartial on a jury where the defendant is white?

[William Anthony]

Maybe he had some animus and the date was at the front of his mind or maybe it was just karma giving a swift kick to Simpson. I don't think we'll ever really know the answer.

Yes, that would be the problem. The defense will have to prove that he was motivated by racial animus and it will depend on the view of the appellate court as to whether or not that has been proven. I think that psychological studies can be argued in the appellate brief to indicate the foreman had an ulterior motive when he remained standing while the other members took seats, giving him the appearance of authority. Good to see you posting again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=qpWf1pdGl1YC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=tallest+person+often+chosen+to+be+the+leader+of +a+group&source=web&ots=CE1jGFRbDR&sig=CiPN3-OP_kKdTi8Bj9AIdZH4b8s&hl=en&ei=uyqQSda3E5W6twecxdGNCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

[William Anthony]

Not trying to be rude here (honestly) but it's my opinion that you have a racial bias martin ... so do you think it's fair if I assume you can't be impartial on a jury where the defendant is white?

I have taken the liberty to re-post this, because I believe Martin will see it an answer it, if I do. I think that the prosecution would want Martin on the jury, if that were the case. In essence that is the premise for the Batson challenge, not that the defendant was White but Black and Black's would not be willing to convict, because of race. All these stereotypes, may prevent a defendant from receiving a fair trial. As it relates to this case, the question is would Martin not disclose facts that would expose or allow the prosecution or defense to infer racial animus.

[weezer]

Maybe he had some animus and the date was at the front of his mind or maybe it was just karma giving a swift kick to Simpson. I don't think we'll ever really know the answer.

I'm voting karma. the guy was one of twelve. I don't care who you are, there was no way he had the power or authority to bully that jury into anything and no one complain. imo

[William Anthony]

I'm voting karma. the guy was one of twelve. I don't care who you are, there was no way he had the power or authority to bully that jury into anything and no one complain. imo

He had authority by his selection as foreman. The idea is not that he bullied the jury but whether or not he influenced them into reaching a verdict at the time he wanted a verdict rendered and whether or not his failure to disclose the information about his use of racial slurs and his standing was to get himself elected to foreman, all in connection with his feeling that Simpson was guilty of murder and his racial animus, which prevented Simpson from receiving a fair trail.

[weezer]

He had authority by his selection as foreman. The idea is not that he bullied the jury but whether or not he influenced them into reaching a verdict at the time he wanted a verdict rendered and whether or not his failure to disclose the information about his use of racial slurs and his standing was to get himself elected to foreman, all in connection with his feeling that Simpson was guilty of murder and his racial animus, which prevented Simpson from receiving a fair trail.

wow -- the conspiracy continues to envelope the world around orenthal doesn't it? :tongue:

[weezer]

all this talk got me interested in the tapes again. anyone remember this part?

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

interesting huh?

so here's my question: if riccio should be in trouble for setting it up, shouldn't yale be in trouble for not reporting it?

[William Anthony]

wow -- the conspiracy continues to envelope the world around orenthal doesn't it? :tongue:

Only in the minds of those, who will not consider only what he was convicted of.

[William Anthony]

so here's my question: if riccio should be in trouble for setting it up, shouldn't yale be in trouble for not reporting it?

You asked it of yourself. So, I guess you will answer it to yourself. :)

[martin II]

I have taken the liberty to re-post this, because I believe Martin will see it an answer it, if I do. I think that the prosecution would want Martin on the jury, if that were the case. In essence that is the premise for the Batson challenge, not that the defendant was White but Black and Black's would not be willing to convict, because of race. All these stereotypes, may prevent a defendant from receiving a fair trial. As it relates to this case, the question is would Martin not disclose facts that would expose or allow the prosecution or defense to infer racial animus.

I have been on two juries in my life.One a black man for abuse of his girlfriend
i and others voted guilty. One a white woman for stealing from her boss. i and others voted guilty.Both were convicted.

I make no conclusions based on skin color but i do based on a persons actions and words.

i have never beeen physically abused by anyone but do understand how some that have can find themselves living a life of anger even towards some that they don't know personally.

Hard work and some luck has allowed me to enjoy a great life style. the ignore option allows me to evade noise and attacks that i find offered towards me sometimes here.

I believe the jury forman lied when he told the judge that he would be able to
put aside his opinion that oj got away with murder and i believe the judge should have asked him to talk about any past incidents on race in his life.
His questionaire comments should have alerted her that he had some issues on race.
imo

[weezer]

You asked it of yourself. So, I guess you will answer it to yourself. :)

aha -- then let me ask you directly: if riccio should be in trouble for 'setting' up the robbery, then should yale be charged for not reporting it?

[martin II]

so here's my question: if riccio should be in trouble for setting it up, shouldn't yale be in trouble for not reporting it?


Beadsleys comments means what. Galanter was in Florida on the day of the incedent at Palace Station as far as i know.

Galanter had no info that Riccio was minipulating oj and the others with his hidden recorder that he used to record people for profit.

Why the bashing of Galanter? I understand how you feel about all defense lawyers from your post but defense lawyers are a necessary part of the process. by law.

[William Anthony]

aha -- then let me ask you directly: if riccio should be in trouble for 'setting' up the robbery, then should yale be charged for not reporting it?

It would depend on the relationship between Simpson and Galantar and whether Galantar thought what Simpson was doing was criminal.

http://crimeshots.com/SherriceIverson.html

[William Anthony]

I have been on two juries in my life.One a black man for abuse of his girlfriend
i and others voted guilty. One a white woman for stealing from her boss. i and others voted guilty.Both were convicted.

I make no conclusions based on skin color but i do based on a persons actions and words.

i have never beeen physically abused by anyone but do understand how some that have can find themselves living a life of anger even towards some that they don't know personally.

Hard work and some luck has allowed me to enjoy a great life style. the ignore option allows me to evade noise and attacks that i find offered towards me sometimes here.

I believe the jury forman lied when he told the judge that he would be able to
put aside his opinion that oj got away with murder and i believe the judge should have asked him to talk about any past incidents on race in his life.
His questionaire comments should have alerted her that he had some issues on race.
imo

I re-posted the post so that you and the other poster may reach some understanding. I know that you both feel passionate about some things and that you will defend those things to the utmost. I hope that this will lead to a better understanding between the two of you.

[weezer]

Beadsleys comments means what. Galanter was in Florida on the day of the incedent at Palace Station as far as i know.

Galanter had no info that Riccio was minipulating oj and the others with his hidden recorder that he used to record people for profit.

Why the bashing of Galanter? I understand how you feel about all defense lawyers from your post but defense lawyers are a necessary part of the process. by law.

hellooooo? orenthal is the one who made the statement about his lawyer being at the hotel.

I'm not bashing galanter -- it's just that you guys were throwing around who all should be in trouble over this and I wondered why you wouldn't include yale.

[weezer]

It would depend on the relationship between Simpson and Galantar and whether Galantar thought what Simpson was doing was criminal.

http://crimeshots.com/SherriceIverson.html

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

[William Anthony]

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

I think it is more accurate to say advised him not to do it. That does not mean that he considered any actions he knew of that Simpson was going to commit were criminal.

[martin II]

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

your desire to bash Galanter keeps you off base and in the wrong field.

The lawyer that told oj not to go to that hotel was a friend attending the wedding in Vegas. Not Galanter. imo

[martin II]

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

And you just assumed that this lawyer was Galanter.

[martin II]

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

Weezer

OJ has more than one lawyer/friend. One of his lawyers, not Galanter, represented him in CA when Fred attempted to take that watch from oj and this lawyer was successful in getting the judge to rule in ojs favor.
You have made the accusation that oj said his lawyer told him not to go to the hotel. Please identify what lawyer by name that you believe oj was referring to.

[weezer]

Weezer

OJ has more than one lawyer/friend. One of his lawyers, not Galanter, represented him in CA when Fred attempted to take that watch from oj and this lawyer was successful in getting the judge to rule in ojs favor.
You have made the accusation that oj said his lawyer told him not to go to the hotel. Please identify what lawyer by name that you believe oj was referring to.

LOL -- orenthal's lawyer won squat -- the judge ordered the watch turned over and when it was discovered that it was a fake, it was returned to orenthal. or maybe you meant orenthal's lawyer friend was successful in defending orenthal's ownership of the fake rolex -- :eek:

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

[martin II]

LOL -- orenthal's lawyer won squat -- the judge ordered the watch turned over and when it was discovered that it was a fake, it was returned to orenthal. or maybe you meant orenthal's lawyer friend was successful in defending orenthal's ownership of the fake rolex -- :eek:

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

Please give proof by name of the lawyer that advised oj not to go to the hotel.

[martin II]

LOL -- orenthal's lawyer won squat -- the judge ordered the watch turned over and when it was discovered that it was a fake, it was returned to orenthal. or maybe you meant orenthal's lawyer friend was successful in defending orenthal's ownership of the fake rolex -- :eek:

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

Fred asked the CA judge to award hin ojs stuff that was recovered from the
hotel room. The judge refused and directed Fred to bring him each item he was seeking so that he, the judge, could make a decision on each item. Fred was unable to do this as the Nevada DA was holding the items as trial evidence.

That was a victory for that oj lawyer and oj.

Please give proof by name of the oj lawyer that was at the Palm Hotel that advised oj not to go to the the PSH. I assume that you would not like to mislead posters into thinking it was Galanter. imo

[weezer]

Fred asked the CA judge to award hin ojs stuff that was recovered from the
hotel room. The judge refused and directed Fred to bring him each item he was seeking so that he, the judge, could make a decision on each item. Fred was unable to do this as the Nevada DA was holding the items as trial evidence.

That was a victory for that oj lawyer and oj.

Please give proof by name of the oj lawyer that was at the Palm Hotel that advised oj not to go to the the PSH. I assume that you would not like to mislead posters into thinking it was Galanter. imo

I'm curious martin -- do you know where the stuff is now? there was a dollar amount on jewelry (over $6,000 as I remember) so when it was found that orenthal had a $125 watch, it was returned.

I've given as much 'circumstantial' proof as I can: orenthal said yale was at the hotel. orenthal made the statement that his lawyer told him not to do it. any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that whatever lawyer was at the hotel was the one that advised orenthal. how do you figure anyone has been misled?

[weezer]

anyone remember the testimony about the white SUV that the stuff was loaded into?

[William Anthony]

I'm curious martin -- do you know where the stuff is now? there was a dollar amount on jewelry (over $6,000 as I remember) so when it was found that orenthal had a $125 watch, it was returned.

I've given as much 'circumstantial' proof as I can: orenthal said yale was at the hotel. orenthal made the statement that his lawyer told him not to do it. any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that whatever lawyer was at the hotel was the one that advised orenthal. how do you figure anyone has been misled?

You have used the term circumstantial evidence, which allows an inference to be drawn. To draw another inference requires another showing of circumstantial evidence and so forth and so on. You seem to be missing one piece, which is that a lawyer at the hotel told him not to do it (according to you) imho. You seem to have drawn an inference from an inference without the circumstantial evidence to allow a reasonable person to make the second inference, imho.

[weezer]

You have used the term circumstantial evidence, which allows an inference to be drawn. To draw another inference requires another showing of circumstantial evidence and so forth and so on. You seem to be missing one piece, which is that a lawyer at the hotel told him not to do it (according to you) imho. You seem to have drawn an inference from an inference without the circumstantial evidence to allow a reasonable person to make the second inference, imho.

nah -- orenthal made two statements: 1) my lawyer told me not to do this. 2) No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

[William Anthony]

nah -- orenthal made two statements: 1) my lawyer told me not to do this. 2) No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

You have changed what was said. That's what wrong when there is a missing link.

[weezer]

You have changed what was said. That's what wrong when there is a missing link.

what changed?

[martin II]

I'm curious martin -- do you know where the stuff is now? there was a dollar amount on jewelry (over $6,000 as I remember) so when it was found that orenthal had a $125 watch, it was returned.

