O.J. on ice

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

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?

Also, does anyone know anything about the "memorabilia dealers" who he is accused of stealing his stuff from?



Las Vegas jury seated in O.J. Simpson's trial
By LINDA DEUTSCH – 1 day ago

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.

Twelve jurors and six alternates were seated Thursday after four days of sometimes contentious questioning by defense lawyers.

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.

But they insist they can be fair in the latest case.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass says she wants to begin opening statements Monday.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

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."

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."

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.

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.

"I thought it was funny," the man said.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Glass said she would release a blank copy of a jury questionnaire, but only after the jurors are seated.

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.

Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.

"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.

Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."

"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."

Associated Press Writer Ken Ritter contributed to this report.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott T

Racism cuts both ways. The term "all-white" jury is a political and racial hot potato.



He was a great football player and a decnt actor, but he seems to be a mess as a person.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Certainly as fair as his last trial.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

David,

I was trying to come up with something that succinctly pristine, but was at a loss. Thanks for covering that base so well!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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."

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

"He's a free man until he comes here." If that isn't a Freudian slip...

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Scott,

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?

Here is the top result, with headline from Yahoo news:

All-white jury seated in OJ Simpson kidnapping case Fri Sep 12, 6:29 AM ET


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.

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.

In the state of Nevada, kidnapping and armed robbery both carry potential life sentences.

Simpson's latest ordeal comes 13 years after he was acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend.

The process of seating a jury actually began in mid-August when 500 prospective jurors filled out a 26-page questionnaire.

The judge took great pains to separate the current case from Simpson's racially charged murder trial.

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.

"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.

"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?"

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.

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.

Opening statements were expected to begin Monday.

Simpson, a football Hall of Fame inductee, also was a television advertising pitchman and Hollywood comic film actor before the 1994 murders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Anthouny, Mark and Eric:

It's pure speculation on my part, but are you all "Wonder Bread white"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

i am, just like the two people he murdered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

So it's schadenfreude then.

It would be interesting though to get a lawyer's perspective on how this would hold up on appeal (assuming he is convicted).

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

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.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

I know, I know. I'm just having some fun. Just wanted to see if anybody would take it seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ali- you are suggesting that an all white jury couldn't possibly render a fair verdict. Why not?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

"Anthony, Mark and Eric:

It's pure speculation on my part, but are you all 'Wonder Bread white'?"



Jodi, I'm so Waspy, I practically buzz.

[Archive]

Posted By: LetsGoBucs

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".

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Snarky comments aside Anonymous, what jury instructions include the option of finding innocent vs. not guilty?

And, the standard in a civil action is much lower than a criminal action:

civil - A preponderance of the evidence

criminal - Beyond a reasonable doubt

I really hope those 'dealers' are ok after their harrowing kidnapping and robbery experience.

Who should be on trial? Those guys were fencing stolen goods -- and once again giving the hobby a bad name.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dave, I agree with you.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

Jodi--

Yes as to "white." Not so sure about the "Wonder Bread."


Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

So am I to assume a "pumpernickel factor" of around 10%?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

Can't say; geneology not my long suit.

Headed out shortly to see Cheech & Chong, a far more pleasant topic than OJ.

Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

They're on tour again? Wow. I just figured Mark lived in 1979.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

I'm surprised that O.J. memorabilia is something worthwhile stealing. (?)

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I'm not being snarky; just accurate.

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.


Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

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...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

...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.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

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?

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

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.

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.

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.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

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.

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.

Supreme Court clerks in Carson City did not immediately respond to an after-hours call seeking to determine if the motion was received.

"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.

Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell called Glass' ruling "nonsense."

"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."

---

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"I'm a firm believer in the system," he said. "He won. He's a free man until he comes here."

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.

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.

"I thought it was funny," the man said.

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."

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.

Rather embarrassing I would say.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

Jodi/Anthony--

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.

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.

Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

of the 500 jurors pooled only 50 were african american.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

What if the community in which the trial is taking place is only 10% African American?

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

highly doubt las vegas is only 10 percent african american. don't understand you're position on this one. but to each his own.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Which part don't you understand?

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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?

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

i'm not really interested. we're on different pages. to each his own.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.