O.J. Simpson Won't Get a New Trial in Robbery-Kidnap Case

[Joan Weiss]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448725,00.html

LAS VEGAS — O.J. Simpson was denied a new trial Friday by the Nevada judge who presided over his conviction in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said challenges raised by lawyers for Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart did not rise to the level of granting another trial.

Click here for photos.

"All of the issues have been preserved for the (Nevada) Supreme Court," Glass said, acknowledging her rulings could be appealed to the state's only appellate court.

Simpson and Stewart, who were shackled and in jail garb, did not speak during the 20-minute hearing.

The judge also denied requests to release Simpson and Stewart on bail pending sentencing Dec. 5.

"They face life sentences, mandatory prison," Glass said. "Your motions are being denied."

Simpson, 61, and Stewart, 54, were convicted Oct. 3 of all 12 charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, in the Sept. 13, 2007, hotel room confrontation.

[Regina.Lampert]

LOL, Galenter is free to waste simpson's money appealing until the cows come home, the fact is his client is going into a cage and will remain there for a long, long time. In fact, I believe he will die in his cage.

IMO


:patriot:

[Joan Weiss]

LOL, Galenter is free to waste simpson's money appealing until the cows come home, the fact is his client is going into a cage and will remain there for a long, long time. In fact, I believe he will die in his cage.

IMO


:patriot:I predict we'll hear a lot about his arthritis, and how he needs a special bed, and carpeting in his cell. imo :patriot:

[book]

Good, he doesn't need a new trial.

[wnb]

I saw Galanter on TV yesterday talking about his plans for the appeal. Among other things, he said that private detectives had been investigating the jurors for their alleged bias against Simpson.

[Joan Weiss]

Good grief. Shouldn't he have done that during voir dire?

[book]

Can we say Mark Fuhrman all over again? I don't think Yale has a chance. IMO

[Joan Weiss]

Can we say Mark Fuhrman all over again? I don't think Yale has a chance. IMOI'm pretty sure you're right. That's what the voir dire was for. Didn't we go through that with the S. Peterson trial? He's still sitting on DR. Galanter doesn't want to end his most huge claim to defense attorney fame. Maybe he thinks he's Johnny Cochran incarnated. imo

[book]

I'm pretty sure you're right. That's what the voir dire was for. Didn't we go through that with the S. Peterson trial? He's still sitting on DR. Galanter doesn't want to end his most huge claim to defense attorney fame. Maybe he thinks he's Johnny Cochran incarnated. imo

You read my mind!:)

[book]

I saw Galanter on TV yesterday talking about his plans for the appeal. Among other things, he said that private detectives had been investigating the jurors for their alleged bias against Simpson.

You know what gets to me the most? It can't be the jury found him guilty because he committed a crime, but only because of alleged bias.

[ByGollyGee]

A juror gets randomly selected, goes through voir dire, gets his life laid out in front of the public via a questionaire, get qestioned by all parties to the trial and then they add to the insult by being investigated by private investigators? Mr. Galanter, you must not be a very good lawyer!

ByGollyGee

I saw Galanter on TV yesterday talking about his plans for the appeal. Among other things, he said that private detectives had been investigating the jurors for their alleged bias against Simpson.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

A juror gets randomly selected, goes through voir dire, gets his life laid out in front of the public via a questionaire, get qestioned by all parties to the trial and then they add to the insult by being investigated by private investigators? Mr. Galanter, you must not be a very good lawyer!

ByGollyGee

I think you've made many good points..and it really does bother me how Yale and Grasso can get away with speculating to the world on accusing a juror or jurors of biases!!! To me its "Sour Grapes"!!

Looking back in this particular case..and taking all the informations, evidence and witnesses...All one has to do is put on blind folds..put paper bags over the defendent's heads/or place behinds screens..name them Defendent A and Defendent ....Listen to what was presented to the court...then make your decision....I think this jury would have come back even faster for guilty!! The facts, evidence, and witnesses all pointed to guilty ...and claiming biases is simply rediculous!!!