I've given as much 'circumstantial' proof as I can: orenthal said yale was at the hotel. orenthal made the statement that his lawyer told him not to do it. any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that whatever lawyer was at the hotel was the one that advised orenthal. how do you figure anyone has been misled?

The stuff is either still in Vegas or back in CA at the disposal of judge Goldburg.
i remember a media interview with Galanter the morning,14th, and his location was in Florida. He stated that he was catching a flight that morning for Vegas.

Freds lawyer had claimed that the watch in the photo on ojs arm was a Rolex
with a value of about $25,000.00. At the judges order oj sent the watch to his LA lawyer who gave it to the court along with a evaluation report.

When the judge was informed that the watch he had received was not the watch claimed by Freds lawyer, a $25,000 Rolex, he ordered the fake watch returned.

Did oj say Galanter was at the Palm hotel on 6/13 or did he simply say my lawyer is at the hotel.

I have seen nothing that could be considered proof that it was Galanter that advised oj not to go to the hotel. I have seen many attempts to paint any oj defense lawyer by using nagative comments.

[martin II]

nah -- orenthal made two statements: 1) my lawyer told me not to do this. 2) No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Yale could have been at A hotel in Vegas but i believe it would have been sometime in the afternoon or night of 6/14 the day after the event. OJ was told not to go to the PSH sometime on 6/13 by a lawyer before he went.

[martin II]

according to orenthal, his lawyer warned him him not to do it --

I have seen no proof that the lawyer oj referred to was Galanter. As a matter of fact Galanter was in Florida so i believe it was a mistake to just assume that Galanter was the lawyer in question.imo

[William Anthony]

what changed?

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

[martin II]

hellooooo? orenthal is the one who made the statement about his lawyer being at the hotel.

I'm not bashing galanter -- it's just that you guys were throwing around who all should be in trouble over this and I wondered why you wouldn't include yale.

Very simple, Galanter did not manipulate both parties to meet.Galanter did not scam anyone by secretely taping their conversations. Galanter had no tape to sell to the media like Riccio.

[martin II]

hellooooo? orenthal is the one who made the statement about his lawyer being at the hotel.

I'm not bashing galanter -- it's just that you guys were throwing around who all should be in trouble over this and I wondered why you wouldn't include yale.

Very simple, Galanter did not manipulate both parties to meet.Galanter did not scam anyone by secretely taping their conversations. Galanter had no tape to sell to the media like Riccio.

[William Anthony]

Very simple, Galanter did not manipulate both parties to meet.Galanter did not scam anyone by secretely taping their conversations. Galanter had no tape to sell to the media like Riccio.

I think, if there was any evidence linking Galantar to this, it would have been brought out.

[Kayleighjo]

I re-posted the post so that you and the other poster may reach some understanding. I know that you both feel passionate about some things and that you will defend those things to the utmost. I hope that this will lead to a better understanding between the two of you.

There won't ever be an understanding until martin decides to lift the blinders and take a good look around. I won't hold my breath. And frankly you should stop trying to create an understanding.

He has the narrow vision and arrogant attitude to be presumptuous enough to assume that any woman that has ever been abused must harbor anger and in turn must hate O.J. Simpson. What he doesn't consider is that regardless of Simpson's abuse, Simpson gives many of us plenty of other reasons to hate him.

He berates others for saying what they think another person thought while he turns around and waxes on about he "knows" this about Simpson and "knows" that about Galanter, etc.

What a piece of work, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[martin II]

I think, if there was any evidence linking Galantar to this, it would have been brought out.

i actually believe the lawyer in question was the lawyer that won the CA hearing against Fred or another lawyer friend of ojs. Either one could have been in Vegas for the wedding. There is also the possibility that Grasso advised oj not to go to the PSH. At any rate it shows that oj was not shy about speaking to people about what Riccio had set up.

[William Anthony]

There won't ever be an understanding until martin decides to lift the blinders and take a good look around. I won't hold my breath. And frankly you should stop trying to create an understanding.

He has the narrow vision and arrogant attitude to be presumptuous enough to assume that any woman that has ever been abused must harbor anger and in turn must hate O.J. Simpson. What he doesn't consider is that regardless of Simpson's abuse, Simpson gives many of us plenty of other reasons to hate him.

He berates others for saying what they think another person thought while he turns around and waxes on about he "knows" this about Simpson and "knows" that about Galanter, etc.

What a piece of work, and I don't mean that in a good way.

I am smart enough to know that I can't fix everything. I tried. :)

[William Anthony]

i actually believe the lawyer in question was the lawyer that won the CA hearing against Fred or another lawyer friend of ojs. Either one could have been in Vegas for the wedding. There is also the possibility that Grasso advised oj not to go to the PSH. At any rate it shows that oj was not shy about speaking to people about what Riccio had set up.

That is a problem with the English language-the use of improper nouns. "My lawyer" could mean any lawyer that Simpson had retained. This is were a good lawyer or a student trying to become a good lawyer would ask, when you say my lawyer, can you be more specific and give us the name of that lawyer." IMHO.

[weezer]

That is a problem with the English language-the use of improper nouns. "My lawyer" could mean any lawyer that Simpson had retained. This is were a good lawyer or a student trying to become a good lawyer would ask, when you say my lawyer, can you be more specific and give us the name of that lawyer." IMHO.

but orenthal did say who was at the hotel: "Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now."

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . .At any rate it shows that oj was not shy about speaking to people about what Riccio had set up."

LOL -- this seems to have been a problem with orenthal for most of his life -- he doesn't know when to shut up!

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . . When the judge was informed that the watch he had received was not the watch claimed by Freds lawyer, a $25,000 Rolex, he ordered the fake watch returned. . ."

pursuant to the original court order which put a minimum value on any jewelry. ;)

[weezer]

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

more than a little dishonest on your part don't you think? my post was from the transcript. I changed nothing.

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

[weezer]

I think it is more accurate to say advised him not to do it. That does not mean that he considered any actions he knew of that Simpson was going to commit were criminal.

so you believe that the lawyer was ignorant of the 'turn over orders'?

[weezer]

I think, if there was any evidence linking Galantar to this, it would have been brought out.

what in the world makes you believe it's over? :eek:

[William Anthony]

so you believe that the lawyer was ignorant of the 'turn over orders'?

That was not part of the Nevada case or should I say shouldn't have been. In any event, the lawyer did not know what belonged to Mr. Goldman or Simpson, which has yet to be determined according to my understanding.

[William Anthony]

what in the world makes you believe it's over? :eek:

Galantar was not listed as a defendant in the NEVADA CASE.

[William Anthony]

more than a little dishonest on your part don't you think? my post was from the transcript. I changed nothing.

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

Then why not place it in its proper context, unless it shows that Galantar knew nothing of Simpson's conduct and could not have told him not to do it, because Beardsley was talking about the allegedly stolen property from Simpson that took place two years ago, and Simpson was telling him that Galantar knew nothing about the sting ("sh*t")?

[William Anthony]

but orenthal did say who was at the hotel: "Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now."

Please, your original speculation is that Galantar was the lawyer that told Simpson not do it and you are now changing it to Galantar being at a hotel? I reiterate that you are drawing an inference from an inference without a link to support your latter inference that Galantar told Simpson not to do it, when the transcript indicates that Galantar knew nothing of it.

[martin II]

This story is simular to the one manufactured about LD for kool aid drinkers. imo

[martin II]

more than a little dishonest on your part don't you think? my post was from the transcript. I changed nothing.

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

Again. Galanter was in Florida when a lawyer at the Palms Hotel told oj not to go to the PSH. So you are wrong to try to add Galanters as that lawyer.

[martin II]

Please, your original speculation is that Galantar was the lawyer that told Simpson not do it and you are now changing it to Galantar being at a hotel? I reiterate that you are drawing an inference from an inference without a link to support your latter inference that Galantar told Simpson not to do it, when the transcript indicates that Galantar knew nothing of it.

It looks to me like it is old down south MAKING STUFF UP.

[martin II]

more than a little dishonest on your part don't you think? my post was from the transcript. I changed nothing.

"Beardsley: Hey OJ, Yale knew all about this stuff.

Simpson: No man, Yale didn't know about this sh*t _______ he's at the hotel waiting on us right now.

Beardsley: No, I'm talking about two years ago, OJ.

Simpson: My lawyer's at the f*****g hotel waitin' right now."

i think you are up to your old tricks of twisting again.

[martin II]

so you believe that the lawyer was ignorant of the 'turn over orders'?

Quite a leap you have made from Galanter telling oj not to do it to a turn over order from another case.

[martin II]

pursuant to the original court order which put a minimum value on any jewelry. ;)

And fred was left empty handed again.

[martin II]

pursuant to the original court order which put a minimum value on any jewelry. ;)

i think the judge may have been pissed that freds lawyer had caused him to have a hearing for some nonsesne. a fake watch.

[martin II]

I am smart enough to know that I can't fix everything. I tried. :)

Sorry William but the ignore button has worked well for me as this allows me to evade nonsense.MartinII

[William Anthony]

Sorry William but the ignore button has worked well for me as this allows me to evade nonsense.MartinII

It seems to be an East and West thing. :)

[weezer]

i think you are up to your old tricks of twisting again.

LOL -- love it! I post orenthal's words and "I'm" the one twisting. ;)

[weezer]

And fred was left empty handed again.

not near as empty as orenthal! LOL

shall we compare their lives? LOL

[weezer]

Again. Galanter was in Florida when a lawyer at the Palms Hotel told oj not to go to the PSH. So you are wrong to try to add Galanters as that lawyer.

post a link to your statement that galanter was in florida during the armed robbery please.

[weezer]

post a link to your statement that galanter was in florida during the armed robbery please.

okay -- found info that galanter was not the lawyer at the hotel. so maybe the first lawyer that visited orenthal in jail -- the one galanter ran off once he hit town?

[martin II]

okay -- found info that galanter was not the lawyer at the hotel. so maybe the first lawyer that visited orenthal in jail -- the one galanter ran off once he hit town?

Thanks

[martin II]

I am smart enough to know that I can't fix everything. I tried. :)

I think it is the person that admits to carrying hate in her heart that has the problem regardless of who the hate is directed to Which is why i refuse to post to such a person.:cool:

I admire you for your smarts and your post.

[William Anthony]

I think it is the person that admits to carrying hate in her heart that has the problem regardless of who the hate is directed to Which is why i refuse to post to such a person.:cool:

I admire you for your smarts and your post.

Thank you for understanding.

[William Anthony]

I have wondered on what basis the tapes were admitted. I understand the business record exception to hearsay, which is what Riccio tried to put forth, imho. Hearsay cannot be admitted to prove the matter asserted, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. Since it has been said that Simpson repeatedly stated on the tapes that he was there only to get his stuff (intent), I do not think the tapes qualify as statements against interest or admissions.

[martin II]

I have wondered on what basis the tapes were admitted. I understand the business record exception to hearsay, which is what Riccio tried to put forth, imho. Hearsay cannot be admitted to prove the matter asserted, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. Since it has been said that Simpson repeatedly stated on the tapes that he was there only to get his stuff (intent), I do not think the tapes qualify as statements against interest or admissions.

Riccio did spend some time claiming that he tapes all of his business meetings.
i don't understand how the LE experts testimony that he could not authenticate the accuracy of the tapes was ignored by the judge.That decision seems to go against the legal requirement.

[William Anthony]

Here are the Nevada statutes in regard to the admissibility of recorded recollections.

http://law.justia.com/nevada/codes/NRS-051.html#NRS051Sec125

[weezer]

I have wondered on what basis the tapes were admitted. I understand the business record exception to hearsay, which is what Riccio tried to put forth, imho. Hearsay cannot be admitted to prove the matter asserted, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. Since it has been said that Simpson repeatedly stated on the tapes that he was there only to get his stuff (intent), I do not think the tapes qualify as statements against interest or admissions.

actually it was established that Riccio does in fact tape his business dealings. orenthal's crimes fell within the scope of nevada law -- which, btw, does not care what his 'intent' was as it relates to getting back stuff he 'thought' was his. and remember, he took stuff that even he couldn't claim he 'thought' was his.

