O.J. Gets 9 Years

My career as a legal prognosticator is off to a flying start. Just the other day in discussing this case I said the following:

What I predict will happen is he'll get 10 years or so and a year from now it'll be overturned in the Appellate Court and he'll get out.

CNN reports that the former football great who thirteen years ago was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and boyfriend was sentenced to serve a minimum of 9 years for his recent conviction of robbery, assault and kidnapping.

The Las Vegas Sun has a fascinating article about the ambiguous nature of the sentencing guidelines in cases like this.

I'm sticking by the second half of my prediction. In my opinion there have rarely been charges as trumped up as these. The kidnapping is absolutely ridiculous and the robbery and assault left plenty of room for doubt. We'll see you next year in the Appellate Court. Of course, District Judge Jackie Glass doesn't think so.

"When you take a gun with you and you take men with you ... in a show of force, that's not just a 'Hey, give me my stuff back,' " Glass said. "That's something else. And that's what went on here, and that's why we're all here.

"I have to tell you, it was much more than stupidity. ... You went to the room, you took guns -- meaning you and the group -- you used force, you took property, whether it was yours or somebody else's, and in this state, that amounts to robbery with the use of a deadly weapon."

I say it may amount to robbery in Las Vegas to do that, but depending on who's got your stuff, you may very well want to bring armed men along to retrieve it. What do you think? Could that idea constitute reasonable doubt? How much time do you think he'll serve?

What if the judge and jury in this case really did give him payback for what they feel was a wrong acquittal 13 years ago? How would you feel about that?

O.J. Simpson Sentencing

The O.J. Simpson case, which we've discussed before is back in the news because the sentencing phase of the trial is here. CNN reports that O.J. could face as much as Life in prison or as little as 6 years.

Simpson could receive a maximum life sentence from Judge Jackie Glass on Friday. A pre-sentencing report recommended an 18-year sentence.

On October 3, a jury convicted Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart of 12 charges, including conspiracy to commit a crime, robbery, assault and kidnapping with a deadly weapon.

The question for me was whether or not the jury could render a fair verdict based only on the facts of this case and not influenced by Simpson's infamous past. Personally I don't think they did that. Now the question is can the sentencing be done fairly?

"There was overwhelming evidence at trial that Simpson's intent was to recover property that was his and only his," the lawyer argued. "The trial testimony showed Simpson's intent was to return anything that did not belong to him. This intention can be heard throughout the recordings of the Palace Station incident."

I believe that. Or, at least I believe that's reasonably possible, that reasonable doubt of his guilt exists. Yet, he was convicted. Of course not everyone sees it like I do. On the blog called Football news from a chick there's a fascinating post entitled How's that karma taste OJ? The Chick doesn't have much to say in the post, of course the title of it said enough. But, in the comments you get a pretty clear idea of what she and her friends think.

What is it with all this exaggerated vengeance talk? Aren't people concerned with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and due process? In cases like this, and even more so in some of the violent capital cases we discuss, people are crying out for vengeance even before the facts are known, in the spirit of "an eye for an eye." What kind of Justice is that?

What's your opinion? I say O.J. should receive a suspended sentence and if that's not possible, then he should get the minimum. What I predict will happen is he'll get 10 years or so and a year from now it'll be overturned in the Appellate Court and he'll get out.

What do you think?

O.J. Requests New Trial

CNN reports that the lawyers for O.J. have requested a new trial in Las Vegas.

Lawyers for O.J. Simpson have filed a motion for a new trial, saying he was denied a fair hearing when two African-Americans were dismissed from the potential jury pool.

An all white jury found Simpson guilty on October 3 on 12 counts related to a September 13, 2007, robbery involving sports memorabilia at a Las Vegas hotel.

I personally don't think it will help much. The all white jury was probably stacked against him, but would black jurors be likely to be more fair and impartial? I don't think so.

I'm afraid for The Juice, there's not much hope unless the appeals court can overturn the conviction. If they can see some breach in the fair processing, perhaps his time in jail will be cut short.

In my opinion, what happened 14 years ago should not enter into this. I believe, given the limited information I have, that he was railroaded this time. In America that's not supposed to happen.

Here's the take on it from an interesting site called OJTalk.com.

What's your opinion?

O.J. Simpson's Case Goes to Jury

The Las Vegas Sun reports that the O.J. Simpson case has been sent to the jury. Last time we talked about this one, I mentioned in the comments that I think the kidnapping charges are trumped up and that I fear there's no such thing as an impartial jury for O.J., especially an all white one.

O.J. Simpson's fate and liberty now rests with nine women and three men from Clark County.

The 12-member jury will on Friday morning begin deliberating the 12 robbery, weapons and kidnapping charges faced by Simpson and his alleged co-conspirator, Clarence "C.J." Stewart.

One fascinating coincidence is that today is the anniversary of his famous aquittal in 1995.

I give O.J. the benefit of the doubt in this one. I think it's completely plausible that the stuff was his and that he went there to retrieve it. Arranging to be escorted by a couple tough guys with guns, which I know he denies, makes perfect sense to me. I'm not convinced that would even constitute a crime.

So, if we see a conviction in this case, I believe it'll be another miscarriage of justice. Whether he got away with murder 13 years ago or not, should have nothing to do with today's deliberations.

Here's what the spin doctors over at CNN have to say about it. The picture of O.J. is enough to understand their opinion.

What's your opinion?