Nevada Case Discussion

[weezer]

Do you have a link to the juror saying she would not vote guilty?

juror questionnaires are available on line

[William Anthony]

Sure there is forgiveness and we must forgive others to be forgiven but the 10 commandments gives us a pretty clear idea of how God feels about wrong doings....."Thy shalt Not" was written before most of the Ten. God has always and will continue to be a God of love but also a God of discipline and if you will a God that agrees with punishment...the Bible is full of examples....God believes in punishment so much so that He is also going to send some of us to Hell if we refuse to accept and abide by His Holy Word... according to our individual knowledge and understanding. Romans 13: is a good read on Authority of the state. Just saying because most Christians I know stongly believes in punishment for crime thru our judicial system.

What makes you think the other jurors did not, which goes against, the prosecution's, IMHO, purely speculative reasons.

[tv]

according to orenthal and yale, everytime orenthal murders someone, beats someone, and/or robs someone, it's payback.

Poor ol Orenthal just can't catch a break. For some reason, he's so important that everyone is out to get him.

[William Anthony]

There was no assumption; the woman stated that she couldn't judge another person or send them to jail. She had already admitted that the testimony and evidence wouldn't matter to her. She's entitled to her beliefs but the prosecution was entitled to reject her. It would have been silly of them not to do so.

A jury does not sentence, unless it is a capital case.

[tv]

i think the THEY yale may have been talking about was glass and the prosecutors.

The verdict came from the jury so he was referring to the jury.

[William Anthony]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
"When asked by the Court to state their reasons for the exclusion of juror 209 at (JAA.
1888), the Prosecution stated that she was "forgiving by nature" and goes on to state that there
were some conflicts between her questionnaire answers and her answers in court. This was
disingenuous and not a race neutral reason for two reasons. Being forgiving by nature was purely
speculative on the part of the Prosecution. There is nothing in the record that indicates that she
would have been forgiving by nature in this case. To the contrary. Juror 209 stated that she
could follow the law and would follow it scrupulously. Id. Also, as argued to the Court by
defense counsel at (JAA. 1894:14), changes in the answers to the questionnaires was an absurd
reason because as jury selection transpired most of the prospective jurors changed their answers
that they had put in the questionnaire. But juror 209 was the only one who was challenged by the
State because of it.
The Courts in Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court have stated that speculative reasons are
not race neutral reasons. Id.

This from Respondent's brief,

"The State explained
that it removed Panelist 209 for several reasons. First, the State noted the juror was a pastor of her
own church, making her a person who would be "forgiving by nature . (8 AA 1887-88). To explore
his suspicions, the prosecutor asked Panelist 209 during voir dire whether she was the type of person
who sees good in everybody, to which the panelist responded, "Yes. (5 AA 1134, 8 AA 1888).
Panelist 209 had also worked with a chaplain in a women's prison , where she preached to the very
people the State convicted . Id. Based upon her religious affiliations, the State expressed serious
concerns over whether Panelist 209 would choose to forgive rather than to convict despite the
evidence establishing guilt. Id"

What is this for a reason, when the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation and to cause a convict to see and understand the criminality of their ways, whether or not it be based on a set of moral laws handed down by God. To have a forgiving nature has nothing to do with an ability to convict and to think it does is purely speculative, as it is pure conjecture.

[SIZE="5"]Based upon her religious affiliations[/SIZE], the State expressed serious concerns over whether Panelist 209 would choose to forgive rather than to convict despite the evidence establishing guilt. Id" The cornerstone of Simpson's appeal is that the trail was fundamentally unfair. Hence, any disparate treatment of a potential juror, who is Black, is a prima facie case of discrimination based on race under Batson. The respondent seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place unless they can show that they struck a potential White juror, because the juror lied on their questionnaire.

[tv]

Do you have a link to the juror saying she would not vote guilty?

She said she couldn't send anyone to jail. The meaning is clear.

[William Anthony]

I often times have difficulty following the NG's reasoning: they want the one guy booted because he thought the criminal trial verdict was wrong but want 'their' juror left on because she thought the criminal trial verdict was right and the civil trial verdict wrong.

I think you have summed the entire thing up in a nutshell, Simpson could not get a fair trail, because of what others thought of the criminal trial.

[tv]

A jury does not sentence, unless it is a capital case.

I didn't say the jury was going to hand down the sentence. Maybe you need to read it again.

[William Anthony]

She said she couldn't send anyone to jail. The meaning is clear.

