Nevada Case Discussion Only

[Deepwater]

A last chance thread for the OJ Forum (please read announcement)

[William Anthony]

I think that is a remote possibility that might entitle him to a new trial, although I doubt that the outcome will be any different. It just may add some validity to the impartiality process, which is what I question. I think he will still be found guilty in a new trial and I think that is the correct verdict under the state of the Nevada law. I don't see that the Supreme Court will change the standard of intent that the Nevada law imposes. They might entertain the idea that one cannot rob his own property (an off-handed way of addressing intent) but that involves federalism and state sovereignty. DW I think that the appeal is part of a discussion of the case. If I am wrong, please, inform me?

[William Anthony]

I realize that Jnswickardlaw may practice in California but perhaps he will be able to put us in contact with someone, who has knowledge of Nevada law, or, if he has any knowledge, can comment on the likelihood of the appeal being successful. It is my understanding that most appeals fail.

[martin II]

I realize that Jnswickardlaw may practice in California but perhaps he will be able to put us in contact with someone, who has knowledge of Nevada law, or, if he has any knowledge, can comment on the likelihood of the appeal being successful. It is my understanding that most appeals fail.

Good

As you know one of my isues is how could kidnapping be a valid charge considering no 'VICTIM" was moved from his original place on the room.
Forgot the revelent legal word.

[William Anthony]

Good

As you know one of my isues is how could kidnapping be a valid charge considering no 'VICTIM" was moved from his original place on the room.
Forgot the revelent legal word.

Yes, I think that may be a valid consideration based on the Nevada Supreme Court case. I think that you are referring to the word, asportation.

[martin II]

Yes, I think that may be a valid consideration based on the Nevada Supreme Court case. I think that you are referring to the word, asportation.

Thats it

I had read a lawyers review where it was stated that the Nevada Supreme Court had recognized Asportation as a kidnapping charge defense. If true then how did the Glass court ignore it? I also do not remember the defense
arguing it. Could it be that Glass would not allow it as a defense argument?

[William Anthony]

Thats it

I had read a lawyers review where it was stated that the Nevada Supreme Court had recognized Asportation as a kidnapping charge defense. If true then how did the Glass court ignore it? I also do not remember the defense
arguing it. Could it be that Glass would not allow it as a defense argument?

In the case I posted there was asportation, as the victims were moved from one room to another, and the victims were tied up but the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that was not kidnapping. The Judges on the Nevada Supreme Court may have a different ideology than does judge J. Glass. I too do not remember if the defense made that argument.

[martin II]

In the case I posted there was asportation, as the victims were moved from one room to another, and the victims were tied up but the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that was not kidnapping. The Judges on the Nevada Supreme Court may have a different ideology than does judge J. Glass. I too do not remember if the defense made that argument.

Very odd.

[William Anthony]

Very odd.

I wonder if the Nevada Supreme Court will be receptive to the idea of Riccio's involvement, the lack of authentication of the tapes and LE's refusal to act as a mitigating factor that should have been considered when imposing sentence?

[martin II]

I wonder if the Nevada Supreme Court will be receptive to the idea of Riccio's involvement, the lack of authentication of the tapes and LE's refusal to act as a mitigating factor that should have been considered when imposing sentence?

True

The le tape "EXPERT" testified that he identified individuals on the tape only by what he thought their voices sounded like when he interviewed them in person. He identified tape voices from his memory during personal interviews.
Yet he had to admit that he got some voice identifications wrong.
but his testimony was allowed by Glass.

[William Anthony]

True

The le tape "EXPERT" testified that he identified individuals on the tape only by what he thought their voices sounded like when he interviewed them in person. He identified tape voices from his memory during personal interviews.
Yet he had to admit that he got some voice identifications wrong.
but his testimony was allowed by Glass.

I don't disagree with allowing the testimony, since weight and credibility was a function of the jury. I think it could be handled on cross that he was unable to properly identify some speakers. However, my concern is more with the possible deletion of portions of the tapes. I did not hear Riccio's testimony.

[William Anthony]

Here is an interesting link with some interesting comments that I feel Galanter will argue on appeal.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/26/sensitive-identity-information-revealed-oj-simpson/

[martin II]

I wonder if the Nevada Supreme Court will be receptive to the idea of Riccio's involvement, the lack of authentication of the tapes and LE's refusal to act as a mitigating factor that should have been considered when imposing sentence?

The tapes are sensitive to Nevada DA as it was Beadsleys testimony that the tapes had been altered that caused le to make the claim that Beadsley had the ring.

[martin II]

Here is an interesting link with some interesting comments that I feel Galanter will argue on appeal.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/26/sensitive-identity-information-revealed-oj-simpson/

Why did Caldwell leave out Riccios phone calls on the chart?

[William Anthony]

Why did Caldwell leave out Riccios phone calls on the chart?

I am not sure but maybe, because Riccio received immunity and was not the target of a crime, irrespective of his culpability.

[martin II]

I am not sure but maybe, because Riccio received immunity and was not the target of a crime, irrespective of his culpability.

I think if Riccios calls were included it would show his manipulation and how he controlled some part of the event making it more difficult to place all the blame where the DA wanted it placed.

[martin II]

i saw the signature stuff

[martin II]

see you tomorrow

[William Anthony]

I think if Riccios calls were included it would show his manipulation and how he controlled some part of the event making it more difficult to place all the blame where the DA wanted it placed.

I remember the sentencing hearing and seeing some of Simpson's family members there and the shot of sadness in the eyes of the majestic, regal and beautiful Arnelle but I don't know if Jason was there. If what some have posted is true, then today maybe the last camera opportunity for judge J. Glass. I wonder what toll the verdict will have on Simpson's family and ask DW, if this wondering is part of the case.

[William Anthony]

A last chance thread for the OJ Forum (please read announcement)

Thank you for your rapid deletion of the post with the personal attack and maybe now the posters, whom some claimed were eager to post on the Simpson forum, will understand that they can post without fear of being accosted. Thanks again.

[William Anthony]

The tapes are sensitive to Nevada DA as it was Beadsleys testimony that the tapes had been altered that caused le to make the claim that Beadsley had the ring.

I think it will be interesting to see how the Nevada appellate Court rules on the Batson challenge issue, also.

[martin II]

I think it will be interesting to see how the Nevada appellate Court rules on the Batson challenge issue, also.

Gallanter must have great access to Appeal lawyers to select the proper issues and arguments. He should demand full court review.
I found it interesting that Rsoenburg directed Beadsley to bring hin the ring without ever proving Beadsley had the ring. He took freds lawyers claimes that he did.

[William Anthony]

Gallanter must have great access to Appeal lawyers to select the proper issues and arguments. He should demand full court review.
I found it interesting that Rsoenburg directed Beadsley to bring hin the ring without ever proving Beadsley had the ring. He took freds lawyers claimes that he did.

I think that, if he alleges, judicial partiality, they might do a full review or he will point out those instances he believes supports his position.

[martin II]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/19/oj.simpson.ring.hearing/index.html

judge Glass sent all of the stuff to the CA judge. Beadsley claims investigator tried to get him to testify to something that didn;t happen.

[martin II]

Most of stolen OJ memorabilia headed to California

By BRIAN HAYNES
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Most of the sports memorabilia stolen in the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case will be turned over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

District Judge Jackie Glass ordered the transfer after a short hearing this morning.


Bruce Fromong, who was robbed after bringing the memorabilia to Palace Station, will get $3,560 in restitution and his stolen Joe Montana lithographs.

The Simpson game footballs and signed photos will head to California, where any ownership questions will be resolved.

Simpson is serving time in Nevada for the September 2007 hotel room theft. Simpson said he was trying to retrieve his own property in the Las Vegas heist.

[William Anthony]

Most of stolen OJ memorabilia headed to California

By BRIAN HAYNES
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Most of the sports memorabilia stolen in the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case will be turned over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

District Judge Jackie Glass ordered the transfer after a short hearing this morning.


Bruce Fromong, who was robbed after bringing the memorabilia to Palace Station, will get $3,560 in restitution and his stolen Joe Montana lithographs.

The Simpson game footballs and signed photos will head to California, where any ownership questions will be resolved.

Simpson is serving time in Nevada for the September 2007 hotel room theft. Simpson said he was trying to retrieve his own property in the Las Vegas heist.

Wasn't Beardsley also in the room? I guess I am asking for what Fromong is getting restitution, since most of the stolen property will go to California for determination of ownership. I would guess that it is some sort of compensation for being a victim of a violent crime, which is why I don't understand Beardsley not getting restitution and Fromong may have a civil law suit against Mike Gilbert, if he bought the memorabilia from him and it is determined that someone else is the rightful owner, unless Fromong thinks that all he could have gotten from selling those items was $3,560.00. This case is just like fine wine, it just gets better with time. I did some quick research and it is for medical bills and missing baseballs.

[William Anthony]

http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/oj-simpson-guilty-of-stupidity/

“Similarly, minutes after the Sept. 13, 2007, confrontation, one of the alleged victims, sports-memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley, was calling news outlets, and the other, Bruce Fromong, spoke of getting “big money” from the incident.”

[martin II]

Wasn't Beardsley also in the room? I guess I am asking for what Fromong is getting restitution, since most of the stolen property will go to California for determination of ownership. I would guess that it is some sort of compensation for being a victim of a violent crime, which is why I don't understand Beardsley not getting restitution and Fromong may have a civil law suit against Mike Gilbert, if he bought the memorabilia from him and it is determined that someone else is the rightful owner, unless Fromong thinks that all he could have gotten from selling those items was $3,560.00. This case is just like fine wine, it just gets better with time. I did some quick research and it is for medical bills and missing baseballs.


I wonder how the vegas court can allow their court id stickers to be attatched to goods sold on ebay by a commercial person.Fred.

[martin II]

Wasn't Beardsley also in the room? I guess I am asking for what Fromong is getting restitution, since most of the stolen property will go to California for determination of ownership. I would guess that it is some sort of compensation for being a victim of a violent crime, which is why I don't understand Beardsley not getting restitution and Fromong may have a civil law suit against Mike Gilbert, if he bought the memorabilia from him and it is determined that someone else is the rightful owner, unless Fromong thinks that all he could have gotten from selling those items was $3,560.00. This case is just like fine wine, it just gets better with time. I did some quick research and it is for medical bills and missing baseballs.

If gilbert claimes he baught the stuff from oj and has receipts then how will fred get any of it.

in order to sort this out in CA all parties oj gilbert beadsley, fumong and god knows who else will have to testify. It could be complicted.

[William Anthony]

If gilbert claimes he baught the stuff from oj and has receipts then how will fred get any of it.

in order to sort this out in CA all parties oj gilbert beadsley, fumong and god knows who else will have to testify. It could be complicted.

Gilbert's story is that he assisted Simpson in hiding the stuff from the Goldmans and Simpson's story is that he did not ask Gilbert to hide the stuff or to sell it, as I understand it. Fromong's story must be that Gilbert gave him legal title to the stuff, through purchase of consignment. It seems that Riccio is the only person to have profited thus far. Perhaps, the Goldmans will hire Fromong to get rid of the stuff, if they are awarded it. I think the judge just may go by the court order and determine ownership and allow the parties to take legal recourse, if they decide to so do. What gets me is judge J. Glass seems to think that the stuff doesn't belong to Fromong. I thought that a victim of a robbery gets his property back, if he is able to identify it and show ownership. Allegedly, qwnership of the property was not an issue in the trial, so how did it become an issue afterward that involved judge J. Glass?

[martin II]

Gilbert's story is that he assisted Simpson in hiding the stuff from the Goldmans and Simpson's story is that he did not ask Gilbert to hide the stuff or to sell it, as I understand it. Fromong's story must be that Gilbert gave him legal title to the stuff, through purchase of consignment. It seems that Riccio is the only person to have profited thus far. Perhaps, the Goldmans will hire Fromong to get rid of the stuff, if they are awarded it. I think the judge just may go by the court order and determine ownership and allow the parties to take legal recourse, if they decide to so do. What gets me is judge J. Glass seems to think that the stuff doesn't belong to Fromong. I thought that a victim of a robbery gets his property back, if he is able to identify it and show ownership. Allegedly, qwnership of the property was not an issue in the trial, so how did it become an issue afterward that involved judge J. Glass?

Judge glass pulled a fast one. How did she determine Fumong owned the Joe Montana goods and the footbals??

When the hotel event first happened Fred asked Judge Rosenbure to allow him to take the stuff.The judge told him to bring him everything he thought he should have and he would decided on a piece by peice basis.
Since the goods were being held by le as evidence fred was not able to get his hand on any of it.

