|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Not that I'm a fan, but wondering if anyone here thinks Mr. Simpson and his co-defendant will be getting a fair trial in Nevada from an all-white jury?<br /><br />Also, does anyone know anything about the "memorabilia dealers" who he is accused of stealing his stuff from?<br /><br /><img src="http://i466.photobucket.com/albums/rr26/dmsimon1/oj.jpg"><br /><br />Las Vegas jury seated in O.J. Simpson's trial<br />By LINDA DEUTSCH – 1 day ago <br /><br />LAS VEGAS (AP) — A jury has been selected to decide whether O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant kidnapped and robbed two sports memorabilia dealers last year in Las Vegas.<br /><br />Twelve jurors and six alternates were seated Thursday after four days of sometimes contentious questioning by defense lawyers.<br /><br />Most prospective jurors have said they disagree with Simpson's 1995 acquittal in the slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.<br /><br />But they insist they can be fair in the latest case.<br /><br />Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges.<br /><br />Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass says she wants to begin opening statements Monday.<br /><br />THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.<br /><br />LOS ANGELES (AP) — The judge in the robbery and kidnapping trial of O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant approved the last of 40 jury prospects Thursday, including a man who wrote on his jury questionnaire that the former football star was "a murderer and got away with it."<br /><br />Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass told lawyers to return later in the day to exercise peremptory challenges and choose the final 12 jurors and six alternates.<br /><br />Defense attorneys clashed with the judge in the final hours of four days of jury questioning when she refused to remove a retired policeman who repeatedly said Simpson was a murderer. He said he filled his questionnaire with such statements for shock value.<br /><br />"I wanted to scare you so I wouldn't have to be here," he told defense attorney Gabriel Grasso. "I was hoping they would say, 'Oh, this guy is crazy,' and they would move on."<br /><br />But the man said he later decided he wanted to serve and would put his opinions about Simpson aside and give him a fair trial.<br /><br />"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."<br /><br />The potential juror had written that co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart was a murderer, too, but said he made a mistake. Stewart's lawyer unsuccessfully challenged him for cause.<br /><br />The man also said a friend of his took a photo with Simpson after his 1995 murder acquittal and sent it out as a Christmas card.<br /><br />"I thought it was funny," the man said.<br /><br />Asked if he stood by his statement that Simpson got away with murder, he said, "I did mean it. It was an honest answer. But it was used to get out of serving. Now is now. Today is today. Everyone is starting with a clean slate."<br /><br />Judge Glass approved his inclusion in the jury pool. District Attorney David Roger told protesting defense lawyers that if they didn't like the man, they could use a peremptory challenge to remove him.<br /><br />Peremptory challenges are reserved for removing prospective jurors without stating a cause. The final pool of prospects included a number of people who disagreed with Simpson's acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. But all said they could put that aside and weigh the Las Vegas case on its own merits.<br /><br />Simpson, 61, is accused with Stewart, 54, of kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes for allegedly stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room confrontation last year. They have pleaded not guilty.<br /><br />In another development, the judge issued an order refusing to release questionnaires filled out by the jurors who make up the panel. She said she had promised the panel she would keep their answers secret.<br /><br />Glass said she would release a blank copy of a jury questionnaire, but only after the jurors are seated.<br /><br />Attorneys Colby Williams and Donald Campbell, representing AP and the Review-Journal, said Thursday that they filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to review Glass' decision.<br /><br />Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.<br /><br />"Prohibiting access to the completed questionnaires runs afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of access to voir dire proceedings in criminal trials and precludes the media from reporting newsworthy events in a timely manner," the document said.<br /><br />Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."<br /><br />"She's saying she's going to abide by a promise she never should have made," Mitchell said. "What is the reason for the secrecy anyway? We're supposed to have public trials." <br /><br />Associated Press Writer Ken Ritter contributed to this report.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Scott T</b><p>Racism cuts both ways. The term "all-white" jury is a political and racial hot potato.<br /><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/scottopotamus/Football%20Sets/1970%20Kelloggs%203D/48OJSimpson.jpg"><br /><br />He was a great football player and a decnt actor, but he seems to be a mess as a person.<br><br>Scott <br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Certainly as fair as his last trial.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>David,<br /><br />I was trying to come up with something that succinctly pristine, but was at a loss. Thanks for covering that base so well!
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Don't you think the judge will instruct the jury with something like: "come on folks, you know we owe him one from last time."