[weezer]

NRS 48.059 Habit; routine practice.

1. Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

2. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1973, 25)

[William Anthony]

actually it was established that Riccio does in fact tape his business dealings. orenthal's crimes fell within the scope of nevada law -- which, btw, does not care what his 'intent' was as it relates to getting back stuff he 'thought' was his. and remember, he took stuff that even he couldn't claim he 'thought' was his.

Ah, a sign of a good lawyer or one, who wants to be a good lawyer, is anticipation and preparation, :). We now must consider the testimony that the some of the tapes were deleted and the expert could not testify they had been changed in regard to the prosecution's burden to produce clear and convincing evidence and the wording of the statute, when we consider, if the tapes were properly admitted.

"...is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness."

The prosecution should have been required to show that the tapes are trustworthy by clear and convincing evidence, imho. I think this will be an issue on appeal.

[William Anthony]

NRS 48.059 Habit; routine practice.

1. Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

2. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1973, 25)

Then Riccio should have been required to show that he routinely engaged in stings and recorded them, if that was his business. In fact, he should have been required to produce recordings of his meetings with the FBI to show evidence of his pattern or routine.

[weezer]

Ah, a sign of a good lawyer or one, who wants to be a good lawyer, is anticipation and preparation, :). We now must consider the testimony that the some of the tapes were deleted and the expert could not testify they had been changed in regard to the prosecution's burden to produce clear and convincing evidence and the wording of the statute, when we consider, if the tapes were properly admitted.

"...is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness."

The prosecution should have been required to show that the tapes are trustworthy by clear and convincing evidence, imho. I think this will be an issue on appeal.

the tapes were substantiated by the testimony of the witnesses. pretty clear and convincing evidence, imho.

[weezer]

Then Riccio should have been required to show that he routinely engaged in stings and recorded them, if that was his business. In fact, he should have been required to produce recordings of his meetings with the FBI to show evidence of his pattern or routine.

:confused: 1. Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. :shrug:

seems pretty clear to me.

[William Anthony]

the tapes were substantiated by the testimony of the witnesses. pretty clear and convincing evidence, imho.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. They were not substantiated and a witness testified that some things were missing and the expert testified he could not say that the tapes were not changed. The prosecution should have been held to its burden to prove they were not before they were admitted, imho.

[William Anthony]

:confused: 1. Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. :shrug:

seems pretty clear to me.

Yes, it may be clear that his routinely taped things, which does not eliminate the requirement of trustworthiness, imho. In fact, he may have routinely deleted and changed tapes. You may be arguing two different concepts.

[William Anthony]

Although not directly on point, this may explain the concept of trustworthiness of evidence in regard to scientific testimony, meaning that of the expert and the role of the judge. It appears to met that judge J. glass may have abused her discretion.

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/01-VLR-daubert.htm

“The innovation of Frye lies in how the Court of Appeals ascertained whether the technique was too speculative. The court was not content to rely solely on the assertion of the well qualified expert who had experimented with systolic blood pressure as an indicator of truthfulness; neither was it prepared to inquire directly into whether his work was sufficient to establish the validity of the technique. Rather, it affirmed the exclusion of the evidence on the neoteric ground that other psychologists had yet to accept Marston's claim that he could verify honesty by measuring the speaker's blood pressure. Although no previous cases explicitly had held this general acceptance to be indispensable, the court boldly wrote:

Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. (58)

The requirement of general acceptance, like any special trustworthiness test, tends to screen out evidence. The Frye court offered no reason for imposing this special requirement, but subsequent courts and commentators have filled the gap. As noted above, the rule can be understood as a crystallization of the ad hoc balancing that trial courts are expected to undertake. Ideally, it screens out evidence that is superficially impressive but not [----------1947----------] sufficiently probative because it is not scientifically valid. It does not ask--or even permit--the court to ascertain scientific validity for itself. Instead, the court defers to the scientific community, for the rule treats "general acceptance" as a surrogate for validity. [B]By looking to the views of the scientific community, the rule avoids having the judge act like an independent scientist. “

[weezer]

Although not directly on point, this may explain the concept of trustworthiness of evidence in regard to scientific testimony, meaning that of the expert and the role of the judge. It appears to met that judge J. glass may have abused her discretion.

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/01-VLR-daubert.htm

“The innovation of Frye lies in how the Court of Appeals ascertained whether the technique was too speculative. The court was not content to rely solely on the assertion of the well qualified expert who had experimented with systolic blood pressure as an indicator of truthfulness; neither was it prepared to inquire directly into whether his work was sufficient to establish the validity of the technique. Rather, it affirmed the exclusion of the evidence on the neoteric ground that other psychologists had yet to accept Marston's claim that he could verify honesty by measuring the speaker's blood pressure. Although no previous cases explicitly had held this general acceptance to be indispensable, the court boldly wrote:

Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. (58)

The requirement of general acceptance, like any special trustworthiness test, tends to screen out evidence. The Frye court offered no reason for imposing this special requirement, but subsequent courts and commentators have filled the gap. As noted above, the rule can be understood as a crystallization of the ad hoc balancing that trial courts are expected to undertake. Ideally, it screens out evidence that is superficially impressive but not [----------1947----------] sufficiently probative because it is not scientifically valid. It does not ask--or even permit--the court to ascertain scientific validity for itself. Instead, the court defers to the scientific community, for the rule treats "general acceptance" as a surrogate for validity. [B]By looking to the views of the scientific community, the rule avoids having the judge act like an independent scientist. “

whoa! what in the world does this have to do with the tape recordings and Judge Glass ruling? There was nothing scientific to be decided or ruled on. There was no scientific validity made by Judge Glass.

[William Anthony]

whoa! what in the world does this have to do with the tape recordings and Judge Glass ruling? There was nothing scientific to be decided or ruled on. There was no scientific validity made by Judge Glass.

Did you forget that the expert testified that he couldn't say the tapes had not been changed and the requirement that the state had to show by clear and convincing evidence that they were not?

[weezer]

Did you forget that the expert testified that he couldn't say the tapes had not been changed and the requirement that the state had to show by clear and convincing evidence that they were not?

what makes you think there was any requirement to authenticate the tapes?

[William Anthony]

what makes you think there was any requirement to authenticate the tapes?

Training and practical experience in the rules of evidence.

[weezer]

Training and practical experience in the rules of evidence.

okay -- spell it out for me. what makes you believe there was any requirement to validate the tapes used in the trial?

[William Anthony]

okay -- spell it out for me. what makes you believe there was any requirement to validate the tapes used in the trial?

http://expertpages.com/news/verifying_integrity.htm

“An ever increasing reliance on tape evidence in criminal prosecutions, especially in organized crime and drug cases, underscores the importance of tape integrity and the methods used to qualify or disqualify tape evidence.”

AES E-Library: "Caught Red Handed" - Forensic Audio Workflow ...
For example, in Nevada, I understand no covert recordings are admissible. ... Covert recording of suspects in a criminal case is certainly not new, but Kent Gibson .... When evidence materials are received at a forensic audio laboratory, ..... They also sell acquisition, collection and authentication tools for law ...

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

[weezer]

http://expertpages.com/news/verifying_integrity.htm

“An ever increasing reliance on tape evidence in criminal prosecutions, especially in organized crime and drug cases, underscores the importance of tape integrity and the methods used to qualify or disqualify tape evidence.”

AES E-Library: "Caught Red Handed" - Forensic Audio Workflow ...
For example, in Nevada, I understand no covert recordings are admissible. ... Covert recording of suspects in a criminal case is certainly not new, but Kent Gibson .... When evidence materials are received at a forensic audio laboratory, ..... They also sell acquisition, collection and authentication tools for law ...

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

I don't believe this applies to 'in person' conversations where one of the parties is recording.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe this applies to 'in person' conversations where one of the parties is recording.

I was addressing your question on the requirement that the tapes needed authentication. Do you now feel that they did? We can discuss the covert taping next, if you would like.

"underscores the importance of tape integrity and the methods used to qualify or disqualify tape evidence.'

[weezer]

I was addressing your question on the requirement that the tapes needed authentication. Do you now feel that they did? We can discuss the covert taping next, if you would like.

as I understand it, the tapes were 'authenticated' by the person who legally recorded the conversations 'he' was a party to. I think you may be confusing 'surreptitious' and 'covert' -- and, 'party to' and 'intercepted' --

[weezer]

from the Nevada state code:

it is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

[weezer]

this is from a discipline case of a nevada attorney who objected to the admissibility of a videotape:

In the criminal context, this court has held that "[i]t is not necessary to negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering with an exhibit… it is sufficient to establish only that it is reasonably certain that no tampering or substitution took place, and the doubt, if any, goes to the weight of the evidence."15 The panel was reasonably able to conclude that the tape was authentic.

[William Anthony]

as I understand it, the tapes were 'authenticated' by the person who legally recorded the conversations 'he' was a party to. I think you may be confusing 'surreptitious' and 'covert' -- and, 'party to' and 'intercepted' --

I think you do not fully understand the requirements of authentication of audio recordings, which I previously posted. You may note that they are the same.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surreptitious

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/covert

[weezer]

I think you do not fully understand the requirements of authentication of audio recordings, which I previously posted. You may note that they are the same.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surreptitious

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/covert

I don't know what other way to say it: there was no requirement for the tapes to be 'authenticated' -- :shrug:

[William Anthony]

this is from a discipline case of a nevada attorney who objected to the admissibility of a videotape:

In the criminal context, this court has held that "[i]t is not necessary to negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering with an exhibit… it is sufficient to establish only that it is reasonably certain that no tampering or substitution took place, and the doubt, if any, goes to the weight of the evidence."15 The panel was reasonably able to conclude that the tape was authentic.

We are not addressing what a panel on an ethics committee is allowed to do, we are addressing the rules of evidence in a courtroom.

[weezer]

We are not addressing what a panel on an ethics committee is allowed to do, we are addressing the rules of evidence in a courtroom.

I'm sorry william if I was not clear -- the wording comes from the Nevada Supreme Court.

[weezer]

this is from a Nevada Supreme Court case on admissibility of evidence:

Finally, we consider appellant�s contention that insufficient evidence was adduced at trial to support his conviction.3 Our standard of review is "�whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.�" Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250, 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the jury could draw reasonable inferences from the evidence to establish all elements of the crimes charged. For example, the location of the Beretta behind the metal bar under the seat, coupled with the fact that the gun faced toward the front of the car with the hammer pulled back, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could lead any rational trier of fact to infer that appellant placed the Beretta under the seat and was therefore in possession of it. Likewise, any rational trier of fact could conclude that the marijuana in the black duffel bag belonged to appellant, because of (1) his voluntary statements identifying the bag as his and (2) because the casino security guard saw appellant carrying a black duffel bag outside the casino.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo105&invol=2

[weezer]

I'm sorry william if I was not clear -- the wording comes from the Nevada Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo105&invol=2

[William Anthony]

this is from a Nevada Supreme Court case on admissibility of evidence:

Finally, we consider appellant�s contention that insufficient evidence was adduced at trial to support his conviction.3 Our standard of review is "�whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.�" Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250, 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the jury could draw reasonable inferences from the evidence to establish all elements of the crimes charged. For example, the location of the Beretta behind the metal bar under the seat, coupled with the fact that the gun faced toward the front of the car with the hammer pulled back, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could lead any rational trier of fact to infer that appellant placed the Beretta under the seat and was therefore in possession of it. Likewise, any rational trier of fact could conclude that the marijuana in the black duffel bag belonged to appellant, because of (1) his voluntary statements identifying the bag as his and (2) because the casino security guard saw appellant carrying a black duffel bag outside the casino.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo105&invol=2

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges but I will review your link. By a quick word search, there is nothing in your link about a video tape or its admissibility. The jury based the conviction of Simpson and Stewart solely on the tapes, according to their statements

[weezer]

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges but I will review your link.

what I have found is that the cases (Ohio, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, Washington) all use the same wording for all kinds of cases: video taping, urin samples, drugs, ballot boxes, chain of custody, etc. . .