If the personal pictures and footballs were not on the civil judges list of items to be turned over then oj was allowed to keep these items because they had low value.

The ring.
I think freds lawyer has hit a stone wall on the ring.Beadsley said he never had the ring.Freds lawyer cannot prove that he did. Without Oj or Beadsley testifying that he had the ring there is not much the court can do and this may be why it is reported that the judge told Bedsley IF YOU EVER GET IT TURN IT IN.

[William Anthony]

Judge glass pulled a fast one. How did she determine Fumong owned the Joe Montana goods and the footbals??

When the hotel event first happened Fred asked Judge Rosenbure to allow him to take the stuff.The judge told him to bring him everything he thought he should have and he would decided on a piece by peice basis.
Since the goods were being held by le as evidence fred was not able to get his hand on any of it.

If the personal pictures and footballs were not on the civil judges list of items to be turned over then oj was allowed to keep these items because they had low value.

The ring.
I think freds lawyer has hit a stone wall on the ring.Beadsley said he never had the ring.Freds lawyer cannot prove that he did. Without Oj or Beadsley testifying that he had the ring there is not much the court can do and this may be why it is reported that the judge told Bedsley IF YOU EVER GET IT TURN IT IN.

Was that the exact wording? If a bird had a jukebox up its behind, there would be sweet music in the air. The whole situation tends to give the appearance that the case is about payback and that is sad, imho. I would think that the proper way to have handle the stuff was for the Goldmans to have filed a motion requesting the California Court to determine the ownership of the property and allow Nevada to retains possession of such property until such time as that decision was rendered, as opposed to judge J. Glass making a prima facie determination, that it might not belong to Fromong or why not return it to him, on her own volition that was not an issue in the case. I don't know, if the Goldmans made such a motion.

[martin II]

There is a multitude of goods for sale on the net claiming to be authentic oj stuff. Wonder why freds lawyer believes this stuff is would be accepted as authentic.
Maby they should give it to Fumong to sell but he may run off with the money.hahaha

[martin II]

Was that the exact wording? If a bird had a jukebox up its behind, there would be sweet music in the air. The whole situation tends to give the appearance that the case is about payback and that is sad, imho. I would think that the proper way to have handle the stuff was for the Goldmans to have filed a motion requesting the California Court to determine the ownership of the property and allow Nevada to retains possession of such property until such time as that decision was rendered, as opposed to judge J. Glass making a prima facie determination, that it might not belong to Fromong or why not return it to him, on her own volition that was not an issue in the case. I don't know, if the Goldmans made such a motion.

Those words were in the link i posted yesterday.
i found it strange and openended.

[William Anthony]

Those words were in the link i posted yesterday.
i found it strange and openended.

Perhaps, the most important issues on appeal will be the Batson challenge, the all White jury, judge J. Glass' demeanor, actions and statements toward the defense, the jury foreman's words and conduct. all as it relates to the concept that this trial was more about payback than anything else.

"It is the confidence of men and women that administer the judicial system
that is the true backbone of the law. Time will one day heal the wound that
is inflicted by today’s decision. One thing is, however, certain. We may
never know the identify of the winner…the identity of the loser is perfectly
clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian
of the rule of law

Dissenting of opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore."

[William Anthony]

I have searched and could not find a definition as to what constitutes an "unlawful taking" under Nevada law as to personal property. I have some problems with the wording of the statute as it states to take property from another. This is what negates the concept of ownership in my mind and causes me to wonder if Simpson was denied a Constitutional right to assert a defense of claim of right defense. I found this case which addresses the difference in the types of intent required under Nevada and California law. What is interesting is in the wording of the statutes and the California statute includes the wording to permanently deprive another of his or her property, IIRC. It would seem that the claim of right defense would be a defense to the California statute. I think that the defense should argue that the Nevada statute is vague and, as such, violates Simpson's due process liberty rights. Of course, this might call into question all those previously convicted under Nevada law or, at least, those who stated they were reclaiming their property.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:vuXB0yT9A5QJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G039414.PDF+nevada+revised+statutes+definition+of+ unlawful+taking+of+personal+property&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

[martin II]

u S Constitution

Was the 14th amendment ever ratified by congress.

this could relate indirectly to oj.

[William Anthony]

u S Constitution

Was the 14th amendment ever ratified by congress.

this could relate indirectly to oj.

Whether by operandi de facto or operandi de jure it is a part of the Constitution and the rights enumerated therein and all persons born or naturalized as citizens of the United States, including Simpson, are entitled to its protections, imho.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on conspiracy and general and specific intent crimes in Nevada and what amounts to the sufficiency of the evidence in each case and why the authentication of the tapes may be an issue to some of the crimes for which he was convicted. I forget which charges judge J. Glass dropped.

[martin II]

Whether by operandi de facto or operandi de jure it is a part of the Constitution and the rights enumerated therein and all persons born or naturalized as citizens of the United States, including Simpson, are entitled to its protections, imho.

I saw A talk show where it was stated that there were not enough votes to ratify the 14th, I am assumming that the two issues you mentioned means it was approved by other methods?

[William Anthony]

I saw A talk show where it was stated that there were not enough votes to ratify the 14th, I am assumming that the two issues you mentioned means it was approved by other methods?

Yes, it was some controversy over how the states, votes were counted, according to my understanding. However, considering the vast amount of case law on that particular Amendment, I think that it has become recognized as a valid Amendment to the Constitution, irrespective of the means of its adoption at the time it was offered for ratification by operation of fact or recognition as a fact, if you will, which gave it full legal effect. Maybe, this will explain what I am trying to say.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/de%20facto

[martin II]

Yes, it was some controversy over how the states, votes were counted, according to my understanding. However, considering the vast amount of case law on that particular Amendment, I think that it has become recognized as a valid Amendment to the Constitution, irrespective of the means of its adoption at the time it was offered for ratification by operation of fact or recognition as a fact, if you will, which gave it full legal effect. Maybe, this will explain what I am trying to say.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/de%20facto

I got it.Don't know why i did not think about that example.

[William Anthony]

I saw A talk show where it was stated that there were not enough votes to ratify the 14th, I am assumming that the two issues you mentioned means it was approved by other methods?

Martin,

I believe that, in regard to the Batson challenge, a successful argument might be made. The argument being that, if the premise is that jurors could set aside their personal feelings on the murder trial verdict, and judge the armed robbery case on its merits, why could it be assumed that those, who have a personal religious view toward punishment not be able to set aside thier views and judge the trial on its merits? What enables the court to determine, whether or not a personal view is less weaker that a personal view based on religion and whether this was just a pretext by the prosecution to systematically deny certain jurors and how this argument will play on appeal? Is it fair for the court to assume that a certain class of people have stronger religious views than others, which would preclude them jury duty? Should juries be composted of only agnostics or atheists and, if so, would this ensure separation of church and state and did the prosecution in this case violate that principle?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I was afraid to mention race in the above post but that is the basis of the Batson challenge and it is a part of the case but it might be turned into a post that was untoward. I don't know how we cannot discuss race, when it was a part of the trial.

[William Anthony]

This from the Nevada Constitution,

"Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship."

[William Anthony]

William,

I remember after the civil trial, many talking heads, even Geraldo Rivera agreed that Simpson did have solid grounds for an appeal and if it was anybody but him, a trial would have been granted. However, it was their opinion that the courts just want him to go away and that no judge was going to risk losing their career if they allowed a new trial.

I really didn't follow of this. IMO, I don't think Simpson would have asked anyone to bring guns. While many people think Simpson is as dumb as box rocks, he isn't. He knew everything he did was being watched.

IMO, I think he was convicted by the jury for the basic reason that he painted his own target on his own back--in other words, they were tired of seeing giving the middle finger to the legal system.

Again, I didn't follow this but did the defense ever give examples on why Simpson did not go the police to help him recover these items?

I think that court of public opinion will play a part in the appeal plus judges are hesitant to overturn another judge.

They idea that he asked someone to bring guns was gleaned from the tapes. He asked one of the co-defendant's if they had a permit to carry a gun, aked did he have it on him (in his pocket, IIRC) and asked him to join them.

I believe his conduct/attitude had a lot to do with the number of charges and his conviction.

The person, who did the taping, was supposed to have gone to LE and was told they were not interested in any weird celebrity cases but they soon got interested.

[martin II]

William,

I remember after the civil trial, many talking heads, even Geraldo Rivera agreed that Simpson did have solid grounds for an appeal and if it was anybody but him, a trial would have been granted. However, it was their opinion that the courts just want him to go away and that no judge was going to risk losing their career if they allowed a new trial.

I really didn't follow of this. IMO, I don't think Simpson would have asked anyone to bring guns. While many people think Simpson is as dumb as box rocks, he isn't. He knew everything he did was being watched.

IMO, I think he was convicted by the jury for the basic reason that he painted his own target on his own back--in other words, they were tired of seeing giving the middle finger to the legal system.

Again, I didn't follow this but did the defense ever give examples on why Simpson did not go the police to help him recover these items?


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

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

[limakey]

I think that court of public opinion will play a part in the appeal plus judges are hesitant to overturn another judge.

They idea that he asked someone to bring guns was gleaned from the tapes. He asked one of the co-defendant's if they had a permit to carry a gun, aked did he have it on him (in his pocket, IIRC) and asked him to join them.

I believe his conduct/attitude had a lot to do with the number of charges and his conviction.

The person, who did the taping, was supposed to have gone to LE and was told they were not interested in any weird celebrity cases but they soon got interested.

William,

I am confused, Simpson's conversations were being recorded before they entered the hotel room?

[William Anthony]

William,

I am confused, Simpson's conversations were being recorded before they entered the hotel room?

Oh yes, Riccio and others were as busy as a watches when it came to taping. :)

[Deepwater]

I think that is a remote possibility that might entitle him to a new trial, although I doubt that the outcome will be any different. It just may add some validity to the impartiality process, which is what I question. I think he will still be found guilty in a new trial and I think that is the correct verdict under the state of the Nevada law. I don't see that the Supreme Court will change the standard of intent that the Nevada law imposes. They might entertain the idea that one cannot rob his own property (an off-handed way of addressing intent) but that involves federalism and state sovereignty. DW I think that the appeal is part of a discussion of the case. If I am wrong, please, inform me?


To answer your question, yes appeals discussion is OK. BTW it's OK to post relevant links.

Thanks for asking. :seeya:

--DW

[Deepwater]

I remember the sentencing hearing and seeing some of Simpson's family members there and the shot of sadness in the eyes of the majestic, regal and beautiful Arnelle but I don't know if Jason was there. If what some have posted is true, then today maybe the last camera opportunity for judge J. Glass. I wonder what toll the verdict will have on Simpson's family and ask DW, if this wondering is part of the case.

Yes musings about the family is off topic for this thread.

Let's see how the discussion goes and if we can keep it civil for a week or two. Then perhaps we can start another thread regarding the Nev. case. At that time I will be glad to entertain suggestions as to what that thread might be.

Thanks again!

--D

[William Anthony]

Yes musings about the family is off topic for this thread.

Let's see how the discussion goes and if we can keep it civil for a week or two. Then perhaps we can start another thread regarding the Nev. case. At that time I will be glad to entertain suggestions as to what that thread might be.

Thanks again!

--D

I am glad to see that an active oversight of the forum is being conducted. Ms. Arnelle was videoed at the sentencing and the Goldman's spoke to the media. There have been repeated musings/speculations about the families and they have never been regarded as off topic. There was nothing uncivil about my posts and I believe they are within the rules. It seems that there is an effort to curtail my First Amendment Right to voice my opinion. I simply asked if anyone had seen another particular family member there, as I was unable to watch the entire trial due to other commitments. I think there has been much musing, by at least one, and, if IIRC, maybe two about Ms. Arnelle's possible involvement in the Nevada case. Thanks for the consideration of what I have mentioned.

[William Anthony]

DeepWater.

When I read my post above, it did not appear to be clear. When I mentioned my First Amendment rights, it was not an accusation but I should have been more clear as to what is allowed in regard to posting about family members and is this restriction applicable to all members of the families involved or who have become involved? From past posts, I was unsure as to where to draw the line and is Ms. Arnelle considered not to have any involvement in the case? Thanks.

[William Anthony]

I think the validity of the verdict, even though I agree that it is the correct one based on the state of the Nevada law at the time of the trial, may be questioned based on the actions of the jury foreman, the date the verdict was rendered, the actions and statements of judge J. Glass and the foreman, the Batson challenge and the issue of the admissibility of the tapes, which all seem to indicate or cause me to question whether the verdict was a form of payback.

[Deepwater]

My comment was in reply to a direct question from someone else's posts. Was not directed at you.