I will answer both your posts in this one. The juror said "she could not send anyone to jail." Sending someone to jail means sentencing them. The juror was explaining that she could not be a judge, as sentencing is the judge's obligation. You assumed that she was saying she could not vote guilty and when I asked you to provide that statement made by the juror, she couldn't vote guilty, you relied upon your assumption. This is what I mean by circular arguments, unless there is something in the record, showing the juror was asked and answered that she did not understand it was the judge's duty to pass sentencing, which only means when she said she could not judge anyone, that she was not a judge, unless we make certain other assumptions that are not in the record. The point is that I can be wrong and you can be right or you can be wrong or I can be right, which makes both purely speculative. Perhaps, you need to read again what the juror said and not what the prosecution argued, smile.

[weezer]

[SIZE="5"]Based upon her religious affiliations[/SIZE], the State expressed serious concerns over whether Panelist 209 would choose to forgive rather than to convict despite the evidence establishing guilt. Id" The cornerstone of Simpson's appeal is that the trail was fundamentally unfair. Hence, any disparate treatment of a potential juror, who is Black, is a prima facie case of discrimination based on race under Batson. The respondent seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place unless they can show that they struck a potential White juror, because the juror lied on their questionnaire.

A defendant's constitutional rights are not violated solely because a prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective black juror, where the juror's race is mere happenstance. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1719 (1986). Only when the prosecutor challenges the prospective juror on the account of race are equal protection concerns implicated. Id. Bare allegations that a black juror was removed because of his race are insufficient to prove an equal protection violation. See id. at 93. Rather, the burden is on the defendant to prove the actual existence of "purposeful discrimination. Id. Only if the defendant successfully makes a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination will the State be required to set forth a race neutral explanation for the exclusion. Id. at 94. Notably, the prosecutor's explanation need not rise to the level of justifying a challenge for cause. Id. at 97. In fact, the State's neutral reasons for exercising its peremptory challenges need not be persuasive or even plausible. Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 398, 403, 132 P.3d 574 (2006). So long as discriminatory intent is not inherent in the State's explanation, the reason offered is deemed neutral. Id. The trial court thereafter has broad discretion to determine whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1742. Because findings on the issue of intent largely involve judgments of credibility , the trial court is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous . Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 334, 91 P.3d 16, 30 (2004).

[weezer]

I will answer both your posts in this one. The juror said "she could not send anyone to jail." Sending someone to jail means sentencing them. The juror was explaining that she could not be a judge, as sentencing is the judge's obligation. You assumed that she was saying she could not vote guilty and when I asked you to provide that statement made by the juror, she couldn't vote guilty, you relied upon your assumption. This is what I mean by circular arguments, unless there is something in the record, showing the juror was asked and answered that she did not understand it was the judge's duty to pass sentencing, which only means when she said she could not judge anyone, that she was not a judge, unless we make certain other assumptions that are not in the record. The point is that I can be wrong and you can be right or you can be wrong or I can be right, which makes both purely speculative. Perhaps, you need to read again what the juror said and not what the prosecution argued, smile.

nope -- she said she couldn't send anybody to jail AND

First, when asked in her questionnaire whether she would hold the prosecution to a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant is a celebrity or when the case has received significant media attention, she responded "No, but went on to say, "The prosecution should be at his or her higher standards at all times. (8 AA 1919). Second, when asked whether she agreed with Simpson's criminal verdict, she indicated, "Yes. Id. When asked whether she agreed with the civil verdict, she answered, "No. Id. Her answers suggested to prosecutors that she was a Simpson supporter who believed he was wrongfully accused and rightfully exonerated. Id.

[weezer]

I think you have summed the entire thing up in a nutshell, Simpson could not get a fair trail, because of what others thought of the criminal trial.

but it was okay for one juror to lie on her questionnaire and the other juror to to express support of orenthal? oh, okay.

[William Anthony]

"The trial court thereafter has broad discretion to determine whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1742." This is why there is an appeal to see whether the trial court abused it discretion when it accepted the reason that the juror was excused because of her religious affiliation and did the fact that the prosecution struck a Black juror for alleged inconsistent answers on he questionnaire and her oral testimony but treated Whites who had inconsistent answers between their questionnaire answers and oral answers, which would evidence purposeful discrimination.

[William Anthony]

but it was okay for one juror to lie on her questionnaire and the other juror to to express support of orenthal? oh, okay.

WTH? Did you not understand my answer? Pro or Con, Simpson could not receive a fair trial based on feelings people had over the criminal murder trial verdict.

[tv]

I will answer both your posts in this one. The juror said "she could not send anyone to jail." Sending someone to jail means sentencing them. The juror was explaining that she could not be a judge, as sentencing is the judge's obligation. You assumed that she was saying she could not vote guilty and when I asked you to provide that statement made by the juror, she couldn't vote guilty, you relied upon your assumption. This is what I mean by circular arguments, unless there is something in the record, showing the juror was asked and answered that she did not understand it was the judge's duty to pass sentencing, which only means when she said she could not judge anyone, that she was not a judge, unless we make certain other assumptions that are not in the record. The point is that I can be wrong and you can be right or you can be wrong or I can be right, which makes both purely speculative. Perhaps, you need to read again what the juror said and not what the prosecution argued, smile.

The potential juror knew that a guilty verdict could result in jail time for OJ Simpson. So, saying she couldn't send anyone to jail means she couldn't vote guilty in this case. It's too bad I have to spell it out like this but you always turn everything into a war of words. Maybe now you understand. smile.

[weezer]

"The trial court thereafter has broad discretion to determine whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1742." This is why there is an appeal to see whether the trial court abused it discretion when it accepted the reason that the juror was excused because of her religious affiliation and did the fact that the prosecution struck a Black juror for alleged inconsistent answers on he questionnaire and her oral testimony but treated Whites who had inconsistent answers between their questionnaire answers and oral answers, which would evidence purposeful discrimination.

so it is your belief that if the liar is black, they get extra points? and did the defense attornies challenge/excuse only white jurors in an effort to seat an only black jury?

[weezer]

WTH? Did you not understand my answer? Pro or Con, Simpson could not receive a fair trial based on feelings people had over the criminal murder trial verdict.

and that means what william? orenthal james simpson can do whatever the hell he wants to because if someone catches him, he can't get a fair trial? BS

orenthal is and always has been his worst enemy. I'm embarrassed for anyone who listened to those tapes and then defends him.

[William Anthony]

nope -- she said she couldn't send anybody to jail AND

First, when asked in her questionnaire whether she would hold the prosecution to a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant is a celebrity or when the case has received significant media attention, she responded "No, but went on to say, "The prosecution should be at his or her higher standards at all times. (8 AA 1919). Second, when asked whether she agreed with Simpson's criminal verdict, she indicated, "Yes. Id. When asked whether she agreed with the civil verdict, she answered, "No. Id. Her answers suggested to prosecutors that she was a Simpson supporter who believed he was wrongfully accused and rightfully exonerated. Id.

Thanks for this posts. "The prosecution should be at his or her higher standards at all times. (8 AA 1919)", which is what Kate and I agreed on, because of the legal and ethical obligations imposed on the prosecution. So, the prosecution speculated that the juror was a Simpson supporter but not a supporter. This juror seems to me to have a great grasp of legal concepts. Therefore, it is quite possible that she felt there was reasonable doubt and that the judge, was wrong when he told the jury that this was "Basically, a civil murder trial and that they could still conclude that Simpson killed Ms. NBS and Mr. RG (but I would not violate anyone's right by engaging in pure speculationg).

[William Anthony]

The potential juror knew that a guilty verdict could result in jail time for OJ Simpson. So, saying she couldn't send anyone to jail means she couldn't vote guilty in this case. It's too bad I have to spell it out like this but you always turn everything into a war of words. Maybe now you understand. smile.

I understood your assumption as to what the juror said, when you made the statement that the juror said she could not vote guilty, which is why I asked for a link, rather than for you to make assumptions, placing words in the mouth of another.

[William Anthony]

so it is your belief that if the liar is black, they get extra points? and did the defense attornies challenge/excuse only white jurors in an effort to seat an only black jury?

Since, the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude the two
Black potential jurors, then there were only non-Black jurors for the defense to exclude. Besides, the Batson challenge is to protect a defendant's rights, although it may have been extended to the state and I am unaware. I don't understand your point. Not that Black jurors, who make inconsistent statements get "extra points"but that Whites, who make inconsistent statements don't get extra point, or that they are treated the same (equality). That and fairness is what is behind the Batson challenge, IMHO.

[weezer]

Thanks for this posts. "The prosecution should be at his or her higher standards at all times. (8 AA 1919)", which is what Kate and I agreed on, because of the legal and ethical obligations imposed on the prosecution. So, the prosecution speculated that the juror was a Simpson supporter but not a supporter. This juror seems to me to have a great grasp of legal concepts. Therefore, it is quite possible that she felt there was reasonable doubt and that the judge, was wrong when he told the jury that this was "Basically, a civil murder trial and that they could still conclude that Simpson killed Ms. NBS and Mr. RG (but I would not violate anyone's right by engaging in pure speculationg).

you're welcome. always happy to help the uninformed.

[tv]

I understood your assumption as to what the juror said, when you made the statement that the juror said she could not vote guilty, which is why I asked for a link, rather than for you to make assumptions, placing words in the mouth of another.

So, do you think she could have, in good conscience, voted guilty knowing that a guilty verdict would most likely send him to jail?

[weezer]

Since, the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude the two
Black potential jurors, then there were only non-Black jurors for the defense to exclude. Besides, the Batson challenge is to protect a defendant's rights, although it may have been extended to the state and I am unaware. I don't understand your point.

I know it's a tough concept to accept william, but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law does not mean he's entitled to a black jury. and just because someone is black, doesn't mean they can't be challenged.

you would think that orenthal would accept the fact that he got his 'one bite of the apple' with the first criminal trial jury. sounds to me like he's just a greedy little . . . .

[William Anthony]

and that means what william? orenthal james simpson can do whatever the hell he wants to because if someone catches him, he can't get a fair trial? BS

orenthal is and always has been his worst enemy. I'm embarrassed for anyone who listened to those tapes and then defends him.

To the contrary, if Simpson does something wrong and is caught, then every precaution must be taken to ensure he receives a fair trial by and impartial trier of fact.

Everyone is entitled to a defense and I am embarrassed for those who feel otherwise.

[weezer]

To the contrary, if Simpson does something wrong and is caught, then every precaution must be taken to ensure he receives a fair trial by and impartial trier of fact.

Everyone is entitled to a defense and I am embarrassed for those who feel otherwise.

you mean 'impartial trier of fact' only if that 'impartial trier of fact' was one of the jurors who lied to get on the jury, right?

[William Anthony]

I know it's a tough concept to accept william, but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law does not mean he's entitled to a black jury. and just because someone is black, doesn't mean they can't be challenged.

you would think that orenthal would accept the fact that he got his 'one bite of the apple' with the first criminal trial jury. sounds to me like he's just a greedy little . . . .

I think it is time for me to say goodbye when you make these kinds of posts, " but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law.

[weezer]

I think it is time for me to say goodbye when you make these kinds of posts, " but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law.

buh-bye

[William Anthony]

you're welcome. always happy to help the uninformed.

I think you have informed everyone that the prosecutor engaged in pure speculation about a juror and therefore the Batson challenge should have been sustained.

[William Anthony]

So, do you think she could have, in good conscience, voted guilty knowing that a guilty verdict would most likely send him to jail?

I think the record is unclear and, consequently, I will not speculate one way or the other. It would have been easy for the prosecution to ask, despite your feelings about judging others and sending someone to jail, could you, if the evidence indicated to you that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable, vote guilty.

[martin II]

The verdict came from the jury so he was referring to the jury.

any answer to who yale was talking about is just a guess which is what i did and what you are doing now.

[martin II]

I think the record is unclear and, consequently, I will not speculate one way or the other. It would have been easy for the prosecution to ask, despite your feelings about judging others and sending someone to jail, could you, if the evidence indicated to you that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable, vote guilty.

that is what the prosecution asked of the guy they wanted on the jury so why not this woman? they didn't.

[William Anthony]

any answer to who yale was talking about is just a guess which is what i did and what you are doing now.

Martin,

I just noticed that Hotwater had bumped the discussion to the Nevada case thread. I sent her a pm,asking her to bump this entire last page on the criminal thread to the Nevada case.

[martin II]

I know it's a tough concept to accept william, but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law does not mean he's entitled to a black jury. and just because someone is black, doesn't mean they can't be challenged.

you would think that orenthal would accept the fact that he got his 'one bite of the apple' with the first criminal trial jury. sounds to me like he's just a greedy little . . . .

if you want to interject race into the discussion, get the moderators ok and we can dicuss that.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just noticed that Hotwater had bumped the discussion to the Nevada case thread. I sent her a pm,asking her to bump this entire last page on the criminal thread to the Nevada case.

ok it will be there when the nevada thead is reopened

[William Anthony]

ok it will be there when the nevada thead is reopened

It is reopened.

[William Anthony]

Thanks, for reopening the thread and could you bump the last page of the criminal trial to this one.

[tv]

I think the record is unclear and, consequently, I will not speculate one way or the other. It would have been easy for the prosecution to ask, despite your feelings about judging others and sending someone to jail, could you, if the evidence indicated to you that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable, vote guilty.

That's not what she said. She said she couldn't send anyone to jail or pass judgement on someone else. How could she deliberate if she can't pass judgement?

[martin II]

I think you have informed everyone that the prosecutor engaged in pure speculation about a juror and therefore the Batson challenge should have been sustained.

how did judge glass accept the prosecutions claim that the lady was
BY NATURE FORGIVING. WAS THE PODSECUTION ACTING AS THE WOMANS THERAPIST. THAT WAS A BUNCH OF NONSENSE.or fear of her being on the jury because of her color.

[Hipcheck]

I think it is time for me to say goodbye when you make these kinds of posts, " but just because orenthal turns black everytime he gets in trouble with the law.

:

But do you really mean that? I doubt it.