[martin II]

Although not directly on point, this may explain the concept of trustworthiness of evidence in regard to scientific testimony, meaning that of the expert and the role of the judge. It appears to met that judge J. glass may have abused her discretion.

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/01-VLR-daubert.htm

“The innovation of Frye lies in how the Court of Appeals ascertained whether the technique was too speculative. The court was not content to rely solely on the assertion of the well qualified expert who had experimented with systolic blood pressure as an indicator of truthfulness; neither was it prepared to inquire directly into whether his work was sufficient to establish the validity of the technique. Rather, it affirmed the exclusion of the evidence on the neoteric ground that other psychologists had yet to accept Marston's claim that he could verify honesty by measuring the speaker's blood pressure. Although no previous cases explicitly had held this general acceptance to be indispensable, the court boldly wrote:

Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. (58)

The requirement of general acceptance, like any special trustworthiness test, tends to screen out evidence. The Frye court offered no reason for imposing this special requirement, but subsequent courts and commentators have filled the gap. As noted above, the rule can be understood as a crystallization of the ad hoc balancing that trial courts are expected to undertake. Ideally, it screens out evidence that is superficially impressive but not [----------1947----------] sufficiently probative because it is not scientifically valid. It does not ask--or even permit--the court to ascertain scientific validity for itself. Instead, the court defers to the scientific community, for the rule treats "general acceptance" as a surrogate for validity. [B]By looking to the views of the scientific community, the rule avoids having the judge act like an independent scientist. “


I agree.
Adationally the le detective that listened to the tapes testified that he was NOT a tape expert as he had had no scientific training in that area.

I think it was Stewarts lawyer that asked why one of the many tape recording expert companies in the area had not been employed to evaluate and authenticate the tapes. His response was that he did not do that.
He also testified that he just used his previous memory from telephone conversations to identify various persons voices on the tapes. However McClinton testified that in one or two instances the detective had wrongly
assigned a voice to him when in fact it was not him.

The other two FBI experts nor the detective was able to retrieve 2-3 of the deleted files nor were they able to authenticate the tapes so i don't understand why the tapes were allowed into evidence. imo

[William Anthony]

what I have found is that the cases (Ohio, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, Washington) all use the same wording for all kinds of cases: video taping, urin samples, drugs, ballot boxes, chain of custody, etc. . .

There was nothing in your link on the case law about tapes, according to the word search. There was nothing in your link about authentication of evidence.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-052.html#NRS052Sec015

" 3. Every authentication or identification is rebuttable by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding."

(Added to NRS by 1971, 798)

[martin II]

what I have found is that the cases (Ohio, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, Washington) all use the same wording for all kinds of cases: video taping, urin samples, drugs, ballot boxes, chain of custody, etc. . .

Here we are talking about recording devices.

If i remember correctly the law for telephone taping is different from the law on recording devices. Williams recent post on prosecutions responsibility specifically addresses responsibility for recording devices.imo

[William Anthony]

what I have found is that the cases (Ohio, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, Washington) all use the same wording for all kinds of cases: video taping, urin samples, drugs, ballot boxes, chain of custody, etc. . .

I am not disputing that. I am saying that the Nevada Supreme court has ruled that the prosecution had to show by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. That is a foundation requirement to authentication and, subsequent, admissibility. Your link seems to be arguing the sufficiency of the evidence after it was admitted and not to whether it should have been admitted. Without reading the case, it appears to me that the defendant was saying that there were holes in the case against him that were insufficient to support a conviction but the court ruled there was enough circumstantial evidence to support the conviction. That is what I meant by apples and oranges.

[weezer]

I agree.
Adationally the le detective that listened to the tapes testified that he was NOT a tape expert as he had had no scientific training in that area.

I think it was Stewarts lawyer that asked why one of the many tape recording expert companies in the area had not been employed to evaluate and authenticate the tapes. His response was that he did not do that.
He also testified that he just used his previous memory from telephone conversations to identify various persons voices on the tapes. However McClinton testified that in one or two instances the detective had wrongly
assigned a voice to him when in fact it was not him.

The other two FBI experts nor the detective was able to retrieve 2-3 of the deleted files nor were they able to authenticate the tapes so i don't understand why the tapes were allowed into evidence. imo

FBI Agent Testifies On OJ Simpson Tape Recordings LAS VEGAS (AP) ―

OJ Simpson arrives at Miami International Airport on Thursday Jan. 17th, 2008, a day after an angry Las Vegas judge doubled his bail but allowed him to stay out of jail while he awaits trial on armed robbery charges.

An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording.

FBI forensics audio examiner Kenneth Marr said in prerecorded testimony that the tiny digital recorder secretly used by collectibles broker Thomas Riccio to record the alleged robbery last year didn't have advanced features that would ensure the security of the information on it.

But Marr did authenticate another tape that Riccio said he obtained with a separate analog recorder at a pool at the Palms hotel and casino. That recording was made several hours before the conflict between the former football star and two sports memorabilia dealers at the Palace Station hotel.

Prosecutors say the analog tape includes the voices of Simpson and several other men planning to confront the memorabilia peddlers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Marr's appearance was videotaped Aug. 25 because he was scheduled to be out of the country. Asked by Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass if he could say whether the digital recording contained edits or manipulations, Marr replied: "I could not determine if those files had been altered or not."

A key question is whether any of the tapes contain mention of guns being used. Both Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart say they saw no guns.

Stewart's defense lawyer, Brent Bryson, lost a bid to have both recordings disqualified as evidence because of problems including who had custody of them. The digital recorder was kept from police for eight days while Riccio sold the tape to an Internet gossip site.

"The device itself is inherently untrustworthy," Bryson said.

Glass said she would allow the poolside recording and let the recording from the hotel room be used if the voices on the tape could be individually verified.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said he wants jurors to hear all 10 hours of Riccio's recordings but has questions about a written transcript that will be given to jurors.

http://cbs4.com/national/OJ.Simpson.Las.2.820111.html

[martin II]

I don't know what other way to say it: there was no requirement for the tapes to be 'authenticated' -- :shrug:

Are you ignoring williams post on authentication requirements?

[weezer]

Are you ignoring williams post on authentication requirements?

martin -- there was/is no authentication requirements on the tape made by riccio or mcclinton. both men offered 'their' tapes and when they did, the tapes were authenticated. you may be questioning the contents of the tapes?

[William Anthony]

FBI Agent Testifies On OJ Simpson Tape Recordings LAS VEGAS (AP) ―

OJ Simpson arrives at Miami International Airport on Thursday Jan. 17th, 2008, a day after an angry Las Vegas judge doubled his bail but allowed him to stay out of jail while he awaits trial on armed robbery charges.

An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording.

FBI forensics audio examiner Kenneth Marr said in prerecorded testimony that the tiny digital recorder secretly used by collectibles broker Thomas Riccio to record the alleged robbery last year didn't have advanced features that would ensure the security of the information on it.

But Marr did authenticate another tape that Riccio said he obtained with a separate analog recorder at a pool at the Palms hotel and casino. That recording was made several hours before the conflict between the former football star and two sports memorabilia dealers at the Palace Station hotel.

Prosecutors say the analog tape includes the voices of Simpson and several other men planning to confront the memorabilia peddlers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Marr's appearance was videotaped Aug. 25 because he was scheduled to be out of the country. Asked by Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass if he could say whether the digital recording contained edits or manipulations, Marr replied: "I could not determine if those files had been altered or not."

A key question is whether any of the tapes contain mention of guns being used. Both Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart say they saw no guns.

Stewart's defense lawyer, Brent Bryson, lost a bid to have both recordings disqualified as evidence because of problems including who had custody of them. The digital recorder was kept from police for eight days while Riccio sold the tape to an Internet gossip site.

"The device itself is inherently untrustworthy," Bryson said.

Glass said she would allow the poolside recording and let the recording from the hotel room be used if the voices on the tape could be individually verified.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said he wants jurors to hear all 10 hours of Riccio's recordings but has questions about a written transcript that will be given to jurors.

http://cbs4.com/national/OJ.Simpson.Las.2.820111.html

Wanting the jury to hear them is not the same as waiving a prior objection to their admissibility. For instance, I might want the jury to hear that a neighbor thought that I would not commit a crime, even though I knew that the testimony would likely be inadmissible. Galantar objected on the the grounds that the tapes should not be used but agreed to their use subject to latter authentication.

"An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording.

FBI forensics audio examiner Kenneth Marr said in prerecorded testimony that the tiny digital recorder secretly used by collectibles broker Thomas Riccio to record the alleged robbery last year didn't have advanced features that would ensure the security of the information on it.

But Marr did authenticate another tape that Riccio said he obtained with a separate analog recorder at a pool at the Palms hotel and casino. That recording was made several hours before the conflict between the former football star and two sports memorabilia dealers at the Palace Station hotel.

Prosecutors say the analog tape includes the voices of Simpson and several other men planning to confront the memorabilia peddlers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Marr's appearance was videotaped Aug. 25 because he was scheduled to be out of the country. Asked by Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass if he could say whether the digital recording contained edits or manipulations, Marr replied: "I could not determine if those files had been altered or not."

[William Anthony]

martin -- there was/is no authentication requirements on the tape made by riccio or mcclinton. both men offered 'their' tapes and when they did, the tapes were authenticated. you may be questioning the contents of the tapes?

Are you ignoring the Nevada statute that I supplied and the prosecution's burden? Do you not understand that the accuracy of the contents is a part of authentication? If you will allow me to digress just momentarily, do you not understand that the voir dire of LHM was to authenticate the tapes, not only to how she taped them but to the accuracy of the contents? Evidence cannot be admitted without a foundation as to its authentication, as with direct testimony. A foundation must be laid that the witness was in a position to testify to what they are saying and that is subject to cross examination for accuracy. The only test of the accuracy of a tape is that there is clear and convincing evidence that it has not been alerted by expert testimony, which is lacking in this case, imho.

[martin II]

FBI Agent Testifies On OJ Simpson Tape Recordings LAS VEGAS (AP) ―

OJ Simpson arrives at Miami International Airport on Thursday Jan. 17th, 2008, a day after an angry Las Vegas judge doubled his bail but allowed him to stay out of jail while he awaits trial on armed robbery charges.

An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording.

FBI forensics audio examiner Kenneth Marr said in prerecorded testimony that the tiny digital recorder secretly used by collectibles broker Thomas Riccio to record the alleged robbery last year didn't have advanced features that would ensure the security of the information on it.

But Marr did authenticate another tape that Riccio said he obtained with a separate analog recorder at a pool at the Palms hotel and casino. That recording was made several hours before the conflict between the former football star and two sports memorabilia dealers at the Palace Station hotel.

Prosecutors say the analog tape includes the voices of Simpson and several other men planning to confront the memorabilia peddlers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Marr's appearance was videotaped Aug. 25 because he was scheduled to be out of the country. Asked by Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass if he could say whether the digital recording contained edits or manipulations, Marr replied: "I could not determine if those files had been altered or not."

A key question is whether any of the tapes contain mention of guns being used. Both Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart say they saw no guns.

Stewart's defense lawyer, Brent Bryson, lost a bid to have both recordings disqualified as evidence because of problems including who had custody of them. The digital recorder was kept from police for eight days while Riccio sold the tape to an Internet gossip site.

"The device itself is inherently untrustworthy," Bryson said.

Glass said she would allow the poolside recording and let the recording from the hotel room be used if the voices on the tape could be individually verified.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said he wants jurors to hear all 10 hours of Riccio's recordings but has questions about a written transcript that will be given to jurors.

http://cbs4.com/national/OJ.Simpson.Las.2.820111.html


Fumong testified that oj or someone in the room said "PUT THE GUN DOWN"
But on hearing the tapes there was no voice heard saying 'PUT THE GUN DOWN" Fumong made that up.

[William Anthony]

Fumong testified that oj or someone in the room said "PUT THE GUN DOWN"
But on hearing the tapes there was no voice heard saying 'PUT THE GUN DOWN" Fumong made that up.