--D


I am glad to see that an active oversight of the forum is being conducted. Ms. Arnelle was videoed at the sentencing and the Goldman's spoke to the media. There have been repeated musings/speculations about the families and they have never been regarded as off topic. There was nothing uncivil about my posts and I believe they are within the rules. It seems that there is an effort to curtail my First Amendment Right to voice my opinion. I simply asked if anyone had seen another particular family member there, as I was unable to watch the entire trial due to other commitments. I think there has been much musing, by at least one, and, if IIRC, maybe two about Ms. Arnelle's possible involvement in the Nevada case. Thanks for the consideration of what I have mentioned.

[William Anthony]

My comment was in reply to a direct question from someone else's posts. Was not directed at you.

--D

I do apologize but I think that if you look at post #51 you will understand the source of my confusion.

[FDInLaw]

I hope posting funny stuff is okay. . . this is too cute:

OJ Simpson As The Grinch Who Stole Christmas!

http://current.com/items/89671827/oj_simpson_as_the_grinch_who_stole_christmas.htm



:biggrin:

[socaldiva]

Too cute FDinlaw! I'll take funny over petty bickering any day of the week. Happy New Years :D

[FDInLaw]

Too cute FDinlaw! I'll take funny over petty bickering any day of the week. Happy New Years :DSomeone needed to post something (lol).

Happy New Year! :seeya:

[martin II]

I hope posting funny stuff is okay. . . this is too cute:

OJ Simpson As The Grinch Who Stole Christmas!

http://current.com/items/89671827/oj_simpson_as_the_grinch_who_stole_christmas.htm



:biggrin:

OT according to the instructions of the moderator.

[socaldiva]

Someone needed to post something (lol).

Happy New Year! :seeya:


I know what you mean. Does anyone know what sort of Holiday meal Simpson received in his new home? :tongue:

[FDInLaw]

OT according to the instructions of the moderator.

It was a tad of humor about OJ and his most recent run-in with the law. . . how was it off topic? Guess I missed the announcement. Since this board has been quiet, I thought it might help.

My sincere apologies. . .


now I'm off to a forum where folks have a sense of humor.

[socaldiva]

It was a tad of humor about OJ and his most recent run-in with the law. . . how was it off topic? Guess I missed the announcement. Since this board has been quiet, I thought it might help.

My sincere apologies. . .


now I'm off to a forum where folks have a sense of humor.

Aw, don't let the haters run you off. It seems some are just miffed that Simpson is in the pokey. For a real long time it seems :biggrin:

[FDInLaw]

I know what you mean. Does anyone know what sort of Holiday meal Simpson received in his new home? :tongue:He won't have much freedom at meal time either. The state allocates $2.18 for meals per day per inmate, and men get a standard 2,800-calorie diet. Hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken and pizza are among the most popular menu items, Skolnik said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28087337/



Me thinks it wasn't too elaborate. :D

[socaldiva]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28087337/



Me thinks it wasn't too elaborate. :D

Thanks for the link & the info. Doesn't sound like he gets anything tasty, does it? :patriot:

[FDInLaw]

Thanks for the link & the info. Doesn't sound like he gets anything tasty, does it? :patriot:
Now, that depends on if a person is in second grade or not. . . my kids wouldn't complain lol.

I'm sure the pokey has a special meal for the holidays. :shrug:

[socaldiva]

Now, that depends on if a person is in second grade or not. . . my kids wouldn't complain lol.

I'm sure the pokey has a special meal for the holidays. :shrug:

That's true! hot dogs, chicken & pizza are pretty much universally loved by children. I bet Simpson hates it though. Maybe they get corndogs on special days. :D

[FDInLaw]

Since I am concerned about posters who want to discuss the case and the issues involved in it as well as saving the thread and it seems that others do not share my concern, I think I must report the matter to the moderator.
Huh? We are discussing OJ's present situation. . . I even provided a link to answer an honest question. What gives???? I did not interrupt any on-going conversation. I was the first to post on here in two days!!!!! Seriously, if you have something you deem more worthy of discussion, present it. Otherwise, I'm starting to understand why there appears to be only two main posters on this thread (you and Martin!). :(

[William Anthony]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment encompasses both procedural and substantive rights and is rooted in the concept of fairness. I think both types of due process violations will be alleged in the appeal. Thanks.

[socaldiva]

Simpson received due process. It's called a trial. He lost. :patriot:

[William Anthony]

Here is a definition of a trial.

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

The Due Process Rights are part of the trial process, which is why appeals are taken in many instances. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

I usually do not like the above source but a quick reading found that it squared with my understanding.

[socaldiva]

No need to post dictionary findings for me, I won't read them. I know that your postings about the 14th amendment had no tie in to the Simpson case & you can twist in the wind posting trying to turn it into such, but it won't fly with me.

[William Anthony]

It is up to a poster to decide what to read and what not to but others may want to be informed or learn things they might not know. I know I do. Thanks.

[FDInLaw]

I'm still a tad stunned that the posting of a humorous depiction of the person in whom that forum exists caused this spat. Wouldn't it be better to drop the offender a private message and/or report the post without informing the whole board? Is it me, or is there a real sense of oneupmanship on this board?

I don't like it.


On topic. . . I believe Simpson deserves his stay in the pokey, and should his attorneys appeal, I pray it fails. There. That's my short and sweet contribution.

[FDInLaw]

Being the pro-active person I am, I have set up the following social group:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/group.php?groupid=4


In the future I will post any OJ Jokes there for anyone that would care to see them.



Care on. . .


:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Being the pro-active person I am, I have set up the following social group:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/group.php?groupid=4


In the future I will post any OJ Jokes there for anyone that would care to see them.



Care on. . .


:seeya:

Thank you for your consideration.

[socaldiva]

Being the pro-active person I am, I have set up the following social group:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/group.php?groupid=4


In the future I will post any OJ Jokes there for anyone that would care to see them.



Care on. . .


:seeya:


Good idea! :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I think an argument can be made on appeal that the exclusion of people from juries because of religious beliefs is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. I believe it can be argued by precedent that it would amount to state action, if the court accepted such an excuse as it relates to the Batson challenge. Relying on the dicta in some of the cases before the Supreme Court, called the White Primary Cases, the argument would then be that state action that is laws repugnant to the Constitution cannot stand, as state in Marbury v. Madison, has been extended to include state action.

[William Anthony]

This is from the Nevada Constitution.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

Sec: 4. Liberty of conscience. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of consciene [conscience] hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.

Hence, the argument would be that the exclusion of people from the jury based on their religious beliefs was in violation of the Nevada Constitution, in that those with religious views were denied the free exercise and enjoyment to religion and their exclusions were discriminatory and preferential.

[William Anthony]

I am particularly concerned that Judge J. Glass found it necessary to mention the fact that Simpson referred to the Goldmans as gold diggers on the tapes. It was as if judge J. Glass was saying that the Goldmans were off limits to joke about, imho. I don't understand how his joking played or should have played any part in the trial or sentencing. I think that adds to the feeling that the trial was about payback and that judge J. Glass was not impartial.

[William Anthony]

http://jec.unm.edu/resources/judicial_handbook/ethics/ethics07.htm

7-620. Toward lawyers. When a judge is rude and discourteous to an attorney in court, it seriously diminishes an attorney's ability to effectively represent his or her client. In fact, jurors and others are sometimes negatively influenced by the tone set by a judge." R. Weeks, Appropriate Courtroom Conduct, 7 NBA Magazine 14, 22 (1993).

Impatience, irritation or indications of bias by the judge can impede presentation of evidence or legal argument and interfere with parties' right to be heard.

7-621. Notable examples. Judges have been disciplined for improper treatment of attorneys such as:

* telling an attorney he was wasting the court's time
* interrupting the attorney when he was addressing the court
* implying the attorney was not being truthful
* asking the attorney "Why, do you want to get some more of this woman's money?" after the client pleaded not guilty to a traffic charge
* rude treatment after attorney filed a motion to disqualify the judge
* accusing an attorney of unethical conduct in open court
* belittling an attorney in front of client or jury
* making an adverse ruling out of pique
* accusing attorney of incompetence and questioning legal experience
* telling an attorney to shut up
* using obscenity in telephone conversation with prosecutor
* telling attorney "I don't have time to practice law for you"
* being rude to encourage settlement
* showing anger when attorney refused to stipulate to probable cause. Rothman, supra, §140.100.

“A two-year suspension was ordered for a Wisconsin judge who during trial interrupted the prosecutor's attempt to make an offer of proof, improperly impeached a witness in front of the jury, repeatedly insulted and verbally abused prosecuting attorneys. In re Breitenbach, 482 N.W.2d 52, 54-56 (Wis. 1992).

An Iowa District Court judge was suspended for continually harassing a lawyer and his firm because the judge disapproved of the lawyer's handling of a divorce case, including warning the lawyer that judges rate lawyers. In re Eads, 362 N.W.2d 541, 544-46 (Iowa 1985).

A Wisconsin judge was sanctioned for rude comments to attorneys, including telling an attorney who tried to vigorously defend his client that if he opened his mouth once more he was "going to have you in the pokey with your client." In re Seraphim, 294 N.W. 2d 485, 497 (Wis. 1980).

A California judge's misconduct included abruptly interrupting defense attorneys on a number of occasions with comments such as "why don't you try opening your ears and closing your mouth for a bit," and "please don't make these phony motions and don't lie to me in open court." Cannon v. Comm’n on Judicial Qualifications, 537 P.2d 898, 904 (Cal. 1975).

7-622. Provocation. Even if a judge's rude behavior toward attorneys is provoked by the attorney's rude conduct, the judge must take appropriate steps to control the courtroom without retaliating. If a reprimand is warranted, it should take place away from the jury. It is never appropriate to repeatedly interrupt an attorney without justification or be abusive or ridiculing. See EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, Contempt. “

I think we can now have a comparison of the way different judges conducted themselves in line with what is ethical. I think I have a new appreciation for some judges, who some believe lost control of the courtroom, as compared to others.

[William Anthony]

"Karma for Simpson? - In 2007, O.J. Simpson was accused of breaking into a Las Vegas hotel room with several other men, one of whom was armed with a gun. In the hotel room were sports memorabilia dealers who Simpson believed unlawfully held his personal property. For this act, Simpson was found guilty in 2008 of armed robbery and kidnapping and will not be eligible for parole for at least nine years. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994, and many who believe him guilty of that crime feel Simpson is finally getting what he deserves. Ironically, Simpson was found guilty of the recent armed robbery and kidnapping exactly thirteen years after he was acquitted of the savage double murder."

Judging from the statements of the jury foreman, if true, the argument could be made that he was intent on having the verdict rendered on that day by "this jury", which calls into question whether there was some divine or man-made force at work, imho?

[William Anthony]

This is from one of the White Primary Cases, Smith v. Allwiright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944), the Court granted certiorari to consider when the action of a political party becomes a state action and overruled the decision in the case of Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 25 (1935). The Court in the Allwright case reasoned that state action can be construed to exist;

“when a state requires a certain electoral procedure, prescribes a ballot
made up of party nominees so chosen and limit’s the choice of those
whose name appears on such a ballot, it endorses, adopts and endorses
the discrimination practiced against Negroes, practiced by a party entrusted
by Texas law with the determination of the qualifications of the participants in the primary. “

Therefore, an analogous could be made that by the court accepting the reasons of the prosecution for excluding the jury members based on religion. The court endorsed and adopts the discrimination, which may have resulted in a due process violation and a violation of Simpson's right to an impartial trial by a jury of his peers.

[FDInLaw]

SANTA MONICA, California (CNN) -- Most of the sports memorabilia seized by authorities in the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case in Las Vegas is headed to California and, eventually, to Fred Goldman.

On Friday, Judge Jackie Glass, who presided over Simpson's armed robbery trial, ordered footballs, pictures and other memorabilia in evidence shipped to the Los Angeles County sheriff.

Goldman lawyer David Cook says he and his client are thinking about selling the memorabilia online to help pay the $33.5 million judgment against Simpson for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman.

"Sheriff's sales are traditionally distress sales, to be very polite," Cook explained. "We are going to try to obtain an order from the court to authorize this stuff with evidence stickers attached (to be sold) on eBay, America's yard sale," he added.

"Hopefully, somebody will be enthralled enough to try to buy the football that put O.J. behind bars."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/19/oj.simpson.ring.hearing/


Oh, I bet OJ is not lovin' this. :D

[William Anthony]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/19/oj.simpson.ring.hearing/


Oh, I bet OJ is not lovin' this. :D

I am not sure but I think DW has limited this discussion to the Nevada case. I think the only relevant portion of your post deals with the fact that judge J. Glass ordered some of the memorabilia sent to California. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

[FDInLaw]

More on the memorabilia pertaining to this case:To the victor (crossed out in article) victim go the spoils.