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>"He's a free man until he comes here." If that isn't a Freudian slip...<br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />It is what it is, politcally correct or not. Once again, is it schadenfreude for OJ because everyone thinks he got away with murder, or did he step over the line using self-help trying to get his stolen stuff back that some back-room memorabilia dealers were peddling?<br /><br />Here is the top result, with headline from Yahoo news:<br /><br />All-white jury seated in OJ Simpson kidnapping case Fri Sep 12, 6:29 AM ET<br /> <br /><br />LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AFP) - An all-white jury of 12 was chosen to decide the fate of OJ Simpson who faces trial on kidnapping and armed robbery charges that could see the former football star jailed for life. <br /> <br />Simpson, 61, faces 12 charges stemming from a confrontation in a hotel room in September last year after which he and a gang of gun-toting cohorts left with pillow cases stuffed full of sports memorabilia.<br /><br />In the state of Nevada, kidnapping and armed robbery both carry potential life sentences.<br /><br />Simpson's latest ordeal comes 13 years after he was acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend.<br /><br />The process of seating a jury actually began in mid-August when 500 prospective jurors filled out a 26-page questionnaire.<br /><br />The judge took great pains to separate the current case from Simpson's racially charged murder trial.<br /><br />She wanted to be sure that the jurors would not be biased against Simpson, who is African-American, and was acquitted of the 1994 slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, both of whom were white.<br /><br />"If you are here thinking you are going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles in 1995 this is not the case for you," Glass said Monday.<br /><br />"I mean really, truly, folks," Glass said. "I'm not kidding around. Can you put that aside and understand that the case we are trying here and the info you're going to hear about here is totally separate from that case?"<br /><br />In Nevada trial, Simpson and a group of associates allegedly stormed a room at the Palace Station Hotel-Casino, brandishing weapons, to retrieve memorabilia largely related to the former football star's sporting career that he has insisted was stolen from him.<br /><br />Simpson has insisted he did not know that anyone had guns and said he never saw weapons. Four of the gang, including the two who carried firearms, have struck plea agreements with prosecutors for reduced prison sentences in exchange for their testimony against Simpson.<br /><br />Opening statements were expected to begin Monday.<br /><br />Simpson, a football Hall of Fame inductee, also was a television advertising pitchman and Hollywood comic film actor before the 1994 murders.<br /><br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Here's hoping he gets a fair trial, is convicted and sent away, giving the Browns and Goldmans a well-deserved good night's sleep. Mark
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p>After his extensive and tenacious 15 year search for the "real killers" on golf courses throughout Florida, I certainly hope he gets a fair trial.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i hope he serves many many years in prison. where are all the attornies on this board? would love to hear their opinions on the murderer's outlook now.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Anthouny, Mark and Eric:<br /><br />It's pure speculation on my part, but are you all "Wonder Bread white"? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i am, just like the two people he murdered.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>He murdered people? I thought he was found innocent in the criminal trial. A jury of his "peers" said he didn't do it, so doesn't that mean he is innocent? LOL.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>So it's schadenfreude then.<br /><br />It would be interesting though to get a lawyer's perspective on how this would hold up on appeal (assuming he is convicted).<br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i know that OJ most likely killed those people and can't understand why anyone would feel differently. but the law is the law and it should be the same for whoever it is that the law is applied to. i don't see how anyone can argue that an all white jury is fair. OJ most likely killed 2 white people. to have him judged then by an all white jury is a disgusting step back to the times when blacks had automatic guilty verdicts while being judged by all white juries who couldn't be less interested in what really happened. i think about what would happen if a white person killed 2 black people and then had to sit in front of an all black jury. i don't think it would ever happen and right or wrong i certainly see it as disgusting that OJ has to deal with it.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>He was found "not guilty". "Innocent" would mean it was decided that he did not do it. "Not Guilty" means the prosecutors did not prove he did it. He was found civilly liable for wrongful death in the subsequent lawsuit against him. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>I know, I know. I'm just having some fun. Just wanted to see if anybody would take it seriously. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ali- you are suggesting that an all white jury couldn't possibly render a fair verdict. Why not?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p><br />"Anthony, Mark and Eric:<br /><br />It's pure speculation on my part, but are you all 'Wonder Bread white'?"<br /><br /><br /><br />Jodi, I'm so Waspy, I practically buzz.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>LetsGoBucs</b><p>I don't care about the color of the skin of the jury.....but I do care that the judge permits people on the jury that openly state that he is guilty of a crime for which he was found "not guilty".<br /><br />I don't see how the judge can expect him to get a fair trial. And that does bother me a lot. Our system of justice is supposed to apply equally to all Americans. I know that in reality there are those that have advantages, but that is no reason to allow this type of disadvantage to a person accused of a crime.