LMS

[Joan Weiss]

I think you've made many good points..and it really does bother me how Yale and Grasso can get away with speculating to the world on accusing a juror or jurors of biases!!! To me its "Sour Grapes"!!

Looking back in this particular case..and taking all the informations, evidence and witnesses...All one has to do is put on blind folds..put paper bags over the defendent's heads/or place behinds screens..name them Defendent A and Defendent ....Listen to what was presented to the court...then make your decision....I think this jury would have come back even faster for guilty!! The facts, evidence, and witnesses all pointed to guilty ...and claiming biases is simply rediculous!!!

LMSITA, Lynda, and that's a great idea. We'll never see it of course, but in celebrity cases, that would be ideal.

Galanter just doesn't want to give up the spotlight, imo.

[johnny o]

I saw Galanter on TV yesterday talking about his plans for the appeal. Among other things, he said that private detectives had been investigating the jurors for their alleged bias against Simpson.


Ha ha ha and Galanter also said this case was a "defense attorney's dream" before the trial.

Here, let me pull back those covers for ya Yale.

Better go out prospecting for a new money tree. This one isn't going to be bearing any more fruit for you.

And as someone who called Fred Goldman a greedy pig, I hope you get brought into the case for fraudulent conveyance or hiding assets and end up doing time yourself.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Ha ha ha and Galanter also said this case was a "defense attorney's dream" before the trial.

Here, let me pull back those covers for ya Yale.

Better go out prospecting for a new money tree. This one isn't going to be bearing any more fruit for you.

And as someone who called Fred Goldman a greedy pig, I hope you get brought into the case for fraudulent conveyance or hiding assets and end up doing time yourself.


:beer: So so true..Ty for putting it so clearly!!:beer:

LMS

[warhorse46]

I think Galanter knew this motion would be denied but by law he had to take this step on the way to the appeals courts & the Supreme Court.

[Silent Ears]

INO
If there were no trial before. This would never have went so far.
He is only being jailed because he was not found guilty first trial.
IMO The ones who were pointing the gun got off pretty easy if you ask me.
IMO Because they were nark's,So they can get out and do it again.Sounded to me they were all criminals

IMO If it was a legitimate trial,they would not have been any of them getting a lesser sentence. It was just a continuance from first trial.And the other man who is in jail with him just was in the wrong place with the right guy
IMOThey had to make it look like it was a fair trial

[book]

INO
If there were no trial before. This would never have went so far.
He is only being jailed because he was not found guilty first trial.
IMO The ones who were pointing the gun got off pretty easy if you ask me.
IMO Because they were nark's,So they can get out and do it again.Sounded to me they were all criminals

IMO If it was a legitimate trial,they would not have been any of them getting a lesser sentence. It was just a continuance from first trial.And the other man who is in jail with him just was in the wrong place with the right guy
IMOThey had to make it look like it was a fair trial

You know I love you but........

This wouldn't have went so far if OJ wouldn't have committed a crime.

OJ isn't the only one in jail, all of them are.

Several of them got a lesser sentence because they pleaded guilty and took a plea deal. OJ chose not too.

A crime was committed end of story.

[nsm]

LOL, Galenter is free to waste simpson's money appealing until the cows come home, the fact is his client is going into a cage and will remain there for a long, long time. In fact, I believe he will die in his cage.

IMO


:patriot:

I would pay money to see him in that cage! Its about time.

[wnb]

A judge is usually a lawyer who knows a politician. The Nevada Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn the verdict and order a new trial, as it would mean still ANOTHER O.J. Simpson trial. The law is against it as well. It is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule any differently.

[JBL]

I would pay money to see him in that cage! Its about time.

My Dad will be in town next week. He says he'll swing by the jail and tell OJ we all said Hey!

ROFL

[fbgweezer]

My Dad will be in town next week. He says he'll swing by the jail and tell OJ we all said Hey!