A Las Vegas judge this morning ordered that the lion's share of sports memorabilia that ultimately cost O.J. Simpson his freedom must be sent back to Los Angeles and turned over to the County Sheriff's Department, where the items' ownership will be determined.

Should it be decided that the memorabilia belongs to Simpson, as he himself has long attested, it will likely be sold off to the highest bidder and—here's where it must really smart—go toward satisfying the grossly outstanding wrongful-death judgment awarded to the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/oj_simpson/index.html

[FDInLaw]

I predict his signed items won't skyrocket like they did during the trial. He has simply signed too much in recent years and the novelty of having something O.J. has faded. That being said, if you are holding on to a good piece of trial memorabilia, you might want to get ready to sell it sometime soon now that he's relevant again, or wait until the trial's 20th or 25th anniversary.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20820113

[FDInLaw]

Most of stolen O.J. memorabilia headed to California

On the day of the robbery, Fromong brought the items to the room for what he thought was a legitimate sales meeting. But the “buyer” turned out to be Simpson and five other men, who robbed Fromong and Alfred Beardsley at gunpoint.

Fromong had asked for $100,000 in restitution, plus medical costs related to heart and back troubles he attributed to the robbery. Glass awarded him $3,560, which included $2,400 for medical bills and $960 for signed baseballs that were stolen but never found.

A box of Joe Montana lithographs will also be returned to Fromong.

After the short hearing Friday, Fromong said he was unhappy with Glass’ decision to send the memorabilia, worth between $75,000 and $100,000, to California.

“I still maintain the stuff is mine, plain and simple,” he said. “They took the easy way out so they don’t have to try to deal with it.”

He also criticized the amount of money he was awarded for the missing baseballs signed by baseball greats Pete Rose and Duke Snider.

Glass said she arrived at the amount by looking at the online auction site eBay.

“These are people who have no idea how much sports memorabilia is worth,” Fromong said. “I got low-balled.”


http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/36455159.html


Poor sucker. . . he did get out of this alive though. Gotta think on the bright side. Could have been much worse (IMO).

[William Anthony]

As it relates to the Nevada case and the Batson challenge, I think it will be interesting to see if the defense presents an argument similar to the one that I think can be made. I think it might have a chance to succeed and a new trial held. I guess it is a good thing that Simpson is alive, if a similar argument is made, in that the court may have some interesting issues to consider.

[William Anthony]

I think Stewart's best chances pertain to the motions for severance and the admissibility of the tapes. I think both Simpson and Stewart may have a valid argument on the sufficiency of the evidence on which the jury claimed to have relied.

[socaldiva]

Most of stolen O.J. memorabilia headed to California



http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/36455159.html


Poor sucker. . . he did get out of this alive though. Gotta think on the bright side. Could have been much worse (IMO).

Wow, he asked for $100k & received $3,500 & the remainder of the booty left for California. What a blow.

[FDInLaw]

Wow, he asked for $100k & received $3,500 & the remainder of the booty left for California. What a blow.
Is there any legal action he can take if the memorabillia ends up selling for a lot more???

[socaldiva]

Is there any legal action he can take if the memorabillia ends up selling for a lot more???

Good question. If I were him, I'd be thankful to have gotten out of there alive & I'd call it a day.

Sorry about that, I had things out of order for a minute there. lol.

[FDInLaw]

Good question. If I were him, I'd be thankful to have gotten out of there alive & I'd call it a day.
I agree. Scary situation that must have been.

[socaldiva]

I agree. Scary situation that must have been.


Isn't this the fellow that had a couple of heart attacks around the time of the robbery and/or trial?

[FDInLaw]

Simpson still in hall, but what about memorabilia?
by Associated Press


NEW YORK -- O.J. Simpson's portrait hangs in the Heisman Trophy exhibit at the new Sports Museum of America.

He's a member of the college and professional football halls of fame, his jersey number has been retired by the University of Southern California and he is featured on the Buffalo Bills' Wall of Fame.

Many of the honors bestowed Simpson for being one of the greatest running backs in history are likely to remain in place, even as he serves a prison sentence for armed robbery and kidnapping.

Simpson was convicted earlier this month in Las Vegas. That came 13 years after he was acquitted in the slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. Simpson was later found liable for their deaths in a civil trial.

Simpson's status as a Hall of Famer was unaffected by those legal issues.

Now that he is a convicted felon, the National Football Foundation and College Football Hall of Fame plans to review his status and determine what to do with the Simpson memorabilia displayed at the museum in South Bend, Ind., NFF president Steve Hatchell recently said.

"We will review it, but there are no plans to take him out of the hall," Hatchell said. "It's a big wrestling match because he was put in for what he did as a football player at Southern Cal."

The College Football Hall of Fame has no written morality or ethics clause, but Hatchell said character is factored in when players are considered for induction.

"It's sort of an unwritten rule that if there's issues, steer away from them," he said.



http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2008/12/simpson_still_in_hall_but_what.html


See link for complete article.

[socaldiva]

Simpson still in hall, but what about memorabilia?
by Associated Press


http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2008/12/simpson_still_in_hall_but_what.html


See link for complete article.


Thanks for the link & article. You would think they would strip a convicted felons stuff off the walls.

[FDInLaw]

Thanks for the link & article. You would think they would strip a convicted felons stuff off the walls.

Simpson did have a incredible football career. It's just sad that he chose to act like a common thug (IMO). . . like our youth are not already lacking role models. :(

Speaking of youth, how are his kids holding up these days???

[FDInLaw]

Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg, who last week had ordered Beardsley to turn over the ring, ruled that he must give it up if it ever does come into his possession.

Beardsley said he planned to sue Goldman for having him hauled into court over the issue.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20081220/ai_n31150431


Sounds like Beardsley plans legal action.

[socaldiva]

Simpson did have a incredible football career. It's just sad that he chose to act like a common thug (IMO). . . like our youth are not already lacking role models. :(

Speaking of youth, how are his kids holding up these days???

It is sad that Simpson stripped young people of yet another role model.

I recall seeing Arnelle attending the Las Vegas trial, but I didn't see the other three. I wonder if they attended & if not, why.

Well, I'm off for a bit. I'll check back later :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

It is sad that Simpson stripped young people of yet another role model.

I recall seeing Arnelle attending the Las Vegas trial, but I didn't see the other three. I wonder if they attended & if not, why.

Well, I'm off for a bit. I'll check back later :seeya:Thank you for hanging out! This can be a lonely forum. :seeya:

[martin II]

http://jec.unm.edu/resources/judicial_handbook/ethics/ethics07.htm

7-620. Toward lawyers. When a judge is rude and discourteous to an attorney in court, it seriously diminishes an attorney's ability to effectively represent his or her client. In fact, jurors and others are sometimes negatively influenced by the tone set by a judge." R. Weeks, Appropriate Courtroom Conduct, 7 NBA Magazine 14, 22 (1993).

Impatience, irritation or indications of bias by the judge can impede presentation of evidence or legal argument and interfere with parties' right to be heard.

7-621. Notable examples. Judges have been disciplined for improper treatment of attorneys such as:

* telling an attorney he was wasting the court's time
* interrupting the attorney when he was addressing the court
* implying the attorney was not being truthful
* asking the attorney "Why, do you want to get some more of this woman's money?" after the client pleaded not guilty to a traffic charge
* rude treatment after attorney filed a motion to disqualify the judge
* accusing an attorney of unethical conduct in open court
* belittling an attorney in front of client or jury
* making an adverse ruling out of pique
* accusing attorney of incompetence and questioning legal experience
* telling an attorney to shut up
* using obscenity in telephone conversation with prosecutor
* telling attorney "I don't have time to practice law for you"
* being rude to encourage settlement
* showing anger when attorney refused to stipulate to probable cause. Rothman, supra, §140.100.

“A two-year suspension was ordered for a Wisconsin judge who during trial interrupted the prosecutor's attempt to make an offer of proof, improperly impeached a witness in front of the jury, repeatedly insulted and verbally abused prosecuting attorneys. In re Breitenbach, 482 N.W.2d 52, 54-56 (Wis. 1992).

An Iowa District Court judge was suspended for continually harassing a lawyer and his firm because the judge disapproved of the lawyer's handling of a divorce case, including warning the lawyer that judges rate lawyers. In re Eads, 362 N.W.2d 541, 544-46 (Iowa 1985).

A Wisconsin judge was sanctioned for rude comments to attorneys, including telling an attorney who tried to vigorously defend his client that if he opened his mouth once more he was "going to have you in the pokey with your client." In re Seraphim, 294 N.W. 2d 485, 497 (Wis. 1980).

A California judge's misconduct included abruptly interrupting defense attorneys on a number of occasions with comments such as "why don't you try opening your ears and closing your mouth for a bit," and "please don't make these phony motions and don't lie to me in open court." Cannon v. Comm’n on Judicial Qualifications, 537 P.2d 898, 904 (Cal. 1975).

7-622. Provocation. Even if a judge's rude behavior toward attorneys is provoked by the attorney's rude conduct, the judge must take appropriate steps to control the courtroom without retaliating. If a reprimand is warranted, it should take place away from the jury. It is never appropriate to repeatedly interrupt an attorney without justification or be abusive or ridiculing. See EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, Contempt. “

I think we can now have a comparison of the way different judges conducted themselves in line with what is ethical. I think I have a new appreciation for some judges, who some believe lost control of the courtroom, as compared to others.

Your post could give strong support to a appeal for the defendants as there was much of this by the judge in the trial.

[FDInLaw]

O.J. Simpson Conviction: More Important Than the Iraq War or Afghanistan War?

A CNN poll on the top news stories of 2008, displayed on cnn.com, should raise some eyebrows regarding public support for our United States troops in the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.

>snip<

American Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps rates Number Four, for his record achievement of eight gold medals. That's well and good. But sadly, even people who are supposedly intelligent enough to follow CNN are rating the O.J. Simpson conviction at Number Nine (at the time of this writing). To repeat, tens of thousands of CNN respondents assert that the O.J. Simpson conviction is more important than either the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War, much less a combination of both.

Of course, it was CNN that first cheapened itself back during the middle 1990s with virtually nonstop coverage of the original O.J. Simpson trial. Maybe a Top Ten rating back then would have been slightly understandable. But, folks, that was more than a decade ago.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1337105/oj_simpson_conviction_more_important.html?cat=9

See link for complete article.


:eek: Wow, I'm a little shocked.

[William Anthony]

Your post could give strong support to a appeal for the defendants as there was much of this by the judge in the trial.

As it concerns my questions concerning the Batson challenge and the exclusion of certain jury members, I see that my argument has previously been made and there is a section in this link that states the Third Circuit Appellate court has ruled on the exclusions based on religion but the United States Supreme Court has not yet so ruled. Perhaps, this case will bring finality to the question. I am glad to see that I am thinking like a lawyer.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:hSMmmBKTMgkJ:www.jjldj.com/documents/JD-Peremptory-Strikes.pdf+Supreme+court+rules+that+religious+bel iefs+are+not+grounds+to+dismiss+a+juror&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I think his appeals will probably be a top rated news story, also.

[martin II]

As it concerns my questions concerning the Batson challenge and the exclusion of certain jury members, I see that my argument has previously been made and there is a section in this link that states the Third Circuit Appellate court has ruled on the exclusions based on religion but the United States Supreme Court has not yet so ruled. Perhaps, this case will bring finality to the question. I am glad to see that I am thinking like a lawyer.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:hSMmmBKTMgkJ:www.jjldj.com/documents/JD-Peremptory-Strikes.pdf+Supreme+court+rules+that+religious+bel iefs+are+not+grounds+to+dismiss+a+juror&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I think his appeals will probably be a top rated news story, also.


I had missed the prosecutions and the judges excuse for allowing the prosecution to reject the two religious black women for religious reasons. I don't see how that was allowed by the judge in the vagas case.

[FDInLaw]

I am particularly concerned that Judge J. Glass found it necessary to mention the fact that Simpson referred to the Goldmans as gold diggers on the tapes. It was as if judge J. Glass was saying that the Goldmans were off limits to joke about, imho. I don't understand how his joking played or should have played any part in the trial or sentencing. I think that adds to the feeling that the trial was about payback and that judge J. Glass was not impartial.

Goodness. . . are you going off topic here (as you dictated to me) or is it my imagination? :tongue:


The double standard is getting old. Glass houses and all that stuff.