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>barry i'm not saying it is out of the realm of possibility, but you have to admit that it is not as balanced a jury as it could be.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ali, the law does not allow for the striking of jurors based solely on the color of skin. You write as if "the system" somehow picked the all-white jury for Simpson just to screw him -- are you aware that his lawyers were involved in picking the jury? As for OJ's "peers", the criminal allegation occurred in Las Vegas; that's where the jury is selected from, not some golf course in Florida.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ali- I hear what you are saying but it's a strange concept for sure. Would six black jurors and six white be more fair? If you increase that to seven white jurors is it stacked against him? Does he have an edge with eight black jurors? Hate to think that's what it is all about.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Snarky comments aside Anonymous, what jury instructions include the option of finding innocent vs. not guilty?<br /><br />And, the standard in a civil action is much lower than a criminal action:<br /><br />civil - A preponderance of the evidence<br /><br />criminal - Beyond a reasonable doubt<br /><br />I really hope those 'dealers' are ok after their harrowing kidnapping and robbery experience.<br /><br />Who should be on trial? Those guys were fencing stolen goods -- and once again giving the hobby a bad name.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dave, I agree with you.<br /><br />As much as I loathe OJ, this case never gets brought if not for his sordid past. I've yet to encounter a case in all my years in which the witnesses were as tainted and impossible to believe as this bunch.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Jodi--<br /><br />Yes as to "white." Not so sure about the "Wonder Bread."<br /><br /><br />Mark
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>So am I to assume a "pumpernickel factor" of around 10%? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Can't say; geneology not my long suit.<br /><br />Headed out shortly to see Cheech & Chong, a far more pleasant topic than OJ.<br /><br />Mark
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Are you in Canada? I heard that their tour is Canada-wide. Chong came to London, ON a couple of years ago. Some friends had tickets and said the show was great.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p>They're on tour again? Wow. I just figured Mark lived in 1979.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i know his lawyers were barred from asking any of the potential jurors if they felt he was guilty of murder. seems like a fair question that should be asked before picking that person to sit on a jury.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>The lawyers were barred from asking that question -- but the judge mentioned it repeatedly during his comments to the jury pool and if anyone had a problem with OJ because of the first case they would have had the opportunity to say something. And OJ beat a road-rage case a few years back so I doubt it is not impossible for him to get a fair trial.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Richard Dwyer</b><p>I'm surprised that O.J. memorabilia is something worthwhile stealing. (?)
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>I'm not being snarky; just accurate.<br /><br />And the civil case hit for $33.5 million, which included a punitive damages award of $25 million, which required clear and convincing evidence not merely preponderance, per Civil Code 3294(a): In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.<br /><br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Prosecutors can nimbly get around dismissing Black jurors without setting up reversible error in the jury selection process (voir dire). All they have to do is establish some other basis for the exclusion of the juror, however feeble. Batson challenges are routinely thrown out if the appeals court can find any possible reason for the exclusion of minority jurors and believe me any prosecutor worth his salt has poured over the decisions and knows exactly how to do it...
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>...was can he get a fair trial with an all-white, and potentially biased jury. With few exceptions, as a relative sample, I think the responses here show that the bias against him continues to be pervasive to this day.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>I lurk here and post once in a while but I have never met any of the board members. Is it just being assumed that all who have responded to this post are white or is that, in fact, the case?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>I had hoped we would stay away from this topic. The judge in the case is Mrs. Jackie Glass. My aunt. She is as tough as they come and as fair as all get out. After a very successful career in a large defense firm in Las Vegas (with her husband Steve Wolfson, now city councilman of Las Vegas) defending some very important and interesting nationally recognized cases, she ran for a judgeship. She won her seat by beating a long standing incumbent running on a ticket of fair, tough, and strict law. She did not want this case. She was assigned the case and has been tough on all sides of the case. She revoked his bail when he broke the rules. She has held the press at bay and has been on point in every part so far. The jury was sat from an original pool of 500. A jury of his peers is correct for this case. OJ may be black but peers do not just include race. He has more in common with a white middle aged upper middle class person than anyone else. I do think my aunt will keep this trial and jury under control.<br /><br />As to the two people he allegedly robbed...I am fairly certain one has passed away. Neither of the "victims" were wonderfully respected memorabilia dealers. Both had run ins and problems in the industry. Does that make them any less victims? Nope...does it make OJ any more guilty? We shall see.<br /><br />I have obviously known my aunt for a wonderfully long time and honestly would just like this case (and OJ for that matter) to go away...Thanksgiving at my household this year should be rather interesting.<br /><br />Joshua