ROFL

LOL -- thanks

[fbgweezer]

psst -- Mr. Goldman. Over here. Might be interesting to see if orenthal and/or any of his co-conspirators are receiving monies for this 'project'! :mad:

"PRESS RELEASE
Monster or Myth? Director Jay Gira Trusts Distraction to Ask the Question


Last update: 8:10 a.m. EST Nov. 11, 2008
ORLANDO, Fla., Nov 11, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Distraction has unveiled a unique documentary by first-time director Jay Gira, which gives the definitive insider's account about one of the most notorious celebrities of modern times: OJ Simpson."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Monster-Myth-Director-Jay-Gira/story.aspx?guid=%7B9F0779B0-F16A-4C64-9534-82D5F2D652C0%7D

[AnnInOhio]

psst -- Mr. Goldman. Over here. Might be interesting to see if orenthal and/or any of his co-conspirators are receiving monies for this 'project'! :mad:

"PRESS RELEASE
Monster or Myth? Director Jay Gira Trusts Distraction to Ask the Question


Last update: 8:10 a.m. EST Nov. 11, 2008
ORLANDO, Fla., Nov 11, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Distraction has unveiled a unique documentary by first-time director Jay Gira, which gives the definitive insider's account about one of the most notorious celebrities of modern times: OJ Simpson."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Monster-Myth-Director-Jay-Gira/story.aspx?guid=%7B9F0779B0-F16A-4C64-9534-82D5F2D652C0%7D

I never cease to be amazed.

[JBL]

:rolleyes:

I have never seen anyone market themselves like OJ does behind prison doors.

So another "my story". C'MON ALREADY!

[fbgweezer]

:rolleyes:

I have never seen anyone market themselves like OJ does behind prison doors.

So another "my story". C'MON ALREADY!

reminds me of the saying: Sell his soul to the devil.

I'm surprised they are trying to pass it off as a 'documentary' and then write that orenthal was in 'solitary confinement for 17 months.'!!

some 'solitary confinement' -- he spent his time signing items for sale and visiting with family and friends. Geez.

[Adalena935]

I don't see Galanter accepting that decision.
Judge Glass was full of drama, not very impartial IMO.

Nonsense. OJ's armed robbery tapes trumped any other courtroom dramas.

[Adalena935]

Oj won't get a new trial. As the judge pointed out rarely do they have a case that's taped before, during and after as this one was. Besides Nevada frowns on armed robbery. Dissuades customers.

[book]

ITA! He won't get a new trial.

[jazz]

I think Galanter knew this motion would be denied but by law he had to take this step on the way to the appeals courts & the Supreme Court.
I was thinking the same thing. Its just like when defense attorneys move for a mistrial. They know that there isn't a snowball's chance that the judge will actually grant the motion but they have to have it on record for later when they appeal.

I have some questions about the appeals process.
OJ Simpson made a statement in court before he was sentenced.
In that statement OJ said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that he was aware of the character of some of the guys before they all went to the hotel together & it was his fault that they were there.
Basically he admitted that he knew some of the guys were trouble but he brought them anyway.
I personally didn't think that that particular admission was helpful to him as he tried to maintain the position that he meant no harm & was merely trying to get his stuff back.

My question to everyone is:
Will his statement be taken into consideration by the appeals court?
Will it help him or work against him?
While I'm at it, does anyone think it helped him in his trial?

[Adalena935]

You know what gets to me the most? It can't be the jury found him guilty because he committed a crime, but only because of alleged bias.

I find that odd too but I suppose it's to be expected. Few inmates admit to any wrongdoing. They're all railroaded according to them.

When OJ was first arrested for these crimes someone on the boards said; They need to leave him alone. He was found not guilty! I said; They didn't mean for all crimes into the future. LOL

[Adalena935]

I was thinking the same thing. Its just like when defense attorneys move for a mistrial. They know that there isn't a snowball's chance that the judge will actually grant the motion but they have to have it on record for later when they appeal.

I have some questions about the appeals process.
OJ Simpson made a statement in court before he was sentenced.
In that statement OJ said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that he was aware of the character of some of the guys before they all went to the hotel together & it was his fault that they were there.
Basically he admitted that he knew some of the guys were trouble but he brought them anyway.
I personally didn't think that that particular admission was helpful to him as he tried to maintain the position that he meant no harm & was merely trying to get his stuff back.