[FDInLaw]

My point is that I've been told not to post about the memorabilia (items that are clearly connected to this case) for fear it will lead to discussion about the, you know ~ families from the first case against Simpson (I don't dare post the "G" name lol :D ), but here, our friend William is freely using the "G" name. What gives? Seriously?

The level of irony on this board is delightful. :hat:

[socaldiva]

Here's a good example of the ignore option. One of the posters has replied but since he is on permanent ignore because I'm not interested in his comments, I can have a discussion with you about Simpson. You have to wonder at Simpson's level of intelligence (I should say lack of) that he thought he could get away with his Nevada hotel thuggery. And the shock of being arrested? Wait, there's more. Being sent to trial. Wait, there's more. Being found guilty. Wait. There's more. Being sent to jail. Where he belongs. Couldn't agree with you more.

Simpson just never knew when to give up & he thought he could have it all because he's "O.J". He should have valued his freedom enough to respect having it. Personally, I think Simpson is dumber than a pet rock. :D

[socaldiva]

My point is that I've been told not to post about the memorabilia (items that are clearly connected to this case) for fear it will lead to discussion about the, you know ~ families from the first case against Simpson (I don't dare post the "G" name lol :D ), but here, our friend William is freely using the "G" name. What gives? Seriously?

The level of irony on this board is delightful. :hat:

Gee, what's the common denominator? I say we use our own common sense as to what to post & only take instruction directly from a moderator, not one that thinks they are a mini moderator. Supposedly reports were made, yet we weren't contacted. What does that tell you?

[FDInLaw]

Gee, what's the common denominator? I say we use our own common sense as to what to post & only take instruction directly from a moderator, not one that thinks they are a mini moderator. Supposedly reports were made, yet we weren't contacted. What does that tell you?

I say we post to our hearts content until instructed otherwise. :beer:

I agree with you two. . . I'd like to see Simpson stay where he is. Did you see the article I posted about Simpson's conviction being more important news to American's than the War in Iraq???? Crazy.

[socaldiva]

I say we post to our hearts content until instructed otherwise. :beer:

I agree with you two. . . I'd like to see Simpson stay where he is. Did you see the article I posted about Simpson's conviction being more important news to American's than the War in Iraq???? Crazy.

:beer::beer:

Was Christine Prody at the Vegas trial? I wonder what's up with her? I wonder if she is still residing in Orenthal's home in Florida.....

[FDInLaw]

:beer::beer:

Was Christine Prody at the Vegas trial? I wonder what's up with her? I wonder if she is still residing in Orenthal's home in Florida.....

Twelve years after Marcia Clark heard jurors pronounce O.J. Simpson innocent of murder, the former prosecutor carried her enduring guilt into another courtroom with the ex-football star.

This time, Clark was the most startling member of the media pack covering Simpson's Las Vegas felony arrest. As legal correspondent for "Entertainment Tonight" and "The Insider," she had the chance to tell the world what she thinks of Simpson _ and she used it.

"Just seeing him back in court again, facing charges. I can't believe it. It's just surreal," she said in an interview with The Associated Press. "He skated on two murder charges, and he managed to get out of other charges of much lesser gravity since then. How did he manage to get himself back in trouble again?

"How stupid do you have to be?"

On the air, Clark's voice drips with more disgust. She dismissed Simpson's book, "If I Did It," as "hideous" and "all a lie." Indirectly addressing his girlfriend Christine Prody, a Nicole Brown-lookalike who stood by him in court Wednesday, Clark said: "It made me sick to my stomach. Do you not realize you could be next?"



http://www.film.com/features/story/marcia-clark-now-reporting-oj/16567476

Prody was in court here. . . let me dig more. . .

[socaldiva]

http://www.film.com/features/story/marcia-clark-now-reporting-oj/16567476

Prody was in court here. . . let me dig more. . .

Thanks for the link & story. It must have been very strange for Clark to be in that Vegas courtroom with Simpson.

[martin II]

http://www.film.com/features/story/marcia-clark-now-reporting-oj/16567476

Prody was in court here. . . let me dig more. . .

What did prody have to do with the vegas trial?

[FDInLaw]

What did prody have to do with the vegas trial?
That is the question! Do you know if she was there???

[martin II]

That is the question! Do you know if she was there???

If prody was not a witness then she had nothing to do with the trial.

[socaldiva]

If prody was not a witness then she had nothing to do with the trial.


Says YOU. :no:

[FDInLaw]

If prody was not a witness then she had nothing to do with the trial.
Help an OJ newbie out. . . do you have a witness list?

[weezer]

Help an OJ newbie out. . . do you have a witness list?

Christie was there for the trial but not the sentencing (or at least they didn't show her on camera and she wasn't sitting with orenthal's group) -- in fact, she is heard on the tapes before and after the armed robbery. She did not testify.

Arnelle was also there for the trial and the sentencing. She is also heard on the tapes. In fact, orenthal instructed her on the jail tape to contact beardsley. She did not testify.

[martin II]

Help an OJ newbie out. . . do you have a witness list?

i don't remember prody being a witness but if you know differently you can post her testimony.

[weezer]

Help an OJ newbie out. . . do you have a witness list?

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

go down to "Documents" for transcripts of recordings and all court document filings

I will see if I can find the witness list

[FDInLaw]

Christie was there for the trial but not the sentencing (or at least they didn't show her on camera and she wasn't sitting with orenthal's group) -- in fact, she is heard on the tapes before and after the armed robbery. She did not testify.

Arnelle was also there for the trial and the sentencing. She is also heard on the tapes. In fact, orenthal instructed her on the jail tape to contact beardsley. She did not testify.
Thank you! This is helpful.

It's good to see you! :seeya:

[weezer]

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

. . .In ruling on Batson objections, Nevada trial courts must undergo a three-part analysis. First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must make out a prima facie case of
discrimination. Second, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the peremptory challenge to assert a neutral explanation for the challenge. Finally, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has proved purposeful discrimination.3

Under the first step, the court looks to the totality of the circumstances to determine the existence of a prima facie showing.4 However, this inquiry is moot when, as here, the state proffers reasons for its challenges before the court even has a chance to undergo the inquiry.5

Under the second step, the state need only proffer race neutral reasons for its peremptory challenges. The reasons given “need not be persuasive or even plausible.” The justification shall be deemed “neutral” when it is not inherently discriminatory. . .

Under the third and final step, the court is called on to consider the persuasiveness of the proffered justifications and determine whether the defendant has proven purposeful discrimination.6 Although courts are not to accept “implausible or fantastic” justifications, the Supreme Court has recognized the practical difficulty in “ferreting out discrimination” involved
at this step.7. . .

[martin II]

I think the prosecution presented all witnesses that they thought would help their case.With the exception of 2 le witnesses the jury did not believe any of them and i am not sure they believed those two.

People sitting in the court room were not called because they had nothing to add to the case.Imo.

[William Anthony]

I am afraid that, if the Nevada court's policy is not in line with the United States Supreme Court decisions, then it will not stand due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court is the final determiner of rights granted in the federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of this land.

[William Anthony]

I think the prosecution presented all witnesses that they thought would help their case.With the exception of 2 le witnesses the jury did not believe any of them and i am not sure they believed those two.

People sitting in the court room were not called because they had nothing to add to the case.Imo.

I would tend to agree.

[FDInLaw]

I think the prosecution presented all witnesses that they thought would help their case.With the exception of 2 le witnesses the jury did not believe any of them and i am not sure they believed those two.

People sitting in the court room were not called because they had nothing to add to the case.Imo.


Why do you think the witnesses were deemed unbelievable?

Were witness called to testify to OJ's state of mind prior the heist? I've only really followed murder trials, where unfortunately the families are usual drug in. State of mind might not matter much here. It's not like OJ claimed temporal insanity or something.

Interesting. I should learn more about the appeal process and since I have a few months to kill, this might just be the place! :hat:

[William Anthony]

Goodness. . . are you going off topic here (as you dictated to me) or is it my imagination? :tongue:


The double standard is getting old. Glass houses and all that stuff.

No, not at all. I thought you were aware that sentencing is part of a case and that judge J. Glass mentioned what Simpson said about the Goldmans being gold diggers, or that is how he referred to them.

[William Anthony]

Why do you think the witnesses were deemed unbelievable?

Were witness called to testify to OJ's state of mind prior the heist? I've only really followed murder trials, where unfortunately the families are usual drug in. State of mind might not matter much here. It's not like OJ claimed temporal insanity or something.

Interesting. I should learn more about the appeal process and since I have a few months to kill, this might just be the place! :hat:


Because that is what the jury said.

State of mind could involve intent, which as an element of this crime (armed robbery) was general intent.

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

[weezer]

I am afraid that, if the Nevada court's policy is not in line with the United States Supreme Court decisions, then it will not stand due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court is the final determiner of rights granted in the federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of this land.

ahh -- but the Nevada court policy is not only 'in line', it's 'on target'. I'm surprised you hadn't realized that.

[William Anthony]

Off topic? This poster? Implying that a judge who presided over a case involving a certain ex football player was biased? FD didn't the jury find Simpson guilty? That's not the judge's role in the proceedings.

I don't know who you are saying implied the judge in this case was biased. I am of the opinion that from her antics, statements and demeanor a credible argument could be made that she was not impartial. or at the very least violated the judicial code of ethics.

[weezer]

Why do you think the witnesses were deemed unbelievable?

Were witness called to testify to OJ's state of mind prior the heist? I've only really followed murder trials, where unfortunately the families are usual drug in. State of mind might not matter much here. It's not like OJ claimed temporal insanity or something.

Interesting. I should learn more about the appeal process and since I have a few months to kill, this might just be the place! :hat:

I believe orenthal's state of mind to show 'intent' was proven in the planning and execution of the crime -- he stated on the tape, "Did you take the piece out in the hall?" I'm no Einstein but if someone plans the place and time, solicits the actors, requests guns, walks into the building/room with the group, screams orders and accusations, instructs the taking of items -- sounds like armed robbery to me.

[weezer]

I don't know who you are saying implied the judge in this case was biased. I am of the opinion that from her antics, statements and demeanor a credible argument could be made that she was not impartial. or at the very least violated the judicial code of ethics.

pretty much sounding like sour grapes. Judge Glass acted within the rules and confines of the law. And, if I might add, did an admirable job of controlling her courtroom. :patriot:

[William Anthony]

ahh -- but the Nevada court policy is not only 'in line', it's 'on target'. I'm surprised you hadn't realized that.

The steps may very well be in line as to the shifting burden of proof. However, I think that it is a per se violation of the religious component as to the exclusion of certain jurors due to their religious beliefs, according to the Third Circuit Appellate Court. Additionally, the argument is that there might be state action attributed to the court's adherence to the treatment given certain jurors because of their religious beliefs, which would violate the Constitutionally protected due process rights. I think your link addresses race, since the Supreme Court (U.S.) has not yet spoken to the issue of religion and the test may be somewhat different or the same, depending on how the Supreme Court decides to rule, if and when it ever does. I think the violation of the state constitution is a very strong argument.

[William Anthony]

pretty much sounding like sour grapes. Judge Glass acted within the rules and confines of the law. And, if I might add, did an admirable job of controlling her courtroom. :patriot:

That is your opinion, which may not square with that of the highest court to rule on the appeal.

[FDInLaw]

I believe orenthal's state of mind to show 'intent' was proven in the planning and execution of the crime -- he stated on the tape, "Did you take the piece out in the hall?" I'm no Einstein but if someone plans the place and time, solicits the actors, requests guns, walks into the building/room with the group, screams orders and accusations, instructs the taking of items -- sounds like armed robbery to me.
I would tend to agree. I had no compassion for the man when he sniveled about not meaning any harm. Who was he trying to kid?

[weezer]

The steps may very well be in line as to the shifting burden of proof. However, I think that it is a per se violation of the religious component as to the exclusion of certain jurors due to their religious beliefs, according to the Third Circuit Appellate Court. Additionally, the argument is that there might be state action attributed to the court's adherence to the treatment given certain jurors because of their religious beliefs, which would violate the Constitutionally protected due process rights. I think your link addresses race, since the Supreme Court (U.S.) has not yet spoken to the issue of religion and the test may be somewhat different or the same, depending on how the Supreme Court decides to rule, if and when it ever does. I think the violation of the state constitution is a very strong argument.

so you are no longer arguing Batson Challenge?

[William Anthony]

I believe orenthal's state of mind to show 'intent' was proven in the planning and execution of the crime -- he stated on the tape, "Did you take the piece out in the hall?" I'm no Einstein but if someone plans the place and time, solicits the actors, requests guns, walks into the building/room with the group, screams orders and accusations, instructs the taking of items -- sounds like armed robbery to me.

