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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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...ed-oj-simpson/

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by 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...ed-oj-simpson/

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

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by Deepwater

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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/...ing/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...-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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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:...lnk&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]

Originally Posted by martin II

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]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

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?