Or the tape was altered, there seems to be a lack of trustworthiness.

[weezer]

SNIPPED ***". . . Marr replied:"I could not determine if those files had been altered or not."

exactly! "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

objections were to who said what. unfortunately for orenthal, he ranting/raving voice is recognizable to just about everyone. did he ever deny that that wasn't him on the tapes?

[weezer]

Are you ignoring the Nevada statute that I supplied and the prosecution's burden? Do you not understand that the accuracy of the contents is a part of authentication? If you will allow me to digress just momentarily, do you not understand that the voir dire of LHM was to authenticate the tapes, not only to how she taped them but to the accuracy of the contents? Evidence cannot be admitted without a foundation as to its authentication, as with direct testimony. A foundation must be laid that the witness was in a position to testify to what they are saying and that is subject to cross examination for accuracy. The only test of the accuracy of a tape is that there is clear and convincing evidence that it has not been alerted by expert testimony, which is lacking in this case, imho.

riccio was examined and cross examined on the tapes. he identified the tape recorder, said where and how he placed it in the room and how he retrieved it after the armed robbery. expert testimony was that it could not be determined 'whether or not' anything on the tape had been manipulated. not that it had been or even probably was. it is the defense's responsibility to identify where on the tapes they alledge manipulation or tampering.

[martin II]

martin -- there was/is no authentication requirements on the tape made by riccio or mcclinton. both men offered 'their' tapes and when they did, the tapes were authenticated. you may be questioning the contents of the tapes?

Weezer

Again
see williams post on authentication of tape require by Nevada Supreme Court
and tell me what that means to you.

Riccio made the tapes, gave them to his business partner who loaded them on his computer. riccio then sold a copy to TMZ. eight days later he gave them to the prosecution.That is a chain of custody issue if i ever saw one.
Plenty of time and opportunity to alter/delete the tapes.

[William Anthony]

riccio was examined and cross examined on the tapes. he identified the tape recorder, said where and how he placed it in the room and how he retrieved it after the armed robbery. expert testimony was that it could not be determined 'whether or not' anything on the tape had been manipulated. not that it had been or even probably was. it is the defense's responsibility to identify where on the tapes they alledge manipulation or tampering.

The defense elicited testimony that the tape could not be authenticated as to its accuracy. It was then the prosecution's burden to show that it was, not possibly was, by clear and convincing evidence, according to Nevada law, in order for the tape to be admitted, imho.

[William Anthony]

exactly! "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

objections were to who said what. unfortunately for orenthal, he ranting/raving voice is recognizable to just about everyone. did he ever deny that that wasn't him on the tapes?

Why do you persist in mixing apples and oranges. I am not arguing the sufficiency of the statements on the tapes but whether the tapes were admissible. If they were not admissible, then it matters not who said what. The fact is that the prosecution did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate-authentication.

[martin II]

Or the tape was altered, there seems to be a lack of trustworthiness.

IFfumong was correct then the tapes were altered and those words deleted by who ever had the tapes for eight days or more.

[weezer]

The defense elicited testimony that the tape could not be authenticated as to its accuracy. It was then the prosecution's burden to show that it was, not possibly was, by clear and convincing evidence, according to Nevada law, in order for the tape to be admitted, imho.

I believe you will find that you are wrong. the prosecution offered the tapes and the man who did the taping for cross examination. after throwing everything against the wall, the defense elicited testimony that there could be no determination of whether or not the armed robbery tape was or was not tampered with. He didn't testify that it was or probably was. as I've posted, it is the defense's responsibility to identify where on the tapes they alledge manipulation or tampering.

did you note that he did vouch for the 'before the armed robbery' planning tape?

[martin II]

I believe you will find that you are wrong. the prosecution offered the tapes and the man who did the taping for cross examination. after throwing everything against the wall, the defense elicited testimony that there could be no determination of whether or not the armed robbery tape was or was not tampered with. He didn't testify that it was or probably was. as I've posted, it is the defense's responsibility to identify where on the tapes they alledge manipulation or tampering.

did you note that he did vouch for the 'before the armed robbery' planning tape?

Not according to Nevada Supreme Court.Authentication is the responsibility of the prosecution.

[weezer]

Why do you persist in mixing apples and oranges. I am not arguing the sufficiency of the statements on the tapes but whether the tapes were admissible. If they were not admissible, then it matters not who said what. The fact is that the prosecution did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate-authentication.

the prosecution said 'yes' they are accurate. the defense just said 'uh-uh' and expected what? the defense had to do more than just say -- they had the responsibility to identify why/where/what. for the defense to say 'you've got some of the names wrong -- that was 'b' and not 'c'. IIRC, orenthal's voice was never mistaken.

[William Anthony]

I believe you will find that you are wrong. the prosecution offered the tapes and the man who did the taping for cross examination. after throwing everything against the wall, the defense elicited testimony that there could be no determination of whether or not the armed robbery tape was or was not tampered with. He didn't testify that it was or probably was. as I've posted, it is the defense's responsibility to identify where on the tapes they alledge manipulation or tampering.

did you note that he did vouch for the 'before the armed robbery' planning tape?

You are correct in that the prosecution offered the tapes. Therefore, it was on them to produce clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate, according to the Nevada Supreme court.

[William Anthony]

the prosecution said 'yes' they are accurate. the defense just said 'uh-uh' and expected what? the defense had to do more than just say -- they had the responsibility to identify why/where/what. for the defense to say 'you've got some of the names wrong -- that was 'b' and not 'c'. IIRC, orenthal's voice was never mistaken.

The defense elicited the testimony from the expert that he couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the tapes, meaning he could not say by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. At that point, judge J. Glass should have sustained all objections to the admissibility of the tapes, imho.

[William Anthony]

IFfumong was correct then the tapes were altered and those words deleted by who ever had the tapes for eight days or more.

That seem like a logical inference to me.

[weezer]

The defense elicited the testimony from the expert that he couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the tapes, meaning he could not say by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. At that point, judge J. Glass should have sustained all objections to the admissibility of the tapes, imho.

:confused: the expert said he could not testify as to where or not the tape from the hotel room had been altered/tampered. but the defense did not produce experts or other indications of actual tampering.

are you also arguing the other tapes or just the armed robbery tape?

". . ."We'll take it all," Simpson says on one tape. "I don't want Gilbert or the Goldmans to get it. We'll take it, and you guys [his crew] can sell it. . ."

[weezer]

That seem like a logical inference to me.

LOL -- except he lied about everything else, right? riiiiiight!

[William Anthony]

:confused: the expert said he could not testify as to where or not the tape from the hotel room had been altered/tampered. but the defense did not produce experts or other indications of actual tampering.

are you also arguing the other tapes or just the armed robbery tape?

". . ."We'll take it all," Simpson says on one tape. "I don't want Gilbert or the Goldmans to get it. We'll take it, and you guys [his crew] can sell it. . ."

Correct, meaning there was no clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. Who said what means nothing, if the tapes aren't admissible, imho.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- except he lied about everything else, right? riiiiiight!

No, not at all.

[weezer]

Correct, meaning there was no clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. Who said what means nothing, if the tapes aren't admissible, imho.

william, it was the responsibility of the defense to show where/what/who was wrong with the tapes. misidentifying speakers doesn't count.

[William Anthony]

whoa! what in the world does this have to do with the tape recordings and Judge Glass ruling? There was nothing scientific to be decided or ruled on. There was no scientific validity made by Judge Glass.

Oh, but there was. She determined that the science was sufficient to establish that the tapes were accurate.

[weezer]

Oh, but there was. She determined that the science was sufficient to establish that the tapes were accurate.

you need to go back and read the ruling -- there was no evidence presented by the defense that the tapes had been tampered with.

[William Anthony]

william, it was the responsibility of the defense to show where/what/who was wrong with the tapes. misidentifying speakers doesn't count.

" 3. Every authentication or identification is rebuttable by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding."

The expert's testimony did just that. He testified that he could not say that the tapes were accurate. Hence, there was evidence to the contrary that they were accurate. Therefore, it fell upon the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that they were.

[weezer]

" 3. Every authentication or identification is rebuttable by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding."

The expert's testimony did just that. He testified that he could not say that the tapes were accurate. Hence, there was evidence to the contrary that they were accurate. Therefore, it fell upon the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that they were.

by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding." -- there was no contrary finding because the defense did not offer evidence/testimony to support their argument.

[William Anthony]

you need to go back and read the ruling -- there was no evidence presented by the defense that the tapes had been tampered with.

"Instead, the court defers to the scientific community, for the rule treats "general acceptance" as a surrogate for validity. By looking to the views of the scientific community, the rule avoids having the judge act like an independent scientist. “

The expert could not validate the accuracy of the tapes by clear and convincing evidence.

[William Anthony]

by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding." -- there was no contrary finding because the defense did not offer evidence/testimony to support their argument.

Do you not realize that cross examination is evidence?

"An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording."

[weezer]

Do you not realize that cross examination is evidence?

and do you not realize that the defense had the burden to prove the tapes were altered? they could not/did not. for the prosecution witness to say that he could not testify the tape was or was not altered does not satisfy that burden. the defense should have had their own experts to testify as to the veracity of the tapes -- they did not.

[William Anthony]

and do you not realize that the defense had the burden to prove the tapes were altered? they could not/did not. for the prosecution witness to say that he could not testify the tape was or was not altered does not satisfy that burden. the defense should have had their own experts to testify as to the veracity of the tapes -- they did not.

You seem to want to change the Nevada, which I have suggested should be done as it pertains to the armed robbery statute. However, the case law is that it is on the party offering the evidence, in this case the prosecution, to show by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence is accurate. The law does not say that the non-offering party must show by clear and convincing, or any other standard, evidence that the evidence is not accurate.

"An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording."

[weezer]

You seem to want to change the Nevada, which I have suggested should be done as it pertains to the armed robbery statute. However, the case law is that it is on the party offering the evidence, in this case the prosecution, to show by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence is accurate. The law does not say that the non-offering party must show by clear and convincing, or any other standard, evidence that the evidence is not accurate.

"An FBI expert testified via videotape Wednesday in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial that it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered, but the judge said she still might let jurors hear the recording."

so what part of "it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered" means it was or even it probably was?

[weezer]

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positive claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

[William Anthony]

so what part of "it's impossible to tell whether an audio tape of the hotel room confrontation was altered" means it was or even it probably was?

The onus probandi remained on the prosecution as to its accuracy. What part shows it was accurate?

[William Anthony]

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positive claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

Thank you. I will place in bold the relevant parts. The burden of proof for the prosecution was to produce clear and convincing evidence to show that the tapes were accurate, not that the might be.

[martin II]

william, it was the responsibility of the defense to show where/what/who was wrong with the tapes. misidentifying speakers doesn't count.

i guess you are ignoring the Nevada Supreme Court decision.

[weezer]

The onus probandi remained on the prosecution as to its accuracy. What part shows it was accurate?

:confused: ". . .it lies on the party who denies the fact, to prove the negative. . ." :shrug:

[weezer]

i guess you are ignoring the Nevada Supreme Court decision.

try to keep up martin -- :tongue:

[weezer]

Thank you. I will place in bold the relevant parts. The burden of proof for the prosecution was to produce clear and convincing evidence to show that the tapes were accurate, not that the might be.

the prosecution offered the tapes. on cross examination the expert said he could not testify as to whether or not the tapes had been tampered with. I agree that if the witness had testified that it was probable or even suspected, the prosecution would have carried the burden of proof. BUT, that was not the testimony so it was at this point that the burden of proof shifted to the defense. wonder why they didn't call an expert to say the tapes were tampered with?

[William Anthony]

:confused: ". . .it lies on the party who denies the fact, to prove the negative. . ." :shrug:

You surely do not understand. Authentication is part of the process of admissibility. you offer a shirt in evidence, as being worn by me that someone says they took from my closet. Your expert testifies that he cannot say I wore that shirt. Despite the fact that the shirt has been removed from my closet, you have not met your burden of placing me in that shirt. Your expert testified to the negative. It is your burden to prove the negative of the negative, as you are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that I wore the shirt before it becomes admissible. The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled on who has the onus probandi when they offer evidence. I think you are confused and I don't want to confuse you more.