Well, now we have reached the claim of right defense, again which under Nevada law, he was precluded from raising, although Galanter did, which might be an issue on appeal, but I believe it will be the weakest. I find it interesting that the claim of right defense is available to a crime of burglary but not robbery in Nevada.

[weezer]

I would tend to agree. I had no compassion for the man when he sniveled about not meaning any harm. Who was he trying to kid?

I laughed out loud when he made the comment that he was just going there to confront 'friends'!!!

[William Anthony]

so you are no longer arguing Batson Challenge?

Yes, in fact I am. The third circuit has found the Batson challenge applicable to exclusion of jurors because of there religious beliefs.

[weezer]

Well, now we have reached the claim of right defense, again which under Nevada law, he was precluded from raising, although Galanter did, which might be an issue on appeal, but I believe it will be the weakest. I find it interesting that the claim of right defense is available to a crime of burglary but not robbery in Nevada.

what exactly is 'claim of right defense'?

[William Anthony]

I would tend to agree. I had no compassion for the man when he sniveled about not meaning any harm. Who was he trying to kid?

Who was punched, shoved, kicked, hit or threatened?

[weezer]

Who was punched, shoved, kicked, hit or threatened?

the victims: Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong.

[weezer]

Yes, in fact I am. The third circuit has found the Batson challenge applicable to exclusion of jurors because of there religious beliefs.

and the Third Circuit has also denied appeal based on the claim of religious beliefs.

[William Anthony]

what exactly is 'claim of right defense'?

I did not provide the link but did a quick search and found a Virginia case that explains generally the concept.

"claim of right defense negates the criminal intent required to
prove larceny, robbery, embezzlement, and trespass cases.
Bowles v. Nance, 236 Va. 310, 374 S.E.2d 19 (1988) "

In the Nevada case it pertained to whether or not Simpson believed, rightly or wrongly, that the property was his and he was reclaiming his property. That would have negated the criminal intent, mens rea, necessary for conviction but that defense was not allowed in Nevada to the crime of robbery.

[William Anthony]

and the Third Circuit has also denied appeal based on the claim of religious beliefs.

Not exactly. They have denied them based on religious affiliations. I do not think this standard is appropriate. Because one goes to church more often or associates more with others of his/her faith, does not mean that they are more dedicated to the religious beliefs than one who goes to church or associates less frequently, imho. I think that, if and when the Supreme Court decides to address that issue, it will be interesting.

[weezer]

Not exactly. They have denied them based on religious affiliations. I do not think this standard is appropriate. Because one goes to church more often or associates more with others of his/her faith, does not mean that they are dedicated to the religious beliefs than one who goes to church or associates less frequently, imho. I think that, if and when the Supreme Court decides to address that issue, it will be interesting.

yes exactly: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/021394p.pdf

[FDInLaw]

Who was punched, shoved, kicked, hit or threatened?

Personally, I would find it threatening if a group of thugs burst toting lethal weapons. . . but as you suggest, apparently this witness just thought OJ was an idiot. I'm loving this case more and more.

Irregardless of the outcome. It is not okay for grown men to run around in this manner. And, IMO, the appropriate charges were rendered.


Riccio did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but he told TMZ he believed Simpson was planning to confront Alfred Beardsley, who was allegedly planning to auction off the memorabilia.

Another collector in the hotel room, Bruce Fromong, said the meeting was set up as if the men were customers, but when they arrived, it was clear something else was going on.

"The door burst open and they came in almost commando style, O.J. Simpson and some of his people, I guess you would call it, with guns drawn," Fromong told ABC's Good Morning America Monday. "O.J. at that time was saying, 'I want my stuff. I want my stuff.'

"The thing in my mind as soon as I saw him, I'm thinking, 'O.J., how can you be this dumb? You're in enough trouble.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-16-simpson_N.htm

[weezer]

I did not provide the link but did a quick search and found a Virginia case that explains generally the concept.

"claim of right defense negates the criminal intent required to
prove larceny, robbery, embezzlement, and trespass cases.
Bowles v. Nance, 236 Va. 310, 374 S.E.2d 19 (1988) "

In the Nevada case it pertained to whether or not Simpson believed, rightly or wrongly, that the property was his and he was reclaiming his property. That would have negated the criminal intent, mens rea, necessary for conviction but that defense was not allowed in Nevada to the crime of robbery.

so your argument is moot in this case. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

the victims: Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong.

Neither one of them testified to feeling threatened, at least by Simpson or being shoved, hit or kicked. In fact, Fromong denied being intimidated or fearing, if you will.

[William Anthony]

so your argument is moot in this case. :shrug:

I don't think you understand. I think it may be brought upon on appeal by a creative lawyer arguing the Constitutionality of the Nevada law and its failure to allow the defense. I have said that I believe it is a weak argument but a judge may not find it weak. The strongest argument is that it is allowed in Nevada for burglary but not robbery, i.e. the standard of intent should be the same.

[William Anthony]

Personally, I would find it threatening if a group of thugs burst toting lethal weapons. . . but as you suggest, apparently this witness just thought OJ was an idiot. I'm loving this case more and more.

Irregardless of the outcome. It is not okay for grown men to run around in this manner. And, IMO, the appropriate charges were rendered.


http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-16-simpson_N.htm

What ever they may have thought, they testified to an element of the crime, which was lacking and maybe that will be another issue on appeal, as the prosecution must prove each and every essential element of the crime.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BSp0qDgYawEC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=burden+on+the+prosecution+to+prove+every+elemen t+of+the+crime&source=web&ots=vOBGe5v69w&sig=psPb1bmElB9keOcIgN31z5B_MuI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

[weezer]

Neither one of them testified to feeling threatened, at least by Simpson or being shoved, hit or kicked. In fact, Fromong denied being intimidated or fearing, if you will.

really? then what was the $3500 (?) compensation Fromong received for?

[FDInLaw]

What ever they may have thought, they testified to an element of the crime, which was lacking and maybe that will be another issue on appeal, as the prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime.

I believe OJ took for granted the charges he would face for merely toting a gun (irregardless of the reaction of his victims).

In a way it's sad that he did not get the effect he hoped for. Frankly, it's hilarious. He barges in packin' heat and he is not taken seriously. I love it. :D

[weezer]

I don't think you understand. I think it may be brought upon on appeal by a creative lawyer arguing the Constitutionality of the Nevada law and its failure to allow the defense. I have said that I believe it is a weak argument but a judge may not find it weak. The strongest argument is that it is allowed in Nevada for burglary but not robbery, i.e. the standard of intent should be the same.

I understand completely. Under Nevada law on the day he commited armed robbery, orenthal's belief as to whether or not anything in that room belonged to him is moot.

[FDInLaw]

really? then what was the $3500 (?) compensation Fromong received for?
Idiot newbie response here (me). . . was it not mainly for the memorabilia? Oh which he claimed to get the shaft???

[weezer]

What ever they may have thought, they testified to an element of the crime, which was lacking and maybe that will be another issue on appeal, as the prosecution must prove each and every essential element of the crime.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BSp0qDgYawEC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=burden+on+the+prosecution+to+prove+every+elemen t+of+the+crime&source=web&ots=vOBGe5v69w&sig=psPb1bmElB9keOcIgN31z5B_MuI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

as evidenced by the jury verdict, the prosecution did in fact prove each and every essential element of the crimes orenthal was accused of.

[William Anthony]

I believe OJ took for granted the charges he would face for merely toting a gun (irregardless of the reaction of his victims).

In a way it's sad that he did not get the effect he hoped for. Frankly, it's hilarious. He barges in packin' heat and he is not taken seriously. I love it. :D

This is the Nevada statute.

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

(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;

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

(c) Facilitate escape.

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

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

Talk about being overly broad. If I took a band aid from you for my cut finger but you did not know it but did not want me to, I would be guilty of robbery in Nevada.

[weezer]

Idiot newbie response here (me). . . was it not mainly for the memorabilia? Oh which he claimed to get the shaft???

It was for medical -- he didn't receive compensation for the simpson memorabilia.

[weezer]

Idiot newbie response here (me). . . was it not mainly for the memorabilia? Oh which he claimed to get the shaft???

O.J. Simpson Ordered To Pay Restitution


O.J. Simpson and his co-defendants have been ordered to pay restitution to one of the victims in last year's Palace Station robbery incident. On Friday, District Judge Jackie Glass ruled that Simpson and all five of his original co-defendants must pay a total of $3,560 to memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong. The money is to cover Fromong's hospital bills and the cost of memorabilia that was stolen from him. Fromong was outraged with the ruling, saying he's out between $75,000 and $100,000 from the stolen memorabilia alone. Meanwhile, Judge Glass ordered all Simpson memorabilia items that were held in evidence to be turned over to the L.A. County Sheriff's Office. Proceeds from those items will likely go to the family of Ron Goldman, as part of a civil judgment against Simpson for his 1995 murder case.

http://www.kxnt.com/O-J--Simpson-Ordered-To-Pay-Restitution/3528743

[William Anthony]

as evidenced by the jury verdict, the prosecution did in fact prove each and every essential element of the crimes orenthal was accused of.

Not quite true as armed robbery requires more that showing a gun and taking property. It requires force or fear, neither of which were shown by the testimony, which the jury did not believe. I fail to see how they could find that the victims were fearful by the tape, while denying the sworn testimony of the witness. I think this may be an issue raised on appeal by an astute lawyer.

[weezer]

Neither one of them testified to feeling threatened, at least by Simpson or being shoved, hit or kicked. In fact, Fromong denied being intimidated or fearing, if you will.

FYI: ". . .That'll pay about $2,600 in medical bills Fromong claimed after he was pushed into a chair while being robbed at gunpoint Sept. 13, 2007, in a Las Vegas casino hotel room. . ."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/national/main4678633.shtml

[William Anthony]

I understand completely. Under Nevada law on the day he commited armed robbery, orenthal's belief as to whether or not anything in that room belonged to him is moot.

Oh yes, you do understand completely but it may not be moot on appeal.

[weezer]

It was for medical -- he didn't receive compensation for the simpson memorabilia.

correction: Glass awarded him $3,560, which included $2,400 for medical bills and $960 for signed baseballs that were stolen but never found.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/36489049.html

[William Anthony]

FYI: ". . .That'll pay about $2,600 in medical bills Fromong claimed after he was pushed into a chair while being robbed at gunpoint Sept. 13, 2007, in a Las Vegas casino hotel room. . ."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/national/main4678633.shtml

I did not know that they had a car in the hotel room. Thanks for the info. :) I must be getting sleepy but I still I don't understand how being pushed into a chair is worth $2,400. Heck it is worth a trip to Vegas and have someone push you, smile. Was that on the tape?

[weezer]

Not quite true as armed robbery requires more that showing a gun and taking property. It requires force or fear, neither of which were shown by the testimony, which the jury did not believe. I fail to see how they could find that the victims were fearful by the tape, while denying the sworn testimony of the witness. I think this may be an issue raised on appeal by an astute lawyer.

how about orenthal shouting, "Nobody leaves this room."? does that do it?

[weezer]

Oh yes, you do understand completely but it may not be moot on appeal.

do you honestly believe any reputable attorney is going to argue this? or even be given a chance to be heard? the fact that orenthal and/or his lawyer believes the law needed to be different on the day orenthal committed armed robbery is moot.

I'm afraid that throwing a bunch of crap against the wall to see what sticks ain't going to work this time.

whether or not orenthal believed the stuff was his is moot.

[William Anthony]

how about orenthal shouting, "Nobody leaves this room."? does that do it?

Only if they were fearful but we know that they were not by their testimony. I think that is what they called kidnapping, :).

[weezer]

I did not know that they had a car in the hotel room. Thanks for the info. :) I must be getting sleepy but I still I don't understand how being pushed into a chair is worth $2,400. Heck it is worth a trip to Vegas and have someone push you, smile. Was that on the tape?

I don't get the 'car' comment but -- oh well.

I think the hurt back/shoulder and heart attack kinda qualifies, don't you?

[weezer]

Only if they were fearful but we know that they were not by their testimony. I think that is what they called kidnapping, :).

oh I don't know -- someone points a gun and says, get up and move over there and someone else is screaming nobody leaves this room and my back is hurt and I have a heart attack -- I guess you could say I was in fear. especially when you consider that it was orenthal and EVERYONE knows what he's capable of. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

do you honestly believe any reputable attorney is going to argue this? or even be given a chance to be heard? the fact that orenthal and/or his lawyer believes the law needed to be different on the day orenthal committed armed robbery is moot.

I'm afraid that throwing a bunch of crap against the wall to see what sticks ain't going to work this time.

whether or not orenthal believed the stuff was his is moot.