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>She has not been on point. If she were on point, two third parties would not have appealed one of her rulings before the trial even began. If she is such a great lawyer and jurist, please help us understand why the First Amendment does not apply in her courtroom.<br /><br />Attorneys Colby Williams and Donald Campbell, representing AP and the Review-Journal, said Thursday that they filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to review Glass' decision.<br /><br />Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.<br /><br />"Prohibiting access to the completed questionnaires runs afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of access to voir dire proceedings in criminal trials and precludes the media from reporting newsworthy events in a timely manner," the document said.<br /><br />Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."<br /><br />"She's saying she's going to abide by a promise she never should have made," Mitchell said. "What is the reason for the secrecy anyway? We're supposed to have public trials." <br /><br />---<br /><br />As for her being fair, allowing people who perjure themselves to get out of jury service into the jury pool is, well, criminal. She should have locked the guy up.<br /><br />Defense attorneys clashed with the judge in the final hours of four days of jury questioning when she refused to remove a retired policeman who repeatedly said Simpson was a murderer. He said he filled his questionnaire with such statements for shock value.<br /><br />"I wanted to scare you so I wouldn't have to be here," he told defense attorney Gabriel Grasso. "I was hoping they would say, 'Oh, this guy is crazy,' and they would move on."<br /><br />But the man said he later decided he wanted to serve and would put his opinions about Simpson aside and give him a fair trial.<br /><br />"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."<br /><br />The potential juror had written that co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart was a murderer, too, but said he made a mistake. Stewart's lawyer unsuccessfully challenged him for cause.<br /><br />The man also said a friend of his took a photo with Simpson after his 1995 murder acquittal and sent it out as a Christmas card.<br /><br />"I thought it was funny," the man said.<br /><br />Asked if he stood by his statement that Simpson got away with murder, he said, "I did mean it. It was an honest answer. But it was used to get out of serving. Now is now. Today is today. Everyone is starting with a clean slate."<br /><br />Judge Glass approved his inclusion in the jury pool. District Attorney David Roger told protesting defense lawyers that if they didn't like the man, they could use a peremptory challenge to remove him.<br /><br />Rather embarrassing I would say.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>The one thing I haven't heard much about is what OJ planned to do with "his" stuff after he "retrieved" it. It's not as if the memorabilia that he was taking was his Heisman trophy or the final football from his 2000 yard season -- things that he might genuinely want to keep. No, what he was taking was stacks and stacks of autographed photos and other marketable items. <br /><br />Even OJ doesn't want hundreds of autographed OJ photos. Obviously, his plan was to sell the stuff. But he is under a court order to give his income to the Goldmans. So, presumably, he was planning on selling his stuff and violating the court order to hand the cash over to the Goldmans. Even if you think the stuff he took was really his, and that he is innocent of the current charges, the best thing that you can say about him is that his "retrieval" of "his" property was part of his plan to violate the court order to pay the Goldmans -- for the millionth time.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Jodi/Anthony--<br /><br />Cheech & Chong performed tonight at the Warner, a grand, old, run-down theater in downtown Washington, D.C., before a raucous and appreciative sell-out crowd.<br /><br />The show is a series of skits, almost exclusively pot and sex humor, with a couple shots at Bush stemming from Chong's prosecution and imprisonment for manufacturing bongs. I enjoyed the show, as much for the nostalgia as anything.<br /><br />Mark
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>of the 500 jurors pooled only 50 were african american.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>What if the community in which the trial is taking place is only 10% African American?<br /><br />And since there were 50 in the pool, it sounds like OJ's laywers could have had at least some on the jury if they wanted.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>highly doubt las vegas is only 10 percent african american. don't understand you're position on this one. but to each his own.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Which part don't you understand?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i understand you don't like OJ. but i don't understand why you are so against a person being judged by their peers, of which includes their race and gender. i can totally understand if you're happy its happening to OJ, but if it can happen to one person it can happen to you too.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ali, my feelings about OJ have zero impact on my thoughts about this case. I'm just pointing out that your conclusion is not necessarily the correct one. Did you fail to note that I wrote that I thought the case would never have been brought if the defendant were not OJ? Do you know what I do for a living?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i'm not really interested. we're on different pages. to each his own.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I'm sure you cried a river for OJ during his murder trial when 75% of the jurors were black -- significantly more than the population of the county in which the trial took place.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>you don't have a problem with OJ not having members of his race on the jury and you don't care much for the fact that his lawyers were barred from asking a crucial question when it comes to assessing a person's ability to rule impartially on this particular case. i'm not crying a river for OJ. the question was whether or not i felt OJ could get a fair trial. i don't believe he will receive the fairest trial he could.