My question to everyone is:
Will his statement be taken into consideration by the appeals court?
Will it help him or work against him?
While I'm at it, does anyone think it helped him in his trial?

I'm no expert on legal matters but it seems to me anything he said in court would be on the record and therefore subject to review.

I can't see where the admission would help him any.

It seems obvious to me nothing helped him in the trial since the jury convicted him.

He should've taken the plea deal that was said to have been offered to him not once, but twice. (2 to 4 yrs)

ETA: SOURCE: Geraldo Show last evening.

[FREEMORE]

:thumbsup:Maybe GWB will give them both a pardon.:thumbsup:

[nsm]

My Dad will be in town next week. He says he'll swing by the jail and tell OJ we all said Hey!

ROFL
Who's your dad?

[book]

I find that odd too but I suppose it's to be expected. Few inmates admit to any wrongdoing. They're all railroaded according to them.

When OJ was first arrested for these crimes someone on the boards said; They need to leave him alone. He was found not guilty! I said; They didn't mean for all crimes into the future. LOL

Good one!:tonguewag:

[fbgweezer]

I was thinking the same thing. Its just like when defense attorneys move for a mistrial. They know that there isn't a snowball's chance that the judge will actually grant the motion but they have to have it on record for later when they appeal.

I have some questions about the appeals process.
OJ Simpson made a statement in court before he was sentenced.
In that statement OJ said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that he was aware of the character of some of the guys before they all went to the hotel together & it was his fault that they were there.
Basically he admitted that he knew some of the guys were trouble but he brought them anyway.
I personally didn't think that that particular admission was helpful to him as he tried to maintain the position that he meant no harm & was merely trying to get his stuff back.

My question to everyone is:
Will his statement be taken into consideration by the appeals court?
Will it help him or work against him?
While I'm at it, does anyone think it helped him in his trial?

what about galanter's statements? am I wrong or did he not agree that the trial and verdict were fair?

[taylor63]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448725,00.html

LAS VEGAS — O.J. Simpson was denied a new trial Friday by the Nevada judge who presided over his conviction in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said challenges raised by lawyers for Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart did not rise to the level of granting another trial.

Click here for photos.

"All of the issues have been preserved for the (Nevada) Supreme Court," Glass said, acknowledging her rulings could be appealed to the state's only appellate court.

Simpson and Stewart, who were shackled and in jail garb, did not speak during the 20-minute hearing.

The judge also denied requests to release Simpson and Stewart on bail pending sentencing Dec. 5.

"They face life sentences, mandatory prison," Glass said. "Your motions are being denied."

Simpson, 61, and Stewart, 54, were convicted Oct. 3 of all 12 charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, in the Sept. 13, 2007, hotel room confrontation.

OJ should have taken the plea deal,but in all honesty,I am glad he didn't at least his victims may feel they finally get some justice now. In my opinion,he got away with murder 14 years ago,and a slew of lesser crimes in the years since. I think he felt he was invincible, above the law,only this time he found out he was wrong.

[book]

OJ should have taken the plea deal,but in all honesty,I am glad he didn't at least his victims may feel they finally get some justice now. In my opinion,he got away with murder 14 years ago,and a slew of lesser crimes in the years since. I think he felt he was invincible, above the law,only this time he found out he was wrong.

Yep and ITA!

[JBL]

The verdict will be overturned. When the prosecution puts forth these ridiculous charges, the next jury might nullify. Not all jurors are biased, and, hopefully, it won't be payback for the 1995 acquittal.

MHO


LMAO! Fat chance most improbable.

[JBL]

The verdict will be overturned. When the prosecution puts forth these ridiculous charges, the next jury might nullify. Not all jurors are biased, and, hopefully, it won't be payback for the 1995 acquittal.

MHO

"the next jury might nullify"

That is what I was responding to. The rest you've made up with no proof and not only no proof the Judge stated emphatically this was not payback and she repeated herself. There is not one shred of truth to your add-on of bias or payback.