Yes, I think Galanter was more learned than some gave him credit. I have said it was weak but I think this was his point, which is why he argued it. I think that robbery and armed robbery are such egregious crimes that the state should be required to prove specific intent, as a conviction on these charges carries considerable time. The concept of Due Process is embedded in the idea of fairness. I think we may not have given Galanter the credit he was due.

[William Anthony]

oh I don't know -- someone points a gun and says, get up and move over there and someone else is screaming nobody leaves this room and my back is hurt and I have a heart attack -- I guess you could say I was in fear. especially when you consider that it was orenthal and EVERYONE knows what he's capable of. :tongue:

Fromong testified that he was not in fear. Obviously, he knew what Simpson was not capable of. I think he had some background in LE and, as such, was qualified to judge.

[weezer]

Yes, I think Galanter was more learned than some gave him credit. I have said it was weak but I think this was his point, which is why he argued it. I think that robbery and armed robbery are such egregious crimes that the state should be required to prove specific intent, as a conviction on these charges carries considerable time. The concept of Due Process is embedded in the idea of fairness. I think we may not have given Galanter the credit he was due.

oh geez -- galanter wasn't even aware that that was the law in Nevada.

[weezer]

Fromong testified that he was not in fear. Obviously, he knew what Simpson was not capable of. I think he had some background in LE and, as such, was qualified to judge.

where did fromong testify he wasn't in fear? he had a background in LE? LOL

[William Anthony]

I don't get the 'car' comment but -- oh well.

I think the hurt back/shoulder and heart attack kinda qualifies, don't you?

The heart attack came upon cross-examination. I believe his heart was racing in regard to questions concerning Simpson's property being stolen. Did he get whiplash from the chair? If he was pushed that hard, I am surprised he did not go though the wall or fall onto the floor? Be careful of the Vegas chairs.

[William Anthony]

where did fromong testify he wasn't in fear? he had a background in LE? LOL

In the trial.

http://www.hecklerspray.com/oj-simpson-trial-heart-attack-man-gets-confusing/200816161.php

[William Anthony]

oh geez -- galanter wasn't even aware that that was the law in Nevada.

Oh, I am sure he was.

[weezer]

Oh, I am sure he was.

no he didn't -- he had to be told.

[weezer]

The heart attack came upon cross-examination. I believe his heart was racing in regard to questions concerning Simpson's property being stolen. Did he get whiplash from the chair? If he was pushed that hard, I am surprised he did not go though the wall or fall onto the floor? Be careful of the Vegas chairs.

well let's put it this way: Fromong presented medical bills and the Judge ruled that orenthal and his gang of thugs had to reimburse the expenses.

[weezer]

Fromong testified that he was not in fear. Obviously, he knew what Simpson was not capable of. I think he had some background in LE and, as such, was qualified to judge.

". . .According to Bruce Fromong, he wasn’t scared when OJ Simpson burst into his hotel room, but he did fear for his life. . ."

[martin II]

Why do you think the witnesses were deemed unbelievable?

Were witness called to testify to OJ's state of mind prior the heist? I've only really followed murder trials, where unfortunately the families are usual drug in. State of mind might not matter much here. It's not like OJ claimed temporal insanity or something.

Interesting. I should learn more about the appeal process and since I have a few months to kill, this might just be the place! :hat:

In their testimony the witnesses gave different accounts of what happened in the hotel room. One witness testified that he would change his testimony for money and another had great memory loss.But it was the jury that stated they did not believe those witnesses so i guess they didn't.

[martin II]

I believe OJ took for granted the charges he would face for merely toting a gun (irregardless of the reaction of his victims).

In a way it's sad that he did not get the effect he hoped for. Frankly, it's hilarious. He barges in packin' heat and he is not taken seriously. I love it. :D

Was OJ 'Packing heat" had a gun in his hand while in the hotel room?

[martin II]

oh I don't know -- someone points a gun and says, get up and move over there and someone else is screaming nobody leaves this room and my back is hurt and I have a heart attack -- I guess you could say I was in fear. especially when you consider that it was orenthal and EVERYONE knows what he's capable of. :tongue:

I don't remember Fumong, in the hotel room saying he was having a heart attack?

[martin II]

how about orenthal shouting, "Nobody leaves this room."? does that do it?

I don't believe 'NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM" = normal kidnapping as no one was tied up or moved to another location.

[martin II]

". . .According to Bruce Fromong, he wasn’t scared when OJ Simpson burst into his hotel room, but he did fear for his life. . ."

How did Fumongs statement that you claim he made, factor into the jury decisiion when they stated they discarded all the witnesses testimony?

[martin II]

I did not provide the link but did a quick search and found a Virginia case that explains generally the concept.

"claim of right defense negates the criminal intent required to
prove larceny, robbery, embezzlement, and trespass cases.
Bowles v. Nance, 236 Va. 310, 374 S.E.2d 19 (1988) "

In the Nevada case it pertained to whether or not Simpson believed, rightly or wrongly, that the property was his and he was reclaiming his property. That would have negated the criminal intent, mens rea, necessary for conviction but that defense was not allowed in Nevada to the crime of robbery.


I had read that it is the law in New Jersey.

[martin II]

correction: Glass awarded him $3,560, which included $2,400 for medical bills and $960 for signed baseballs that were stolen but never found.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/36489049.html

If i remember correctly Fumong while testifying claimed he felt faint. He was removed from the court room and examined by EMS and found to be ok.

[William Anthony]

no he didn't -- he had to be told.

Link please.

[William Anthony]

". . .According to Bruce Fromong, he wasn’t scared when OJ Simpson burst into his hotel room, but he did fear for his life. . ."

I don't think you read far enough. This is from the same link.

"He acknowledged that he said previously, “I felt my life was being threatened.” But moments later, under inquiry by Stewart’s lawyer Robert Lucherini, Fromong said, “I was not scared.” He insisted the memorabilia Simpson sought was not stolen but said he didn’t know where some of it came from."

[William Anthony]

I had read that it is the law in New Jersey.

Yes, it is a matter of state law, which is why an astute lawyer may make the argument as to a need for consistency in the law. It still might be a weak argument, since it involves state power and the power of the federal government, but it might have appeal. The government has previously looked into state law and ruled it Unconstitutional, President Lincoln as example.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe 'NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM" = normal kidnapping as no one was tied up or moved to another location.

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the second half of your equation did not equate to kidnapping under the circumstances of a robbery. I do no know the ideology of the Nevada Supreme Court but, if it is the same, many of Simpson's arguments may be receptive to that Court.

[William Anthony]

If Fromong did not know where the property came from but believed it was not stolen, would not Simpson have a valid reason to believe the property was his? What I am saying is by that testimony an astute lawyer might argue that the claim of right defense should have been allowed and the failure to do so was a violation of Simpson's right to a claim of right defense, with the thrust of the argument being fairness in this particular situation.

[William Anthony]

After giving the Nevada trial careful consideration, I believe there are many issues that call into question the fairness of the process. The sad part is that when something is seen as unfair, by not equally enforcing laws and rules on all, it leads to a sense of inequality, imho. I think that those in authority should take precaution to shun the appearance of partiality.

[martin II]

well let's put it this way: Fromong presented medical bills and the Judge ruled that orenthal and his gang of thugs had to reimburse the expenses.

so did everyone in the room including riccio have to pay a share of what the judge awarded fumong?

[William Anthony]

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Jackie_Glass

“There has been also been assertions from those who serve in the legal community and those who observe the courts that there could be bias on Judge Glass's part on handling of the Simpson case as the alledged bias could result in Simpson's conviction being overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court[6]. “

[martin II]

If Fromong did not know where the property came from but believed it was not stolen, would not Simpson have a valid reason to believe the property was his? What I am saying is by that testimony an astute lawyer might argue that the claim of right defense should have been allowed and the failure to do so was a violation of Simpson's right to a claim of right defense, with the thrust of the argument being fairness in this particular situation.
in the hotel room it was fumong that yelled 'oj i didn"t take it Mike took it" so it seems he did know where the goods came from imo

[FDInLaw]

Was OJ 'Packing heat" had a gun in his hand while in the hotel room?
No, he arrenged for his buddies to, or so says this former pal:

In the most damning testimony of O.J. Simpson's armed robbery trial so far, turncoat pal Walter Alexander said guns were in the Juice's playbook from the start.
"He said 'Do you think you could get some heat?'" Alexander, 47, told jurors today, describing Simpson's words in a meeting before the alleged heist. "Spencer automatically spoke up and said 'Hey man, no problem. I got plenty of heat.'"

Alexander, a longtime Simpson golfing buddy, said that his friend Michael "Spencer" McClinton then displayed his gun permit to Simpson.

"He said … just put them in your waistbands, and when you go up in the room, kind of open up your jackets just so that they see you got 'em and they know that we mean business,'" Alexander said, quoting Simpson.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/24/2008-09-24_turncoat_oj_simpson_pal_testifies_juice_.html


The simple truth is that this heist would not have happened be it not the Juice and “his” junk. He is culpable for instigating this situation which involved “packing heat.” I know, I know you probably believe Simpson that he had no clue about the guns and that is your right.

[William Anthony]

in the hotel room it was fumong that yelled 'oj i didn"t take it Mike took it" so it seems he did know where the goods came from imo

It seems the alleged victims got a free ride when it came to the issue of whether the property was stolen or not, which did not seem to matter under Nevada law.

[William Anthony]

No, he arrenged for his buddies to, or so says this former pal:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/24/2008-09-24_turncoat_oj_simpson_pal_testifies_juice_.html


The simple truth is that this heist would not have happened be it not the Juice and “his” junk. He is culpable for instigating this situation which involved “packing heat.” I know, I know you probably believe Simpson that he had no clue about the guns and that is your right.

But the jury did not believe any witness testimony.

[FDInLaw]

But the jury did not believe any witness testimony.

What landed Juice his jail time. . . help me out. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

What landed Juice his jail time. . . help me out. :shrug:

The following issues, imho,

the questionable admissibility of the tapes
the questionable attitude of judge J. Glass
the questionable feelings on karma v. payback
the questionable issues regarding jury selection
the questionable issues regarding the Batson challenge
the questionable issues regarding the over charging of the case.

[FDInLaw]

Was it the videtape then????

But the judge emphasized that it was a violent confrontation in which at least one gun was drawn, and she said someone could have been shot. She said the evidence was overwhelming, with the planning, the confrontation itself and the aftermath all recorded on audio or videotape.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28067187/


Makes sense.

[William Anthony]

Was it the videtape then????


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28067187/


Makes sense.

Yes, but the question remains as to whether or not those tapes were properly authenticated and, as a consequence, admissible. Judge J. Glass ruled they were but an appellate court may not agree.

[martin II]

do you honestly believe any reputable attorney is going to argue this? or even be given a chance to be heard? the fact that orenthal and/or his lawyer believes the law needed to be different on the day orenthal committed armed robbery is moot.

I'm afraid that throwing a bunch of crap against the wall to see what sticks ain't going to work this time.

whether or not orenthal believed the stuff was his is moot.

If the appeal is written properly,there is a good chance it will be heard.

[FDInLaw]

The following issues, imho,

the questionable admissibility of the tapes
the questionable attitude of judge J. Glass
the questionable feelings on karma v. payback
the questionable issues regarding jury selection
the questionable issues regarding the Batson challenge
the questionable issues regarding the over charging of the case.In your opinion, what would have been the appropriate charges and sentence (if any) for Simpson and the others?

[William Anthony]

In your opinion, what would have been the appropriate charges and sentence (if any) for Simpson and the others?

Terminable dumbness.

[martin II]

But the jury did not believe any witness testimony.

The jury did not believe any witness including McClinton and the lie he made up about oj asking him to bring a gun.imo

[FDInLaw]

Terminable dumbness.
LMBO! Wherein I agree, but what, I your opinion, would have been the appropriate judicial outcome? Are you suggesting that the honorable Glass should have declared OJ an idiot and let him go???

[FDInLaw]

The jury did not believe any witness including McClinton and the lie he made up about oj asking him to bring a gun.imo
How was this lie proved in court? Do you have a link? Help me out. :D

[martin II]

Was it the videtape then????


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28067187/


Makes sense.

Did you follow the Vegas trial of Simpson and Stewart?

[martin II]

How was this lie proved in court? Do you have a link? Help me out. :D

Under crossexamination (McClinton) by i think it was Stewarts lawyer. imo

[FDInLaw]

Did you follow the Vegas trial of Simpson and Stewart?



As stated before, I am an OJ newbie. . . fresh and available for brainwashing. :biggrin:

Seriously, I usually follow murder cases but the Caylee case is really getting to me and since y'all are so much fun, here I am.