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>The AA population in LV was 10.36% as of the 2000 census.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Look, the lawyers picked the jury. If you have a beef with the fact that there are no blacks on the jury it very well may be his attorneys' fault. Hard to imagine the prosecutors got away with knocking off every African American without raising a Batson problem. So blame OJ's lawyers, not the system. <br /><br />As for the "crucial" question that you mentioned, as stated above, the judge repeatedly and emphatically covered this during her own comments and questions to the jury. Believe it or not, the lawyers are not always allowed to do the questioning of jurors, sometimes judges get involved -- like in most federal cases. Somehow defense attorneys manage to represent their clients without ever getting the chance to question the jury directly or to get every question they desire put to the jury. <br /><br />As for your concern that OJ may not get the "fairest" trial he could, I hate to break it to you but almost no defendant gets the fairest trial he could. OJ received a lot more breaks than the average defendant during his first trial. You should be more concerned with the average African American defendant in American courtrooms that is not a cult figure to many communities, that does not have the resources to pay for Johnnie Cochran and a team of lawyers and experts. The average African American defendant gets crushed in courtrooms every day in our country. Yet all anyone cares about is poor OJ Simpson. <br /><br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Paul, which equates to one juror. In OJ's murder case he had 9 AAs (75%); yet the jury pool was only 28% black.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I'm with you on this Jeff. I was refuting ali's statement about doubting LV's pop was only 10% black.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Ali, I think Jeff is in violent agreement with you...<br /><br />Jeff, your last post on the Mastro thread was friggin' hilarious!<br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p>Psst, Ali.<br /><br />You might want to trust Jeff's opinion on this one.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Is anyone covering the OJ trial on TV. Court TV did such a great job on high profile cases in the past and I was wondering if there were any cameras in the courtroom now that the trial is starting.<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Mike
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Rob D.</b><p>Ali,<br /><br />If I can get Mel Stottlemyre Sr. to drop by the board, would you be willing to debate him on the proper mechanics of pitching?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>He's the expert. <br /><br />BTW, when the OJ case came up it was supposed to be tried in the West district, in the Santa Monica courthouse. Santa Monica is a coastal community near the murder scene that would have drawn jurors from an affluent area known as the "Westside" of LA. Odds are the jury pool would have looked pretty much like the OJ civil trial (which was held in Santa Monica) did; 3/4 white with a few Hispanic and Asian jurors. Instead, the case was transferred downtown to the criminal courts there, where the jury pool tended at the time to be mostly poor and minority, drawn from East LA and South Central (all the jury pools have changed somewhat since the 1990s owing to changes in the jury process that now pool jurors from all over the place downtown, but I digress). At the time of the OJ case, among the civil lawyers in LA downtown was known as "The Bank" for the propensity of its juries to stick it to perceived powerful, rich or corporate defendants, and my colleagues who practiced criminal defense also liked their odds downtown with a black defendant as compared to a wealthier, whiter community. <br /><br />I remember having a conversation with the other attorneys at the firm where I was working when the venue change was announced and the first thing all of us said when we heard was that the fix was in, OJ was not going to be convicted, because getting a downtown jury to convict him would have been next to impossible in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. Personally, I don't see that the officials conspired to throw the case but I certainly think part of the idea behind the transfer of venues was a political play designed to make sure the faces judging OJ would mostly be black, so that there would not be anothe race riot if he was convicted. You may recall that the Rodney King beating case was transferred out of Los Angeles County to a distant bedroom community called Simi Valley, that at the time was also known as "Copland" because it was very white and heavily populated with law enforcement personnel families, and the ensuing verdict was the trigger for the riots. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Why am I sitting here on a Sunday night reading a thread where someone instructs Jeff and Adam in the nuances of jury selection? <br /><br /><br />(Rob D.- Mel Stottlemyre Sr. was the best you could do as a pitching coach?)
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>why are you reading it Jim? BTW, I don't recall Ali instructing on the nuances of jury selection. I do see a couple of people expressing their opinions and discomfort with the jury makeup in OJ's pending trial. Should they be allowed to have an opinion?- or should you and the few others who make their snide comments and add nothing to the discussion effectively squelch them and tell them to go back and sit in their corner?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Good questions Todd. <br /><br />1.)I guess, technically, by the rules of the board, we shouldn't be having an OJ Simpson discussion on a vintage baseball card board. You ask: "Should they be allowed to have an opinion?" Sure. But not here. <br /><br />2.) I never mentioned ali, or anyone else by name. That's your inference. <br /><br />3.) There was nothing snide in my original post. (Can't promise the same for this one.)