Mcannie it is not only annoying but blatantly rude the way you post one thing then edit it changing the contents which happens I bet 9 out of 10 posts.

[book]

The verdict will be overturned. When the prosecution puts forth these ridiculous charges, the next jury might nullify. Not all jurors are biased, and, hopefully, it won't be payback for the 1995 acquittal.

MHO

Nope won't get a new trial. Over done with gone.

IMO

[book]

The Judge already ruled there will be no new trial. For those who may not be totally up to date can google, it is all right there.

The Judge already ruled there will be no new trial
OJ Simpson fails to win a new trial
OJ Simpson won't be getting a new trial

the end result will always be:

OJ IS NOT GOING TO GET A NEW TRIAL

:beer: Yep, over done with gone.

[Details]

It sure says something when the best hope is to get a jury to nullify. "Hey, yeah, I broke the law, but don't I seem a good guy? Why not let me off anyway?"

But there won't be a new trial - there's just no grounds. Witnesses the defense didn't like were excluded or limited severely, no one contested that the tapes had the defendants voices, etc.

[legalmania]

The judge overruled the jury on the conspiracy charges. Wonder what other mistakes the jury made. I definitely see grounds for a new trial.:thumbsup:

[legalmania]

The verdict will be overturned. When the prosecution puts forth these ridiculous charges, the next jury might nullify. Not all jurors are biased, and, hopefully, it won't be payback for the 1995 acquittal.

MHO

Your right mcannie1965 most people don't understand because Judge
Glass said no new trial in her courtroom. She can't stop them from proceeding in a higher court. He can appeal in another state if necessary.

[JBL]

The judge overruled the jury on the conspiracy charges. Wonder what other mistakes the jury made. I definitely see grounds for a new trial.:thumbsup:


That doesn't make any sense. A judge overuling doesn't mean the jury made a mistake.

[JBL]

Your right mcannie1965 most people don't understand because Judge
Glass said no new trial in her courtroom. She can't stop them from proceeding in a higher court. He can appeal in another state if necessary.

It was never said he couldn't appeal. Your giving false information.

Please provide statute where he can or will appeal in another state.

Where have his lawyers discussed this.

[legalmania]

That doesn't make any sense. A judge overruling doesn't mean the jury made a mistake.

Oh it doesn't. The jury didn't understand what the true meaning of conspiracy is. That's a mistake a big mistake. The jury didn't understand a lot of things. They were to focused on the 1995 trial.

[legalmania]

It was never said he couldn't appeal. Your giving false information.

Please provide statute where he can or will appeal in another state.

Where have his lawyers discussed this.

First of all I don't work for free go to findlaw and find it yourself. Go to case law.

[JBL]

Oh it doesn't. The jury didn't understand what the true meaning of conspiracy is. That's a mistake a big mistake. The jury didn't understand a lot of things. They were to focused on the 1995 trial.

You are incorrect.

[legalmania]

The name of the thread is OJ Simpson won't get a new trial in Robbery-Kidnap case you get a new trial through appeal so how am I wrong?

[legalmania]

You are incorrect.

Prove it. You are incorrect is not convincing.

[JBL]

Show me the legal definition of over rule.

"A judge exercising their right to overrule is because a jury made a mistake and didn't understand what they were doing"

I don't think so.

Your giving false information.

[joolz]

Your right mcannie1965 most people don't understand because Judge
Glass said no new trial in her courtroom. She can't stop them from proceeding in a higher court. He can appeal in another state if necessary.


Of COURSE he can appeal a Nevada conviction in another state: State of Denial, State of Delusion, State of Imagination? :lol:

[JBL]

Prove it. You are incorrect is not convincing.

Nah, you be it.

Your incorrect and can't back up your post. It's a falsehood.

[JBL]

The name of the thread is OJ Simpson won't get a new trial in Robbery-Kidnap case you get a new trial through appeal so how am I wrong?


In Judge Glass's courtroom he will not get a new trial. An appeal doesn't mean you automatically get a new trial either.