The recent OJ trial is fascinating in that how often is there so much prejudice against a defendant before he even committed the crime?What a judicial challenge.

[martin II]

How was this lie proved in court? Do you have a link? Help me out. :D

Again the jury did not believe any of the witnesses testimony and said they did not use any of it and that includes MCClintons testimony .imo

[martin II]

As stated before, I am an OJ newbie. . . fresh and available for brainwashing. :biggrin:

Seriously, I usually follow murder cases but the Caylee case is really getting to me and since y'all are so much fun, here I am.

The recent OJ trial is fascinating in that how often is there so much prejudice against a defendant before he even committed the crime?What a judicial challenge.

If you google oj simpson vegas trial, you should be able to get all trial transcripts. It was posted previously on one of the now closed threads.imo

[FDInLaw]

If you google oj simpson vegas trial, you should be able to get all trial transcripts. It was posted previously on one of the now closed threads.imo
I'll take a hint. Bye.

[martin II]

Yes, but the question remains as to whether or not those tapes were properly authenticated and, as a consequence, admissible. Judge J. Glass ruled they were but an appellate court may not agree.

The le detective and the FBI experts testified that they could not authenticate the authenticity of the tapes especially since files were missing from the tapes. imo

[martin II]

It seems the alleged victims got a free ride when it came to the issue of whether the property was stolen or not, which did not seem to matter under Nevada law.

Wonder what happened to the law against selling stolen goods transported across state lines.Another issue was Fumong brought a gun to the hotel that he said was left in his truck in the parking lot.

[FDInLaw]

Quick question, did Simpson exhaust all legal avenues before taking matters into his own hands?

[weezer]

I had read that it is the law in New Jersey.

the point is still moot in this case. :shrug:

[weezer]

If i remember correctly Fumong while testifying claimed he felt faint. He was removed from the court room and examined by EMS and found to be ok.

okay -- are you discounting the heart attack he had right after the armed robbery?

"O.J. accuser suffers massive heart attack
Updated: Sep 18, 2007 06:51 PM CDT
Bruce Fromong

One of the men accusing O.J. Simpson of robbing him last Thursday is in the hospital. A spokesperson for Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles says Bruce Fromong is in the intensive care unit after suffering what's being described as a massive heart attack. . ."

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7094628&nav=menu107_2

[weezer]

How did Fumongs statement that you claim he made, factor into the jury decisiion when they stated they discarded all the witnesses testimony?

the discussion wasn't about it factoring into the jury
dicisiion'. . .it was response to an inaccurate post that said 'Fumong' testified he was never afraid.

[weezer]

If Fromong did not know where the property came from but believed it was not stolen, would not Simpson have a valid reason to believe the property was his? What I am saying is by that testimony an astute lawyer might argue that the claim of right defense should have been allowed and the failure to do so was a violation of Simpson's right to a claim of right defense, with the thrust of the argument being fairness in this particular situation.

it didn't and doesn't matter what orenthal thought about the ownership of the stuff in the hotel room -- especially the Montana/Rose stuff, the cell phone, etc., under Nevada law on that day at that time, orenthal committed armed robbery and kidnapping. An astute lawyer would not embarrass him/herself by arguing that the law should be changed for orenthal.

[weezer]

so did everyone in the room including riccio have to pay a share of what the judge awarded fumong?

why would riccio have to pay? he wasn't a defendant.

[weezer]

The le detective and the FBI experts testified that they could not authenticate the authenticity of the tapes especially since files were missing from the tapes. imo

and galanter did not raise an objection to them coming in. In fact, IIRC, galanter went on tv and made statements that he was glad to have the jury hear the tapes because he felt they would help the defense. No!

[weezer]

Quick question, did Simpson exhaust all legal avenues before taking matters into his own hands?

orenthal 'said' he talked to LE but the only documented report was from riccio to the FBI. I believe the bigger question is: How do you report items stolen that you said you didn't have and if the civil court found out about, you would have to turn over to satisfy a civil judgment? Nah, orenthal never reported anything stolen -- he couldn't. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

it didn't and doesn't matter what orenthal thought about the ownership of the stuff in the hotel room -- especially the Montana/Rose stuff, the cell phone, etc., under Nevada law on that day at that time, orenthal committed armed robbery and kidnapping. An astute lawyer would not embarrass him/herself by arguing that the law should be changed for orenthal.

you are quite right about an astute lawyer making an argument only for Simpson, because such a lawyer would recognize the larger implications for all defendants and argue vehemently as to the fairness of the law, hoping to win and looking forward to possible future paydays.

[William Anthony]

why would riccio have to pay? he wasn't a defendant.

That's right. He was granted immunity from prosecution.

[William Anthony]

and galanter did not raise an objection to them coming in. In fact, IIRC, galanter went on tv and made statements that he was glad to have the jury hear the tapes because he felt they would help the defense. No!

Ah, but Stewart's lawyer did and the trials were not severed, despite several motions.

[William Anthony]

orenthal 'said' he talked to LE but the only documented report was from riccio to the FBI. I believe the bigger question is: How do you report items stolen that you said you didn't have and if the civil court found out about, you would have to turn over to satisfy a civil judgment? Nah, orenthal never reported anything stolen -- he couldn't. :tongue:

Riccio did and LE should have investigated, imho, which might have prevented what happened.

[William Anthony]

LMBO! Wherein I agree, but what, I your opinion, would have been the appropriate judicial outcome? Are you suggesting that the honorable Glass should have declared OJ an idiot and let him go???

Not at all. I think all can see that this was not a typical robbery or a kidnapping. I think something should have been done to punish all involved. However, I am concerned that judge J. Glass did not appear impartial.

[William Anthony]

As stated before, I am an OJ newbie. . . fresh and available for brainwashing. :biggrin:

Seriously, I usually follow murder cases but the Caylee case is really getting to me and since y'all are so much fun, here I am.

The recent OJ trial is fascinating in that how often is there so much prejudice against a defendant before he even committed the crime?What a judicial challenge.

Karma or payback?

[weezer]

you are quite right about an astute lawyer making an argument only for Simpson, because such a lawyer would recognize the larger implications for all defendants and argue vehemently as to the fairness of the law, hoping to win and looking forward to possible future paydays.

I still do not believe an astute lawyer would argue State versus Federal rights based on orenthal's armed robbery and kidnapping appeal. orenthal never claimed the stuff was stolen -- he couldn't.

[FDInLaw]

Not at all. I think all can see that this was not a typical robbery or a kidnapping. I think something should have been done to punish all involved. However, I am concerned that judge J. Glass did not appear impartial. ITA. Otherwise it all seems fishy IMO. Simpson was the mastermind, but still.

[weezer]

Wonder what happened to the law against selling stolen goods transported across state lines.Another issue was Fumong brought a gun to the hotel that he said was left in his truck in the parking lot.

what stolen goods? there was no report of stolen goods. 'Fumong' left his gun is his truck -- orenthal wasn't that smart. :D

[weezer]

Ah, but Stewart's lawyer did and the trials were not severed, despite several motions.

which means Stewart could have an argument but since galanter was soooooo happy to have the tapes come in and stated so, it would be a little hard for him now to come back and say, "Well, I didn't know it wasn't going to help so King's X." :tongue:

[weezer]

Riccio did and LE should have investigated, imho, which might have prevented what happened.

what were they going to investigate william? a story being told by someone who had no connection to the stuff and that the 'owner' had never reported stolen? a story about 'some place at sometime, someone is going to try to sell stuff that I believe is stolen stuff'? please.

[weezer]

Again the jury did not believe any of the witnesses testimony and said they did not use any of it and that includes MCClintons testimony .imo

but they did hear McClinton's tape. The one where orenthal asked him if he pulled the 'piece' out in the hall.

[weezer]

That's right. He was granted immunity from prosecution.

and orenthal was too stupid to accept a plea deal. he threw dice and lost.

[weezer]

Not at all. I think all can see that this was not a typical robbery or a kidnapping. I think something should have been done to punish all involved. However, I am concerned that judge J. Glass did not appear impartial.

not typical because orenthal was involved? Ha

Don't be concerned about Judge Glass appearing impartial -- galanter spent quite a bit of time showering her with praise.

[martin II]

why would riccio have to pay? he wasn't a defendant.

Riccio was the master planner that brought everyone togeather and planned the sale in a hotel room rented by him.If people in the room caused fumong to have a heart attack a few days later Riccio was in the room.

[weezer]

ITA. Otherwise it all seems fishy IMO. Simpson was the mastermind, but still.

nah -- it's not fishy -- it's karma for orenthal and poor choice of friends for the rest. The fact that the other perpetrators were smart enough to plea deal is good for them. The fact that orenthal thought he didn't have to is bad for him.

orenthal put (I hate to use the word 'mastermind' when it comes to orenthal :tongue:) the 'sting' together, Stewart rounded up the guys, and all of them participated.

[weezer]

Riccio was the master planner that brought everyone togeather and planned the sale in a hotel room rented by him.If people in the room caused fumong to have a heart attack a few days later Riccio was in the room.

are you calling orenthal a liar? he said he put the 'sting' together.

[martin II]

I still do not believe an astute lawyer would argue State versus Federal rights based on orenthal's armed robbery and kidnapping appeal. orenthal never claimed the stuff was stolen -- he couldn't.

Not true. OJ told fumong in the hotel room 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF' fumong replied 'NO OJ MIKE TOOK IT'

[martin II]

ITA. Otherwise it all seems fishy IMO. Simpson was the mastermind, but still.

No Riccio was the mastermind.

[martin II]

what were they going to investigate william? a story being told by someone who had no connection to the stuff and that the 'owner' had never reported stolen? a story about 'some place at sometime, someone is going to try to sell stuff that I believe is stolen stuff'? please.

Riccio had been offered the stuff by beadsley who represented the seller.So he had a direct connection to the guy trying to sell stolen goods.A crime.

[weezer]

Not true. OJ told fumong in the hotel room 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF' fumong replied 'NO OJ MIKE TOOK IT'

yeah -- I read that. when did orenthal report stuff stolen to ANY LE?

[martin II]

Riccio first made connections with the guy trying to sell the stolen goods,.He contasctcted oj at his home in F lorida and informed him that he had found a guy trying to sell his goods and that he would arrange a meeting where oj could catch the in the act.
When oj came to Vegas Riccio arranged for the guy to bring the goods to vegas. He rented a hotel roomn at the Palace Station hotel and informed oj that the goods would be brought there by the sellers.He spoke to Oj and others at the Palm hotel as they planned to get the goods from the sellers.
Riccio rented the room in his name and called the sellers directing them to meet him at the PS hotel. He met them out side and took them to his room and directed them to display the goods on a bed.

He them placed his tape recorder on top iof a piece of furniture and hit record. He then went to the lobby to collect opj and thwe others and brought them to the hoor where he opend the door and allowed them to enter.

After the caper he went to TMZ and other tv outlets and sold the tapes for about $250,000.

If Riccio had not made all of these arrangements there would not have been any caper.
SO RICCIO WAS THE MASTER PLANNER AND MINIPULATOR. FOR MONEY.

[weezer]

No Riccio was the mastermind.

okay so you believe orenthal lied. I'm okay with that. how do you suppose riccio was able to put together the group of thugs that he didn't know but they knew orenthal? maybe a newspaper ad? :D

[weezer]

Riccio first made connections with the guy trying to sell the stolen goods,.He contasctcted oj at his home in F lorida and informed him that he had found a guy trying to sell his goods and that he would arrange a meeting where oj could catch the in the act.
When oj came to Vegas Riccio arranged for the guy to bring the goods to vegas. He rented a hotel roomn at the Palace Station hotel and informed oj that the goods would be brought there by the sellers.He spoke to Oj and others at the Palm hotel as they planned to get the goods from the sellers.
Riccio rented the room in his name and called the sellers directing them to meet him at the PS hotel. He met them out side and took them to his room and directed them to display the goods on a bed.

He them placed his tape recorder on top iof a piece of furniture and hit record. He then went to the lobby to collect opj and thwe others and brought them to the hoor where he opend the door and allowed them to enter.

After the caper he went to TMZ and other tv outlets and sold the tapes for about $250,000.

If Riccio had not made all of these arrangements there would not have been any caper.
SO RICCIO WAS THE MASTER PLANNER AND MINIPULATOR. FOR MONEY.

orenthal said he put the 'sting' together. I don't usually believe him but I have to say, what he stated and the tapes just almost makes it a certainty that he in fact, did plan the whole thing.

[martin II]

There are a few typos in the above post.. it was too late to correct when i got back at the computer.