Thursday, May 28, 2009

O.J. Simpson Appealing

CNN reports on the legal action taken by O.J.'s lawyers in Las Vegas.

In the 47-page brief filed Tuesday, Simpson's attorneys accuse Clark County, Nevada, District Judge Jackie Glass of judicial misconduct, saying her behavior constituted "cumulative error that was so egregious and prejudicial that the defense could not get a fair trial."

The judge inflicted herself into the trial proceedings, issued improper jury instructions, improperly admitted hearsay evidence and refused to allow defense attorneys to fully cross-examine witnesses, the filing alleges.

I described the trial as a travesty of justice. To me, the charges were ridiculous. Kidnapping, they called it. Give me a break. Even if the actions of Simpson and his accomplices qualified for the legal definition of "kidnapping," I felt there was plenty of reasonable doubt that he may have been doing exactly what he said, trying to take back what belonged to him.

After his sentencing, I predicted the whole thing will be overturned in a year or so. General opinion of O.J. is such that, by spending a year or two in jail for this nonsense the public blood-lust will have been appeased, but in America a sentence like this cannot stand in such a high profile case. We can't lock someone up for 10 or 15 years for such a mickey-mouse crime. We cannot put people away for what we think they've gotten away with in the past. Where are all the law and order guys when something like this happens?

What's your opinion? Did O.J. Simpson get away with murder once and then pay a heavier price later as a type of compensation? Is that right? Or, do you think he's a womanizing brute whose incarceration best serves the public interest? Is he like Phil Spector in that regard?

Please tell us what you think.


  1. I have several clients serving really long sentences for very similar scenarios. On their behalfs, I will actually be mighty offended if OJ gets out of serving his long prison sentence. Just because he's a famous, high-profile defendant, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be just as screwed by our silly definition of kidnapping as the little guys.

    I think he should get a new trial for lots of other reasons, though. His poor co-defendant should most definitely get a new trial, severed from any new trial for O.J.

    I'm actually not convinced that he got a heavier sentence on this stuff because of the murder acquittal. I just know far too many cases where guys got similar sentences for fairly similar fact patterns.

  2. Strange title for this post--I didn't know anyone still considered O.J. Simpson to be "appealing" ;-).