[legalmania]

This is the legal meaning not some generic meaning


http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=d8/d86aa183c834a0c18bebde1c8631c680

[legalmania]

Of COURSE he can appeal a Nevada conviction in another state: State of Denial, State of Delusion, State of Imagination? :lol:

It has nothing to do with the state it has to do with the district.

[legalmania]

To annul, to make void encompasses the entire definition of the word overrule.

Regardless of what non-working link or working link you post.

It works fine on my computer maybe it's time to update.

[JBL]

First of all I don't work for free go to findlaw and find it yourself. Go to case law.

I certainly would never pay for your arm chair legal advice. LOL

You posted it back up your statement. This is a message board you want payment for your services to post accurate information here. Please check TOS.

[JBL]

This is the legal meaning not some generic meaning


http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=d8/d86aa183c834a0c18bebde1c8631c680

Can't find the part that says a judge overrules when a jury doesn't know what they're talking about lending credence to an appeal.

I don't think an update will help this dilemma.

[legalmania]

Can't find the part that says a judge overrules when a jury doesn't know what they're talking about lending credence to an appeal.

I don't think an update will help this dilemma.


Well she did it she overruled the jury which can lead to an appeal. You don't understand the law why am I wasting my time with you.

[legalmania]

I certainly would never pay for your arm chair legal advice. LOL

You posted it back up your statement. This is a message board you want payment for your services to post accurate information here. Please check TOS.

Were did I give you legal advice? I don't need your approval I have enough wins in my column to prove what a good paralegal I am. You the one who was demanding me to find stuff that you can't obviously find yourself. I just said I don't work for free.

[legalmania]

By the way the 9th circuit which Nevada is in goes all the way from California, Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Idaho. They can get appeals in any of those states.

[JBL]

Were did I give you legal advice? I don't need your approval I have enough wins in my column to prove what a good paralegal I am. You the one who was demanding me to find stuff that you can't obviously find yourself. I just said I don't work for free.

I used the term legal advice as you keep posting telling us of your legal background but you don't back it up with any legal arguments. It amounts to trust me I have a legal background. You've posted false information along with insulting many posters that "we" can't grasp a legal mind such as your own.

Doth protest to much and just because people have licenses doesn't make them all good drivers. Same with one's opinions in the "legal" world.

I can find stuff myself and if I'm asked to back myself up I'm more then happy to. It's my responsiblility for anything I say.

[legalmania]

I used the term legal advice as you keep posting telling us of your legal background but you don't back it up with any legal arguments. It amounts to trust me I have a legal background. You've posted false information along with insulting many posters that "we" can't grasp a legal mind such as your own.

Doth protest to much and just because people have licenses doesn't make them all good drivers. Same with one's opinions in the "legal" world.

I can find stuff myself and if I'm asked to back myself up I'm more then happy to. It's my responsiblility for anything I say.

A legal argument about what? What false information ? You asked for what overrule meant I gave you that information even though I didn't want to. How am I suppose to prove my legal background? Am I suppose to send you my legal degrees and awards? Who did I insult? If you can't grasp my legal mind to bad. I have a legal degree and I worked very hard for it. I have to get back to work now. Check back later.

[JBL]

A legal argument about what? What false information ? You asked for what overrule meant I gave you that information even though I didn't want to. How am I suppose to prove my legal background? Am I suppose to send you my legal degrees and awards? Who did I insult? If you can't grasp my legal mind to bad. I have a legal degree and I worked very hard for it. I have to get back to work now. Check back later.

Time to put a fork into it. This is done!

[book]

Anyone and anybody can appeal all the way to the supreme court once found guilty by a jury of their peers. However that does not in any way mean they will receive a new trial. I believe stats have proven it is rare and it can take years.

IMO OJ will not receive or be given a new trial. This judge didn't leave any room for a mistrial, she was efficient and went by the book.

[book]

Exactly, this will always be the case. You'd think they'd learn this by now. They cry about all criminals getting convicted. Then they say "he'll be out" on appeal. he'll get a new trial, blah, blah, blah...

Case in point: Scott Peterson, he's still rotting on death row as he should be. There are no appealable issues that will change that.

:biggrin:

Yep! :thumbsup: