O.J. Simpson - Parole Board Action - But Not Enough

Mad Mike's America

The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners order says the decision relates to two kidnapping and two robbery convictions and one conviction for burglary with a firearm. But Simpson, 66, will continue to be held for related convictions for which he is not yet eligible for parole.

The case stems from a confrontation Simpson had with two sports memorabilia collectors at a Las Vegas hotel room in 2007. Simpson, a former superstar in the National Football League, said he was attempting to retrieve his own memorabilia.

Three co-defendants pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Simpson, who was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison, with the possibility of parole in nine years.

Simpson still faces time for four weapons related sentences and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Simpson, who is serving his time at Lovelock Correctional Center 90 miles from Reno, faces at least four more years in prison on those sentences.

Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.  In the so-called trial of the century an all black jury, save one, acquitted him despite a mountain of evidence.  It was widely considered jury nullification.

O.J. Simpson's Appeal

Finally we're seeing some progress on what I predicted at the time of his sentencing; I'm referring to the ridiculously excessive sentence for trumped-up charges like kidnapping.

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.

That "in America" bit sounds a little optimistic, but we'll see.


The Christian Science Monitor reports.

O.J. Simpson's lawyer told a panel of Nevada Supreme Court justices Friday that the former football star's conviction in a gunpoint hotel room heist amounted to prejudicial "payback" for Simpson's 1994 double-murder acquittal.

"This was not a search for truth but became a search for redemption," attorney Yale Galanter said as he pleaded for the court panel to overturn Simpson's conviction and grant a new trial in the September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.

Justices Mark Gibbons, Michael Cherry and Nancy Saitta won't make an immediate ruling. A decision is expected later this year.

What's your opinion? Should he get a new trial?

Please leave a comment.

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.

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. 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?