[weezer]

william, you've argued that orenthal was denied 'due process' -- which due process do you feel he was denied:

Procedural Due Process -- The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.

The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom from Double Jeopardy, or being tried more than once for the same crime; freedom from Self-Incrimination, or testifying against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases during the twentieth century, all of these rights were applied to state proceedings. In one such case, gideon v. wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney in "all criminal prosecutions," including prosecutions by a state. The case proved to be a watershed in establishing indigents' rights to legal counsel.

Procedural due process also protects individuals from government actions in the civil, as opposed to criminal, sphere. These protections have been extended to include not only land and personal property, but also entitlements, including government-provided benefits, licenses, and positions. Thus, for example, the Court has ruled that the federal government must hold hearings before terminating Welfare benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 [1970]). Court decisions regarding procedural due process have exerted a great deal of influence over government procedures in prisons, schools, Social Security, civil suits, and public employment.

[weezer]

You surely do not understand. Authentication is part of the process of admissibility. you offer a shirt in evidence, as being worn by me that someone says they took from my closet. Your expert testifies that he cannot say I wore that shirt. Despite the fact that the shirt has been removed from my closet, you have not met your burden of placing me in that shirt. Your expert testified to the negative. It is your burden to prove the negative of the negative, as you are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that I wore the shirt before it becomes admissible. The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled on who has the onus probandi when they offer evidence. I think you are confused and I don't want to confuse you more.

I'm not confused. the Nevada Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the person disputing the fact has the burden to prove their allegation: it lies on the party disputing the fact to prove the negative.

the tapes were offered by the prosecution (The fact) -- there was no testimony/evidence offered by the defense to substantiate a statement made by the expert that he could testify whether the tape had been tampered with or not. for the defense to dispute the admission of the tapes, they (the defense) had to prove the tapes were questionable. they could/did not.

[martin II]

if the prosecution presents a fingerprint court but notes that they cannot authenticate its origin or accuracy can they demand that the defense prove that it not the defendants?
See how silly that is.

[weezer]

if the prosecution presents a fingerprint court but notes that they cannot authenticate its origin or accuracy can they demand that the defense prove that it not the defendants?
See how silly that is.

the tapes didn't fall from the sky! the owner of the tapes gave them to the prosecution and swore they were the tapes before, during, after the armed robbery.

see how silly your analogy was?

[William Anthony]

I'm not confused. the Nevada Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the person disputing the fact has the burden to prove their allegation: it lies on the party disputing the fact to prove the negative.

the tapes were offered by the prosecution (The fact) -- there was no testimony/evidence offered by the defense to substantiate a statement made by the expert that he could testify whether the tape had been tampered with or not. for the defense to dispute the admission of the tapes, they (the defense) had to prove the tapes were questionable. they could/did not.

That is what I meant. You are confusing the rules of trial with the rules of evidence. An allegation is not evidence. An allegation is a statement that must be proven and that may include a shifting burden of proof. The only time that is shifted in a criminal trial is when the defense offers an affirmative defense. However, let me not confuse you more. The Rules of Evidence are a different matter as they pertain to items that tend to prove or disprove a charge and the party offering such evidence bears the burden as to proving the accuracy of the proffered evidence by clear and convincing evidence as it relates to its admissibility under Nevada law.

[martin II]

I'm not confused. the Nevada Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the person disputing the fact has the burden to prove their allegation: it lies on the party disputing the fact to prove the negative.

the tapes were offered by the prosecution (The fact) -- there was no testimony/evidence offered by the defense to substantiate a statement made by the expert that he could testify whether the tape had been tampered with or not. for the defense to dispute the admission of the tapes, they (the defense) had to prove the tapes were questionable. they could/did not.

you are trying to transfer the responsibility of the presenting party.the prosecution.If what you believe is true then the prosecution could present anything without proving its validity.There would be no need for lab reports or chain of custody proof.

[weezer]

That is what I meant. You are confusing the rules of trial with the rules of evidence. An allegation is not evidence. An allegation is a statement that must be proven and that may include a shifting burden of proof. The only time that is shifted in a criminal trial is when the defense offers an affirmative defense. However, let me not confuse you more. The Rules of Evidence are a different matter as they pertain to items that tend to prove or disprove a charge and the party offering such evidence bears the burden as to proving the accuracy of the proffered evidence by clear and convincing evidence as it relates to its admissibility under Nevada law.

you're not confusing me --

"There are generally three broad types of burdens.

A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact the party carrying the burden will succeed in their claim. For example the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence and to disprove all the defences.

An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary."

[William Anthony]

the tapes didn't fall from the sky! the owner of the tapes gave them to the prosecution and swore they were the tapes before, during, after the armed robbery.

see how silly your analogy was?

Not silly at all. An expert testified that the tapes were reproduced and how they were reproduced and that some were deleted, which he was able to retrieve and some he was not. The owner admitted some were deleted, although less than the expert said. Another expert testified that he could not say that the tapes weren't altered due to the way they were reproduced.

[martin II]

the tapes didn't fall from the sky! the owner of the tapes gave them to the prosecution and swore they were the tapes before, during, after the armed robbery.

see how silly your analogy was?

The le detective testified that he could not authenticate the tapes offered by the prosecution. Authenticate meaning when it was made and its contents and chain of custody etc

[weezer]

The le detective testified that he could not authenticate the tapes offered by the prosecution. Authenticate meaning when it was made and its contents and chain of custody etc

oh my --

[weezer]

Not silly at all. An expert testified that the tapes were reproduced and how they were reproduced and that some were deleted, which he was able to retrieve and some he was not. The owner admitted some were deleted, although less than the expert said. Another expert testified that he could not say that the tapes weren't altered due to the way they were reproduced.

how about the other tapes? the ones he 'authenticated'?

[William Anthony]

you're not confusing me --

"There are generally three broad types of burdens.

A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact the party carrying the burden will succeed in their claim. For example the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence and to disprove all the defences.

An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary."

Let me show you the flaw in your presumption. What presumption applied to Riccio's tapes that made them prima facie evidence of a state of affairs. However, let me go one step further. The court cannot admit any evidence that has not been properly authenticated. The court only has discretion to consider evidence that has properly been authenticated or a proper foundation laid, if you will. I have pointed to the evidence to refute any presumption that the tapes were accurate. The burden then shifted to the prosecution to produce clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate. Simply put, it is not enough to say that they could be accurate or to say by a preponderance of the evidence they are accurate. There was no presumption that the tapes were inherently trustworthy.

[William Anthony]

how about the other tapes? the ones he 'authenticated'?

What is it that you think they prove? That Simpson planned to get his property back or that Simpson attempted a robbery?

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . .Simply put, it is not enough to say that they could be accurate or to say by a preponderance of the evidence they are accurate. There was no presumption that the tapes were inherently trustworthy.

there was NO testimony that the tapes WERE tampered with. there was NO testimony that the tapes WERE altered. there was NO testimony that there was a possibility/probably that either of those happened. it is not enough for the defense to say 'uh-uh' --

[weezer]

You are correct in that the prosecution offered the tapes. Therefore, it was on them to produce clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate, according to the Nevada Supreme court.

and they did. the defense raised the objection -- it was on them to say who/what/where the tapes were inadmissible. they could/did not.

[weezer]

What is it that you think they prove? That Simpson planned to get his property back or that Simpson attempted a robbery?

". . .two significant problems with this theory. The first is that the items were not exactly stolen. They were hidden. When Simpson realized that the Goldman family was about to try to collect on its judgment by seizing anything it could find at his Rockingham Drive estate, he had his sister and his manager grab things and hide them. His manager, in an argument with Simpson, took the materials to make up for money he claims Simpson owed him. Did he steal them? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a difficult question. But regardless of whether they were stolen, Simpson faces a second problem: He had no legal right to grab them as he did. Judge Jackie Glass told the jury in her legal instructions on Thursday that "a good-faith belief of a right or claim to the property taken is not a defense to the crime of robbery." Even if Simpson honestly believed the mementos belonged to him, it does not help him against a charge of robbery. His legal recourse was to use the civil courts to reclaim what he thought was his. Instead, he assembled his crew and took them by force. . ."

[William Anthony]

there was NO testimony that the tapes WERE tampered with. there was NO testimony that the tapes WERE altered. there was NO testimony that there was a possibility/probably that either of those happened. it is not enough for the defense to say 'uh-uh' --

The onus probandi was on the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate since they offered them; not for the defense to prove they weren't.

[William Anthony]

". . .two significant problems with this theory. The first is that the items were not exactly stolen. They were hidden. When Simpson realized that the Goldman family was about to try to collect on its judgment by seizing anything it could find at his Rockingham Drive estate, he had his sister and his manager grab things and hide them. His manager, in an argument with Simpson, took the materials to make up for money he claims Simpson owed him. Did he steal them? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a difficult question. But regardless of whether they were stolen, Simpson faces a second problem: He had no legal right to grab them as he did. Judge Jackie Glass told the jury in her legal instructions on Thursday that "a good-faith belief of a right or claim to the property taken is not a defense to the crime of robbery." Even if Simpson honestly believed the mementos belonged to him, it does not help him against a charge of robbery. His legal recourse was to use the civil courts to reclaim what he thought was his. Instead, he assembled his crew and took them by force. . ."


The tapes that were subject to being inadmissible were those allegedly depicting what transpired in the hotel room. I reiterate, what do you think the other tapes prove?

[weezer]

The onus probandi was on the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate since they offered them; not for the defense to prove they weren't.

the prosecution did exactly that. the defense thought they could just say 'uh-uh' and that would suffice for a defense. they should have had their own expert to testify that the tapes were altered/tampered with. they didn't/couldn't. :shrug:

[martin II]

". . .two significant problems with this theory. The first is that the items were not exactly stolen. They were hidden. When Simpson realized that the Goldman family was about to try to collect on its judgment by seizing anything it could find at his Rockingham Drive estate, he had his sister and his manager grab things and hide them. His manager, in an argument with Simpson, took the materials to make up for money he claims Simpson owed him. Did he steal them? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a difficult question. But regardless of whether they were stolen, Simpson faces a second problem: He had no legal right to grab them as he did. Judge Jackie Glass told the jury in her legal instructions on Thursday that "a good-faith belief of a right or claim to the property taken is not a defense to the crime of robbery." Even if Simpson honestly believed the mementos belonged to him, it does not help him against a charge of robbery. His legal recourse was to use the civil courts to reclaim what he thought was his. Instead, he assembled his crew and took them by force. . ."

Fumong said 'I DID NOT TAKE THEN OJ MIKE TOOK THEM" Besdsley told Riccio that he could get him some items STOLEN FROM OJ SIMPSON.They believed the goods were stolen.

[William Anthony]

the prosecution did exactly that. the defense thought they could just say 'uh-uh' and that would suffice for a defense. they should have had their own expert to testify that the tapes were altered/tampered with. they didn't/couldn't. :shrug:

You truly don't understand. They were arguing that the tapes were inadmissible as a matter of law, not trying to persuade the jury that the tapes were not credible.

[weezer]

The tapes that were subject to being inadmissible were those allegedly depicting what transpired in the hotel room. I reiterate, what do you think the other tapes prove?

that not only did orenthal plan the whole thing, he involved everyone that got caught and then tried to manipulate the evidence afterwards.

did you know that only a few months before the robbery, orenthal answered interrogatories about his assets. he said he had no assets, nothing except his house in Florida and a life insurance policy. That's where Mr. Owens statement to the jury in his opening statement about orenthal swearing under oath that he had no assets, and that the stuff he robbed were the assets that he swore he did not have.

what a guy -- :eek:

[weezer]

Fumong said 'I DID NOT TAKE THEN OJ MIKE TOOK THEM" Besdsley told Riccio that he could get him some items STOLEN FROM OJ SIMPSON.They believed the goods were stolen.

actually he said "it". they didn't believe the 'goods' were stolen.