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>beg to differ pretty much all the way around. Why not object to the topic being discussed at all, since this a vintage baseball card forum? That wasn't your point at all.<br /><br />Second, to whom were you referring as having "instructed on the nuances of jury deliberation" if not Ali? Whoever it was, substitute his name and my remark stays the same.<br /><br />You were not trying to be snide? What then--funny?<br /><br />IMHO, there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p><<there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time.>><br /><br />And you're asking me why I'm reading the thread? If you hate the board so much why read and post at all? <br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>who said I hated this board? I do dislike what I perceive to be a downturn in quality and increases in what I perceive as cliques and uncivility, and I am registering my opinion toward that end. As I mentioned to you in another thread, I've been around, and I have seen this forum in a variety of conditions. I will opine that there are others who post less frequently or not at all because of what they see as the personalities and direction of the board, myself included. Disregard my opinion if you wish. I will leave or post as I see fit.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p><<Disregard my opinion if you wish.>><br /><br />I will gratiously accept this piece of advice from you.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>"If I can get Mel Stottlemyre Sr. to drop by the board, would you be willing to debate him on the proper mechanics of pitching?"<br /><br />Personally, I would rather have Col. Sanders expound on those eleven uber-mysterious herbs and spices. I'm finger-lickin' curious, damnit!<br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>When I first posted, was coming off the the discussion on Mastro of those who damage the hobby (reporters or those who try to scam). Yes, I led with the question about OJ getting a fair trial, but followed up with he question about the 'dealers' who he is accused of kidnapping and robbing [sic]. <br /><br />You're right that this is not a forum about vintage football, but it does seem to be the place to out unscrupulous people who really do damage the hobby by trying to take advantage of others. Was hoping people would have some insight into who these folks are/were as that seems to have been completely bypassed by the DA, judge, and media, save for the nephew of the the judge who briefly acknowledged they were not good folks, but that didn't make them any less victims.<br /><br />From his treatise on what a super jurist his aunt is, and his assertion that OJ will get a fair trial since his aunt is so on point (regardless of being challenged in the Nevada Supreme Court and letting perjurists into the jury pool), I couldn't disagree more. I think the fix is in, these people are looking to grab headlines (the circus is in full swing in Vegas) and the issue of the thieves who were fencing stolen goods is almost completely ignored. Shame on the DA, Judge Glass, and the media for ignoring the issue of what thieves these folks are.<br /><br />And just one more question, seriously, what is the race/color of the "victims"?
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Circus is correct but the race/color of the victims is no consequence because there is no hate crime committed. <br /><br />The trial is not about whether the victims are truly horrible people (they may well be) but if a crime was committed by the alleged criminals. <br /><br />Are you of the opinion that because these "victims" are the scum of the hobby that they got what they deserved? <br /><br />As to my aunt...every Judge is appealed. Show me one who has not been appealed in their career.<br /><br />Joshua
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dave, I agree with your sentiment about how bad the 'victims' are; however, this kind of situation plays out all the time in court. I can't tell you how many murderers I've cross-examined who have spent a total of 2 years in prison for their crimes but suddenly are presented as decent, law-abiding folk when testifying for the government. Witnesses get caught lying on the stand every day and are never charged with perjury if they cooperate with the government. This is just how the system unfortunately is.<br /><br />As I stated above, I find it hard to believe OJ would have been charged in this case if not for his past transgressions. For what it's worth, however, none of this suggests that the judge is crooked; she's presented the case that the prosecutors brought.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Not sure how I missed this: "Personally, I would rather have Col. Sanders expound on those eleven uber-mysterious herbs and spices. I'm finger-lickin' curious, damnit!"<br /><br />Snarky!<br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>CoreyRS.hanus</b><p>I remember vividly my disbelief when the prosecution agreed to the change of venue in the murder trial -- that they could be so naive to believe that the evidence was so rock solid that any jury would convict him. I agree that the rationale behind the venue change was to avoid another race riot if he was convicted, but my feeling at the time was that the prosecution lost the case the moment they agreed to it. <br /><br />I also am amazed at how stupid Simpson was to have taken the actions he did in Las Vagas. If there was any current of electrical activity going on between his ears, he had to know that he was a marked man and that law enforcement would be looking for any opportunity for payback. After all, in his murder trial didn't he forcefully argue that the LAPD was biased against him, that despite the likelihood that over the years they probably bent over backwards to give him special celebrity privileges. It still blows my mind the absolute dumb luck of the defense that the guy (Mark Fuhrman?) who found the bloody glove on Simpson's property was a documented racist. Talk about a dream situation for the defense.<br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />How naive can you be?<br /><br />There are reams of data to show that blacks do not get a fair shake from all white juries -- even when they are the victims. Just ask Medgar Evers widow.<br /><br />What crime?! They were fencing stolen goods.<br /><br />No, not every judge is appealed... only the ones who don't follow the law. Nice generalization though.<br /><br />And of course no mention of her letting people who purjure themselves into the pool. Yeah, she's really on point on that one.