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

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

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

Originally Posted by book

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

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

[book]

Originally Posted by Joan Weiss

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by 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 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

Originally Posted by Lyndawitha"Y

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

ITA, 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by johnny o

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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by nsm

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]

Originally Posted by JBL

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'!

"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/stor...2D5F2D652C0%7D

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by 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'!

"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/stor...2D5F2D652C0%7D

I never cease to be amazed.

[JBL]

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

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

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by JBL

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]

Originally Posted by SuzzannaSuch

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by book

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]

Originally Posted by jazz

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]

Maybe GWB will give them both a pardon.

[nsm]

Originally Posted by JBL

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]

Originally Posted by Adalena935

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!

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by jazz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by taylor63

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]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

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]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

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.