[weezer]

You truly don't understand. They were arguing that the tapes were inadmissible as a matter of law, not trying to persuade the jury that the tapes were not credible.

LOL -- I do understand. there was nothing 'as a matter of law' that would preclude the tapes. I'm afraid you have confused yourself.

[William Anthony]

that not only did orenthal plan the whole thing, he involved everyone that got caught and then tried to manipulate the evidence afterwards.

did you know that only a few months before the robbery, orenthal answered interrogatories about his assets. he said he had no assets, nothing except his house in Florida and a life insurance policy. That's where Mr. Owens statement to the jury in his opening statement about orenthal swearing under oath that he had no assets, and that the stuff he robbed were the assets that he swore he did not have.

what a guy -- :eek:

I am sure that was objected to as judge J. Glass had ruled that was not to be a part of the trial. So, if the tapes that could have been altered were improperly admitted,then you only have Simpson planning to get his property back or planning a robbery, if you will, and a discussion about seeing a gun in a hotel room, is that correct?

[weezer]

I am sure that was objected to as judge J. Glass had ruled that was not to be a part of the trial. So, if the tapes that could have been altered were improperly admitted,then you only have Simpson planning to get his property back or planning a robbery, if you will, and a discussion about seeing a gun in a hotel room, is that correct?

actually I offered the snippet as to why orenthal didn't get on the stand and testify to 'just getting his stuff' back. and as has been established, under Nevada law, there is no 'claim of right' for his crimes. Ha -- he was in a real bind wasn't he? it's my stuff but not my stuff -- :shrug:

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I do understand. there was nothing 'as a matter of law' that would preclude the tapes. I'm afraid you have confused yourself.

No, you are confused as, according to Nevada law, the tapes were not authenticated and should not have been admitted, imho. You seem to be arguing the shifting burden after the properly admitted evidence has been heard and, in fact, may be arguing a civil standard as to the shifting burden.

[William Anthony]

actually I offered the snippet as to why orenthal didn't get on the stand and testify to 'just getting his stuff' back. and as has been established, under Nevada law, there is no 'claim of right' for his crimes. Ha -- he was in a real bind wasn't he? it's my stuff but not my stuff -- :shrug:

So, are you now saying that you desire to discuss whether or not his Due Process rights were violated?

[weezer]

No, you are confused as, according to Nevada law, the tapes were not authenticated and should not have been admitted, imho. You seem to be arguing the shifting burden after the properly admitted evidence has been heard and, in fact, may be arguing a civil standard as to the shifting burden.

the tapes were authenticated -- :shrug:

once the defense disputed the tapes, the burden shifted to them to prove the tapes had been altered/tampered with. the could not.

[weezer]

So, are you now saying that you desire to discuss whether or not his Due Process rights were violated?

nah -- I simply offered it as a FYI to give a glimpse into orenthal's motive and quite possibly state of mind.

[William Anthony]

the tapes were authenticated -- :shrug:

once the defense disputed the tapes, the burden shifted to them to prove the tapes had been altered/tampered with. the could not.

Link to a criminal case showing you statement, please?

[William Anthony]

nah -- I simply offered it as a FYI to give a glimpse into orenthal's motive and quite possibly state of mind.

Galantar repeatedly and other witnesses gave his state of mind and his motive, which judge J. Glass denied but may be a Due Process violation as it is inconsistent with his burglary conviction, imho.

[William Anthony]

william, you've argued that orenthal was denied 'due process' -- which due process do you feel he was denied:

Procedural Due Process -- The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.

The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process. These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom from Double Jeopardy, or being tried more than once for the same crime; freedom from Self-Incrimination, or testifying against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases during the twentieth century, all of these rights were applied to state proceedings. In one such case, gideon v. wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney in "all criminal prosecutions," including prosecutions by a state. The case proved to be a watershed in establishing indigents' rights to legal counsel.

Procedural due process also protects individuals from government actions in the civil, as opposed to criminal, sphere. These protections have been extended to include not only land and personal property, but also entitlements, including government-provided benefits, licenses, and positions. Thus, for example, the Court has ruled that the federal government must hold hearings before terminating Welfare benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 [1970]). Court decisions regarding procedural due process have exerted a great deal of influence over government procedures in prisons, schools, Social Security, civil suits, and public employment.

Both.

[weezer]

I'm looking for a case --

[weezer]

Both.

both?? :confused:

[William Anthony]

the tapes were authenticated -- :shrug:

once the defense disputed the tapes, the burden shifted to them to prove the tapes had been altered/tampered with. the could not.

I have gone back and reviewed the case in your link on the sufficiency of the evidence. I now understand that you are confused. There was a portion of that link that dealt with the admissibility of the evidence due to a search without a warrant. However, those facts are not analogous to the tapes. Here is what the court said in your link.

"CONCLUSION

We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence obtained in the warrantless search of the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger because the search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances existed in that the search occurred contemporaneously with the roadside arrest of appellant and the other occupants of the vehicle following pursuit from the scene of a crime. We conclude that appellant�s remaining contentions also lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm appellant�s conviction."

In your case, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible and then went on to consider it sufficiency.

[martin II]

that not only did orenthal plan the whole thing, he involved everyone that got caught and then tried to manipulate the evidence afterwards.

did you know that only a few months before the robbery, orenthal answered interrogatories about his assets. he said he had no assets, nothing except his house in Florida and a life insurance policy. That's where Mr. Owens statement to the jury in his opening statement about orenthal swearing under oath that he had no assets, and that the stuff he robbed were the assets that he swore he did not have.

what a guy -- :eek:

The person that arranged everything was Riccio. He met Beadsley and called oj in Florida to tell him he could arrange a meeting between the thieves and him. He did just that,

[William Anthony]

both?? :confused:

Procedural and substantive.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Substantive%20Due%20Process.htm

[weezer]

I have gone back and reviewed the case in your link on the sufficiency of the evidence. I now understand that you are confused. There was a portion of that link that dealt with the admissibility of the evidence due to a search without a warrant. However, those facts are not analogous to the tapes. Here is what the court said in your link.

"CONCLUSION

We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence obtained in the warrantless search of the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger because the search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances existed in that the search occurred contemporaneously with the roadside arrest of appellant and the other occupants of the vehicle following pursuit from the scene of a crime. We conclude that appellant�s remaining contentions also lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm appellant�s conviction."

In your case, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible and then went on to consider it sufficiency.

and I think I now understand your confusion. there was no evidence that the tapes had been tampered/altered. are you confusing the tapes with the transcripts?

[William Anthony]

and I think I now understand your confusion. there was no evidence that the tapes had been tampered/altered. are you confusing the tapes with the transcripts?

Not at all. I will not repeat the prosecution's burden as I am sure you know it by now. The expert said ON CROSS he could not say that the TAPES were not altered.

[weezer]

Not at all. I will not repeat the prosecution's burden as I am sure you know it by now. The expert said ON CROSS he could not say that the TAPES were not altered.

and he did not say they were.

[weezer]

Not at all. I will not repeat the prosecution's burden as I am sure you know it by now. The expert said ON CROSS he could not say that the TAPES were not altered.

actually, it wasn't TAPES, it was TAPE --

[William Anthony]

and he did not say they were.

By him not saying they were not, the prosecution failed to meet its burden by a clear and convincing standard as to their accuracy, which is why the defense objected and will probably be an issue on appeal, imho, and a strong one in favor of the defendants, imho.

[weezer]

By him not saying they were not, the prosecution failed to meet its burden by a clear and convincing standard as to their accuracy, which is why the defense objected and will probably be an issue on appeal, imho, and a strong one in favor of the defendants, imho.

LOL -- riiiiight! what will be your argument IF the hotel room tape is thrown out but all the rest kept? orenthal talked about it before and after too -- remember?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- riiiiight! what will be your argument IF the hotel room tape is thrown out but all the rest kept? orenthal talked about it before and after too -- remember?

Remand and a verdict entered consistent with the evidence.

[weezer]

Remand and a verdict entered consistent with the evidence.

ahh -- if it were only the tape he had to worry about. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

ahh -- if it were only the tape he had to worry about. :tongue:

Perhaps, you are not aware that a jury cannot impeach itself and that jury has said it relied solely on the tapes. ;)

[weezer]

Perhaps, you are not aware that a jury cannot impeach itself and that jury has said it relied solely on the tapes. ;)

I understood that they relied on the TAPES -- not just the tape. I'm sure they also took into account the parts of the testimony that were corroborated by the tapes. don't you?

[weezer]

here's some of the stuff I've been reading re orenthal's home:

http://www.artharris.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/12-10-07-order-granting-oj-wamu-stay.pdf

[weezer]

more on orenthal's home and money from the book:

http://www.artharris.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/12-10-07-order-grants-oj-trustee-summary-jment-re-home.pdf

[William Anthony]

I understood that they relied on the TAPES -- not just the tape. I'm sure they also took into account the parts of the testimony that were corroborated by the tapes. don't you?

Yes, and, if the tapes are inadmissible, the remaining ones would be collaborative of what?

[William Anthony]

here's some of the stuff I've been reading re orenthal's home:

http://www.artharris.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/12-10-07-order-granting-oj-wamu-stay.pdf

Nevada case only.

[William Anthony]

more on orenthal's home and money from the book:

http://www.artharris.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/12-10-07-order-grants-oj-trustee-summary-jment-re-home.pdf

Nevada case only.

[weezer]

Nevada case only.

hmmm -- thought you were interested in what I could find about orenthal's homestead being at risk?

at any rate, this is all about the nevada case and why it happened.

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- thought you were interested in what I could find about orenthal's homestead being at risk?

at any rate, this is all about the nevada case and why it happened.

Your original premise was that Simpson put up his home for collateral. There is nothing in your links to support this. Judge J. Glass ruled that the civil trial was not a part of this case. Why it happened is that Simpson was trying to retrieve his stolen property according to him, which the Nevada case saw as a robbery. I doubt seriously if his home would have fit in the hotel room or that he would say he went there to retrieve it.

[weezer]

Your original premise was that Simpson put up his home for collateral. There is nothing in your links to support this. Judge J. Glass ruled that the civil trial was not a part of this case. Why it happened is that Simpson was trying to retrieve his stolen property according to him, which the Nevada case saw as a robbery. I doubt seriously if his home would have fit in the hotel room or that he would say he went there to retrieve it.

orenthal put his house and $37,500 (+/-) in cash as collateral when his bail was raised.

[weezer]

Your original premise was that Simpson put up his home for collateral. There is nothing in your links to support this. Judge J. Glass ruled that the civil trial was not a part of this case. Why it happened is that Simpson was trying to retrieve his stolen property according to him, which the Nevada case saw as a robbery. I doubt seriously if his home would have fit in the hotel room or that he would say he went there to retrieve it.

he had not filed a stolen property report AND had sworn he did not have any of those assets. he was in a bind, don't you think? 'it's mine!' -- 'never mind' -- :tongue:

[William Anthony]

he had not filed a stolen property report AND had sworn he did not have any of those assets. he was in a bind, don't you think? 'it's mine!' -- 'never mind' -- :tongue:

It doesn't matter what I think or you. This is about the Nevada case only. ;)

[weezer]

It doesn't matter what I think or you. This is about the Nevada case only. ;)

exactly! you're the one that was trying to make the 'right of claim' argument. ;)

[William Anthony]

exactly! you're the one that was trying to make the 'right of claim' argument. ;)

You're the one that realizes how I am trying to argue it as a denial of Simpson's Due Process rights as an appellate issue, correct?

[martin II]

Both.

I think Weezer may believe it is time to try to change the subject.

[martin II]

he had not filed a stolen property report AND had sworn he did not have any of those assets. he was in a bind, don't you think? 'it's mine!' -- 'never mind' -- :tongue:

i have never seen a list that included the stolen items Fumong tried to sell which you now say oj claimed he had no assets.

[martin II]

orenthal put his house and $37,500 (+/-) in cash as collateral when his bail was raised.

Can you produce the bail document to prove your claim?

[martin II]

LOL -- riiiiight! what will be your argument IF the hotel room tape is thrown out but all the rest kept? orenthal talked about it before and after too -- remember?

Without the hotyel room tape the prosecution has nothing.i think you know that.

[martin II]

I understood that they relied on the TAPES -- not just the tape. I'm sure they also took into account the parts of the testimony that were corroborated by the tapes. don't you?

You must think the jury members lied about what they used in deliberations?

[martin II]

". . .two significant problems with this theory. The first is that the items were not exactly stolen. They were hidden. When Simpson realized that the Goldman family was about to try to collect on its judgment by seizing anything it could find at his Rockingham Drive estate, he had his sister and his manager grab things and hide them. His manager, in an argument with Simpson, took the materials to make up for money he claims Simpson owed him. Did he steal them? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a difficult question. But regardless of whether they were stolen, Simpson faces a second problem: He had no legal right to grab them as he did. Judge Jackie Glass told the jury in her legal instructions on Thursday that "a good-faith belief of a right or claim to the property taken is not a defense to the crime of robbery." Even if Simpson honestly believed the mementos belonged to him, it does not help him against a charge of robbery. His legal recourse was to use the civil courts to reclaim what he thought was his. Instead, he assembled his crew and took them by force. . ."


Mike Gilbert never produced one piece of paper to prove that he paid any back storage fees on any goods that he claimed he stored for Simpson. imo

[martin II]

actually he said "it". they didn't believe the 'goods' were stolen.

They both said the goods were stolen and now you say they did not believe they were stolen. How is that?

[martin II]

I'm not confused. the Nevada Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the person disputing the fact has the burden to prove their allegation: it lies on the party disputing the fact to prove the negative.

the tapes were offered by the prosecution (The fact) -- there was no testimony/evidence offered by the defense to substantiate a statement made by the expert that he could testify whether the tape had been tampered with or not. for the defense to dispute the admission of the tapes, they (the defense) had to prove the tapes were questionable. they could/did not.

You have not offered any proof to support your above clain about the Nevada supreme Court and the U.S, Supreme Courts positions on the issue of authentication so i am assumming it is offered as your opinion not fact of law.

[William Anthony]

I think that Stewart and Simpson stood a snow ball's chance in... to be acquitted in the Nevada case and the lawyers were smart to produce evidence to get a light sentence and preserve the record for appeal. I don't know how much money Stewart has but I do know the appeal process is expensive.

[William Anthony]

I don't know if this case is still good law since it the opinion was entered in 1964. However, if it is the defense will have an uphill battle when it comes to judge J. Glass.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/326/326.F2d.72.18551.html

“4. The conduct of the trial by the judge.
42

Appellants make an extended and bitter attack upon the manner in which the trial judge conducted the trial. We think that the attack would be more effective had it come from the Government. The record indicates that the judge, who has been a successful and vigorous trial lawyer and prosecutor, became convinced, early in the trial, that the Assistant United States Attorney who was trying the case did not know how to frame questions or to lay a foundation for the admission of evidence. Throughout the trial the judge was repeatedly and sharply critical of the manner in which the Assistant United States Attorney was trying the case. There is much justification for the judge's feeling. Many of the prosecutor's questions were poorly phrased, calling for conclusions rather than facts. What we have already said indicates that he did not always do as well as he should have in laying a foundation.
43

However, the judge's reaction to the prosecutor led him into a performance which is not to be commended. He repeatedly throughout the trial made objections to the prosecutor's questions when none was made by defense counsel, and sustained those objections. Some of his criticisms of the prosecutor were captious. Defense counsel did not object, and there was no reason for the judge to object. On several occasions when the prosecutor, perhaps intimidated by the judge, was having difficulty in laying a foundation for the admission of evidence, the judge took over and laid the foundation himself. In at least one instance, when defense counsel objected that a foundation had not been laid, the court proceeded to lay it and then overruled the objection.
44

Much of what the court did was, in a sense, helpful to the prosecutor, and by doing it he performed the dual role of judge and prosecutor. This is a very dangerous thing for a judge to do, as it can easily lead the jury to believe that the judge is aligned with the prosecution. However, after carefully reading the entire record, we cannot find that the jury could possibly have so concluded in this case. On the contrary, we think the total effect of the judge's behavior would be to lead the jury to either or both of two conclusions: (a) that the prosecutor did not know how to try the case, and (b) that the prosecutor's case did not amount to much. The "help" that the judge gave the prosecutor was of a technical, rather than a substantive nature. It did not add any evidence to the record that the prosecutor had not planned to produce, and the record convinces us that without this "help" the prosecutor would have gotten the same evidence before the jury. The one possible exception is exhibit 22, which we have already considered.
45

Every experienced trial lawyer knows that he can sometimes win a case by getting in wrong with the judge to the point where the jury begins to sympathize with the lawyer and loses sight of the merits of his case, awarding the lawyer a verdict because they feel sorry for him as a result of the way the judge has treated him. Our review of the record persuades us, however, that that did not happen in this case.
46

The judge seemed to be fully aware of what he was doing; on no less than ten occasions during the trial, after he had taken over the examination of a witness or the laying of a foundation for documentary evidence, or both, he carefully instructed the jury, in substance, that they were to draw no inferences from his behavior, that they were to decide the case solely on the evidence, and that he was merely acting in the interests of getting at the truth and expediting the conclusion of the trial. He also gave a similar instruction on voir dire and again when he submitted the matter to the jury. We must presume that the jury followed these instructions. There were rare instances in which he abused defense counsel, but they happened so seldom, and his language was so mild as compared to his treatment of the prosecutor, that we cannot believe that the defense was thereby prejudiced.
47

[William Anthony]

It is also claimed that the rights of the defendants were prejudiced because the court required defense counsel to make legal arguments on the admissibility of evidence in the presence of the jury. There were at least seven occasions on which this occurred. On the first occasion when permission was requested to approach the bench, the court said: "No, speak out. This looks like a sensible jury and if you say something you should not say, I will instruct them to disregard it, so speak out." On the next occasion there was a lengthy discussion between court and counsel as to who controlled H. Carroll & Co. Again, no instruction was given to the jury and the court refused permission to approach the bench. On the fifth occasion, the court did instruct the jury. At that time, in response to an objection made by defense counsel that the discussion should not be in the presence of a jury, the court said: "This jury is above 12 years of age. The Court will instruct them to disregard any colloquy between counsel and anything the Court or counsel says in ruling on the evidence or questioning the evidence." This he also did on the sixth occasion. On the last occasion, in the course of a colloquy, the court said: "Just forget there is a jury. Now go ahead," and proceeded to permit the prosecutor to make a statement as to his theory.
48

A decent regard for the rights of defendants in a criminal trial, particularly in a complex case where argument as to the admissibility of evidence, especially its relevance, is bound to involve assertions by the prosecutor as to how the evidence bears upon the issue that the jury must decide and what it will prove to the jury, should lead the court to incline toward holding such arguments out of the presence of the jury. This can be done either at the bench or by excusing the jury, and in either event, it is perfectly possible to make a record of the colloquy so that the rights of the parties will be protected. (See Eierman v. United States, 10 Cir., 1930, 46 F.2d 46.)
49

Nevertheless, it is clear that the court has a discretion in this matter. (Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 249-250, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021.) We have carefully examined each instance in which such a colloquy before the jury occurred, and while we think that in one or two instances the court's comments on the respective contentions of the parties should have been less sharp than they were, and that one or two of them were unfortunate in that they brought before the jury matters that it would be better that they had not heard, we cannot find that any of them, or all of them together, were prejudicial, especially in view of the instructions that the court repeatedly gave the jury.
50

It is also asserted that the Assistant United States Attorney continually and repeatedly asked leading questions of prosecution witnesses over the court's warning and after continued and repeated objections were made. There were a few such instances. The one principally objected to occurred when the court permitted the prosecutor to crossexamine one of his own witnesses. We think that this was proper because the witness was obviously, even on the cold record, a reluctant witness. In most cases, however, the questions were not objected to, and in many cases where there were objections, the questions were not really leading. The matter was within the discretion of the court and we cannot find that that discretion was abused. Appellants cite Gill v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 285 F.2d 711, and United States v. Fry, 7 Cir., 1962, 304 F.2d 296. In Gill the continued asking of leading questions was held not prejudicial. Fry deals with leading questions by the judge.”

[William Anthony]

This is a non published opinion but play close attention to pages 14 and 15 as to the burden of proof after a challenge to admissibility and the trustworthiness issue. I am unable to copy and paste.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0MIbrK5XCpQJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B199978.PDF+nevada+case+law+on+proper+foundation+f or+recorded+evidence+in+a+criminal+trial&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

[martin II]

This is a non published opinion but play close attention to pages 14 and 15 as to the burden of proof after a challenge to admissibility and the trustworthiness issue. I am unable to copy and paste.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0MIbrK5XCpQJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B199978.PDF+nevada+case+law+on+proper+foundation+f or+recorded+evidence+in+a+criminal+trial&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Great post

[William Anthony]

Thank you. In regard to the other post about the judge's conduct, I do not think that judge J. Glass wanted to act as a prosecutor. I do think she wanted to speed the trial along and impose sentence.

[martin II]

Thank you. In regard to the other post about the judge's conduct, I do not think that judge J. Glass wanted to act as a prosecutor. I do think she wanted to speed the trial along and impose sentence.

She certainly was not up to spending time on any defense objections and may have been trying make a 13th deadline.

[William Anthony]

She certainly was not up to spending time on any defense objections and may have been trying make a 13th deadline.

If that was the case, then it could be argued the jury foreman certainly helped in that regard.

[William Anthony]

This is how Simpson and Stewart were sentenced, I believe. It may be interesting to consider how an appeal can reduce the sentence.

• Count No. 1: 1 year for conspiracy to commit a crime
• Count No. 2: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit kidnapping
• Count No. 3: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit burglary
• Count No. 4: 26-120 months (concurrent) for burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 5: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 6: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 7: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 8: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 9: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 8) for assault with a deadly weapon
• Count No. 10: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 9) for assault with a deadly weapon

[weezer]

I don't think you can lump stewart and orenthal together for the appeal --

[martin II]

This is how Simpson and Stewart were sentenced, I believe. It may be interesting to consider how an appeal can reduce the sentence.

• Count No. 1: 1 year for conspiracy to commit a crime
• Count No. 2: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit kidnapping
• Count No. 3: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit burglary
• Count No. 4: 26-120 months (concurrent) for burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 5: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 6: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 7: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 8: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 9: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 8) for assault with a deadly weapon
• Count No. 10: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 9) for assault with a deadly weapon



That looks like a judge judy glass special for oj the one that got the NOT GUILTY verdict.

[William Anthony]

I don't think you can lump stewart and orenthal together for the appeal --

I never said they would be lumped together for an appea and I think you are right. It would be interesting, if Simpson's convictions are reversed on some of the charges, how this would affect Stewart and vice versa. I am also pleased to see you quoting one of the greatest philosophers of all times, smile.

[William Anthony]

That looks like a judge judy glass special for oj the one that got the NOT GUILTY verdict.

I think she gave the sentence she did in order to negate any accusation that she was biased during the trial.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9164494]I never said they would be lumped together for an appea and I think you are right. It would be interesting, if Simpson's convictions are reversed on some of the charges, how this would affect Stewart and vice versa. I am also pleased to see you quoting one of the greatest philosophers of all times, smile.[/QUOTE

i got a long chuckle out of the quote also.

[weezer]

actually, the greatest philosopher of the time is Maxine but I do love this one.

[William Anthony]

actually, the greatest philosopher of the time is Maxine but I do love this one.

I guess that would depend on how one thinks about things, :).

[William Anthony]

It looks as though, if all the convictions except the gun charges were reversed, that Simpson would still have to do 5 years, unless he is eligible for parole after 2 1/2?