<br /><br />But I will acknowlege that the real fault lies with the DA in this case. Your aunt is just an enabler. She should be going out of her way to be FULLY transparent, not hiding the info the prejudiced folks wrote in the questionaires. I served on a jury in Manhattan last year and some clown who lied on his application got to spend a night in jail for perjuring himself -- and he wasn't even a cop. That's how it's supposed to work. The court is supposed to be above reproach.<br /><br />And OJ is a dope for using self-help -- he should have called the police. But kidnapping and armed robbery?<br /><br />Please.<br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Regardless of how you feel about the case or the judge's actions, it would be kind of everyone to keep in mind that she's the fellow's aunt. Thanks for reading.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>"IMHO, there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time."<br /><br />But good ol boy isn't one of them. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>Dave S.,<br /><br />I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, have never picked a jury, and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. Your observations are completely inaccurate in almost every respect.<br /><br />First, every judge is appealed. Sometimes they are wrong, more often they are right, at least according to the appellate courts. When you start dissing a judge, whether they are appealed is absolutely NOT the issue. I am far more concerned with their reversal rate. <br /><br />As for picking a jury, prospective jurors routinely say things that you would think should cause them to be removed for cause (i.e., that they should be removed because they can't be fair), then they reverse themselves upon further questioning. Lawyers call that "rehabilitating" the juror and it happens in almost every case that's tried.<br /><br />Whether or not the "rehabilitation" has been successful is the question that the judge has to decide when the challenge for cause is made. Lots of time, the judge decides that the juror has been rehabilitated and denies the challenge for cause. Then the lawyer can decide whether or not to strike the juror by use of a peremptory challenge, which more or less means that you kick them off because you still think he or she won't be favorable to your side. While there are some constitutional limits to the use of peremptory challenges in theory, as TBob noted earler, there aren't too many in practice.<br /><br />You may not like it, but that's the way it works. The composition of the jury that was seated in OJ's case is almost certainly not the fault of the judge. Nor does the fact that the news services appealed the judge's ruling on their right to get the jury questionnaire mean anything about her ability as a jurist. In fact, I fervently hope that they lose that appeal because there is NO institution I am aware of that is more able to influence the result of a jury deliberation than the press. If you are truly concerned about OJ getting a fair shake, IMO you should applaud the judge's decison not to allow the press access to the questionnaires before the start of trial, not claim that it shows how wrong she is. <br /><br />Kenny Cole <br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Last on this from me...I cannot believe people emailed me some hate filled notes and essentially called my aunt (and as an extension) myself a racist.<br /><br />Let me thank Kenny, Jeff, Adam, and Jodi for being the voices of reason and support. <br /><br />I am not a judge or lawyer and get my news the same way as everyone else (not from my aunt). I really just wanted to point out that she really did not want this case and that she will do her best. If you disagree with her rulings, decisions, or the way she runs her court...move to Vegas and vote or run for her judgeship (I will tell you she ran unopposed in the last election). <br /><br />Do not send me emails, write on here that she is wrong, misguided, or a fool. I will no longer respond. I love cards but I love my family more.<br /><br />Joshua<br /><br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>I'm sorry to hear that people have hate spammed you -- that is a bummer -- and uncalled for.<br /><br />WRT your aunt, she's a civil servant and she ran for office, so there is no sympathy that did not want the case. I can tell you about a number of cops I know that did not want to go into drug infested neighborhoods and get shot at, but that's the job. No one made her run for a seat on the bench. I don't need to move to a frontier town to have that opinion or to state it.<br /><br />My original question, again, was can OJ get a fair trial from an all-white jury, not can he get a fair trial from your aunt. Sadly, based on the fact that she allowed that ex-cop and others into the jury pool, the perception is that he will not get a fair trial. You opened the door when you expounded on what a great lawyer and fair judge she is and based on what has been reported, I think quite the opposite. Call me crazy, my opinion, which I am entitled to. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.<br /><br />BTW, if you get your news from the regular media outlets, how do you know that she didn't want the case? Josh, I've been dinging you on your inconsistencies, but certainly not for being a racist.<br /><br />Kenny, if you have ever tried a case in NYC or been on a jury in what is surely one of the most liberal districts in the USA, you know that lying on a jury questionaire is not tolerated for two seconds. And it shouldn't be. It taints the jury pool and is not in the spirit of jury service. The courts have enough trouble getting people to empanel juries w/o having to deal with jackasses who think they can game the system. I don't think he was trying to game the system though, I suspect he was being honest on the questionaire and lied when he was called out -- hence the perjury.<br /><br />Maybe in whatever court you practice in that is tolerated, but when someone's life is at stake, it's shameful to allow that kind of behavior. This is a high profile case and it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of media coverage. That is not a bad thing, unless you live in Russia or China where the media is controlled.<br /><br />No one wants to come right out and say it, but the truth is the deck is totally stacked against OJ, and it doesn't look good for him. And maybe in Karma World, he does have it coming... but in the America, justice is supposed to be blind, and for that I would like to see the DA and the courts act accordingly so that if it is me, or you, or one of your family members or Bill Mastro one day in the dock you at least know you will get a fair and impartial trial by a jury of your peers.<br /><br />Forgive me for being so idealistic as to expect that in the 21st century.<br /><br />Fine with you not reponding, I have no problem with whatever cards you like and believe you are standing up for your family, however misguided.<br /><br />C'est la vie.
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>O.J. Simpson accuser says he had football star's family heirlooms<br /><br /><img src="http://i466.photobucket.com/albums/rr26/dmsimon1/fromong.jpg"><br /><br />Fromong said he called "Inside Edition" shortly after he was allegedly robbed at gunpoint by Simpson and his associates.<br /><br />Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong's testimony appears to support the defense argument in the robbery-kidnap case.<br /><br />By Ashley Powers and Harriet Ryan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers <br />September 17, 2008 <br /><br />LAS VEGAS -- Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong testified today that he considered some of the items taken from him by O.J. Simpson to be the former football star's family heirlooms.<br /><br />"I believed these items belonged to Mr. Simpson's family," he said. "They should go to his kids."<br /><br />Full coverage: O.J. Simpson trial Alleged O.J. Simpson robbery victim...Though Fromong estimated the value of the items taken at up to $100,000, he said he and Simpson "could have come to some arrangement" regarding their return.<br /><br />Fromong was not asked to reconcile this belief with his attempt to sell the items at Palace Station Hotel & Casino, where he was expecting to meet a wealthy buyer. Instead, he was confronted by an angry Simpson and five associates.<br /><br />Fromong's statements appeared to support the defense argument that Simpson was simply trying to retrieve stolen mementos, including pictures of his children and his late parents, on Sept. 13, 2007. In fact, Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso intimated that Simpson had no use for the Pete Rose baseballs and Joe Montana lithographs taken from the room.<br /><br />"Has O.J. ever talked to you about what a big Joe Montana fan he is?" Grasso asked this morning.<br /><br />"He's a Barry Sanders fan," Fromong said, to laughter.<br /><br />Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence Stewart, 54, are accused of robbing Fromong and another collectibles dealer at gunpoint. They face a dozen charges -- including kidnapping, which carries a potential life sentence.<br /><br />In his second day of testimony at the robbery-kidnap trial here, Fromong acknowledged trying to sell sports collectibles on eBay by advertising them as "the same as the ones stolen from me" by Simpson. He also admitted phoning the TV show "Inside Edition" shortly after the incident.<br /><br />"You wanted big money," charged Grasso. Fromong initially denied it, but the attorney confronted him with an audiotape in which he said of his call to the tabloid program, "I told them I want big money."<br /><br />Simpson's attorneys are expected to accuse multiple witnesses -- including former codefendants now cooperating with the prosecution -- of seeking media attention, book deals and money after the alleged robbery. <br /><br />Grasso also tried to point out apparent inconsistencies in Fromong's account of the confrontation. Fromong's testimony was cut short Monday after he complained of feeling dizzy and lightheaded. <br /><br />Fromong had also testified that Simpson and five associates -- two of them carrying guns -- rushed into the hotel room. During the six-minute encounter, Fromong said, Simpson waved an arm up and down while someone yelled "put the gun down."<br /><br />Under questioning, Fromong admitted that he never mentioned those details during statements to police or in his preliminary hearing testimony.<br /><br />Fromong also conceded that the initial description he gave police of the perpetrators' race was incorrect. He told a detective all the men accompanying Simpson were African Americans. Two were actually white. <br /><br />Fromong's turn on the stand also provided additional insight into what prosecutors say is a connection between the alleged robbery and Simpson's attempts to avoid paying a civil judgment. <br /><br />Simpson was acquitted in the slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995. Two years later, a civil jury ordered him to pay $33.5 million.<br />
|
O.J. on ice
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dave, I may be in the minority, but I am convinced OJ will not get convicted in this case. I'm still amazed they brought it at all.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:50 AM. |