More

OJ Simpson Release Being Considered By Nevada Court

KEN RITTER   08/ 3/09 06:22 PM ET   AP

Oj

LAS VEGAS — A trio of Nevada Supreme Court justices focused Monday on whether O.J. Simpson and a former golfing buddy received a fair trial in a gunpoint hotel room heist and whether the case was so unique that the two men should be freed from prison while their appeals are considered.

"This is post-conviction. That's what concerns me," Justice Michael Cherry declared during rare oral arguments by lawyers about whether the former football star and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart should be allowed to post bond while their appeals are pending.

Cherry, the chairman of the three-judge panel considering the bond request, didn't say how long he and justices Mark Gibbons and Nancy Saitta might take to decide.

It appeared unlikely a ruling would come before an Aug. 12 deadline for Clark County District Attorney David Roger to file a written answer to Simpson's appeal.

Roger, who prosecuted Simpson and Stewart, argued Monday the men got a fair trial, a Nevada jury had spoken, and the pair should continue to serve their sentences for kidnapping and armed robbery.

It is unusual for the Nevada Supreme Court, the state's only appeals court, to hear oral arguments about bond, and it would be even more unusual for Simpson or Stewart to be released. The last such high-profile appellant to get such a chance in Nevada skipped town after posting $100,000 in 1978.

The justices are weighing whether Simpson or Stewart might flee, whether they pose a danger to the community, and if they have a good chance of winning their appeals.

The question of their possible success was the key point of the hearing, and inquiries from the justices shed light on the issues they're considering.

The justices asked each of the defense attorneys what was different about this case to warrant bail on convictions that carried mandatory prison time with no option of probation.

"I've been waiting for you to use the word severance!" Cherry declared, interrupting Stewart lawyer Brent Bryson when he said his client "should have never been tried with Mr. Simpson."

Bryson asked the court to consider the many times before and during trial when he asked Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass to separate Stewart's trial from Simpson's.

"Her response was, 'Severance is dead,'" Bryson said.

"I was waiting for you to come up to the Supreme Court with that," said Cherry, who wrote a benchmark high court opinion several years ago on the issue.

Bryson, his voice rising, recalled Glass' responses as, "'Denied.' 'Sit down.' 'We're going forward,'" and "'You're not going to get a separate trial.'" He told the court he believed he couldn't divert his efforts to defend Stewart during trial to continue to fight Glass' rulings.

"In the history of jurisprudence who else could we possibly imagine would be more prejudicial?" Bryson asked rhetorically about his client being tried with Simpson. "Charlie Manson, maybe? Dahmer? Hitler? Satan? Who else sitting next to someone they have on trial? It was extremely prejudicial."

Simpson, 62, was acquitted on murder charges in the 1994 slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, in Los Angeles. After the sensational criminal trial he was found liable for the deaths in civil court.

Simpson is serving nine to 33 years for kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon in the September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room. Stewart, 55, is serving 7 1/2 to 27 years.

Neither was in the courtroom in Las Vegas on Monday while their attorneys argued neither had received a fair trial.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter insisted that Simpson would abide by any conditions the court set for his release, and that the NFL hall-of-famer, actor and celebrity criminal defendant couldn't possibly disappear.

Galanter also spoke of Simpson's uniqueness in "American jurisprudence."

"He is probably the one individual on the planet who's got no place to go and no place to hide," Galanter said.

Galanter, who told the court he had been making arrangements for Simpson to live in Nevada and seek state residency, said afterward that he was optimistic the court would free Simpson pending his appeal.

"The trial, in all due respect to Judge Glass, was erroneous and just a sham," Galanter said. "If ever there's someone who deserves release it's O.J. Simpson and C.J. Stewart."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SPORTS

LAS VEGAS — A trio of Nevada Supreme Court justices focused Monday on whether O.J. Simpson and a former golfing buddy received a fair trial in a gunpoint hotel room heist and whether the case was so...
LAS VEGAS — A trio of Nevada Supreme Court justices focused Monday on whether O.J. Simpson and a former golfing buddy received a fair trial in a gunpoint hotel room heist and whether the case was so...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 563
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
01:58 PM on 08/05/2009
This bring up an issue I had not given much thought to.
Question to an expert: How many convicted felons, in jail, are released on bail (is it called bail?) pending the results of a post-conviction, post sentencing appeal? all the time?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:43 PM on 08/05/2009
If it is a direct appeal, it happens relatively often, but not nearly as often as pretrial.

In a collateral proceeding, such as habeas corpus, I have never heard it done... does not mean it does not happen.

This is in connection with a direct appeal.
03:49 PM on 08/04/2009
Clearly, someone's got to follow the money on this one.
03:25 PM on 08/04/2009
Nevada is the perfect place for him to reside as that state is heavily populated with snakes.
03:30 PM on 08/04/2009
I guess the LAPD, the Cambridge Police Dept and the GOP should go there as well. And u got to give Nevada credit. Those snakes did what no one else could do for 16 yrs, they got OJ.
03:44 PM on 08/04/2009
The measure of a man is based upon his character; not the color of his skin. Snakes can come in many colors and have many political party affiliations. Sorry but I really don't feel much compassion for him.
02:35 PM on 08/04/2009
As long as he's behind bars he won't be able to find the killer. Somewhere out there, at some country club, a bloodthirsty slasher is teeing it up. Why not give OJ a chance to find this mad man?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
moozungu
02:34 PM on 08/04/2009
Dissing like OJ ... on the freeway ... you gets no leeway
01:34 PM on 08/04/2009
Not a fan of "The Juice" anymore, but I feel they should release him because he's serving time for something he got acquitted for. It's child predators who has gotten less time than someone who was trying to get their stuff back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Albany Kid
From the 518 to the 651
01:48 PM on 08/04/2009
Good point...most of the guys whom Chris Hansen tricks on NBC's TCAP probably get less time than the Juice received.
02:01 PM on 08/04/2009
If you want to "get your stuff back" you use the system that is in place for that purpose, you don't go in with goons and guns, which is what he was convicted of, he did it, it was criminal, and he belongs in jail for it.
02:10 PM on 08/04/2009
U still dont get 33 yrs w/out any prior convictions for tht and you know it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:26 PM on 08/04/2009
He did try to use the system, and the system refused to help.

No guns were brandished.

He's not being punished for what happened in that hotel room, he is being punished for being black and making white law enforcement look bad.

Of course he killed those two people in a fit of rage. He should have been charged with two manslaughter one counts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
haval2
what to say?
01:34 PM on 08/04/2009
Keep this criminal locked up...
01:39 PM on 08/04/2009
The OJ case just proves that our laws are about vengeance and not justice. That's an obvious precedent that was set. It hurts our judicial system more than it could ever hurt OJ. Hes old, he lived his life. Just like the invasion in Iraq served as a precedent for vengeance so does cases like this that are an obvious abuse of our judicial system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bude
My Brain Hurts!
01:24 PM on 08/04/2009
I'm just not in the mood for OJ right now.
photo
f0rTyLeGz
Everything is falling.
03:56 PM on 08/04/2009
Exactly! OJ is DEAD to me.
01:21 PM on 08/04/2009
Wow - too bad he grew that second head while in prison. It's gonna make him a bit conspicuous, doncha think? Nice photo.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mort
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.
12:35 PM on 08/04/2009
Those of you who keep saying OJ was found innocent the first time, he wasn't. "Not Guilty" is a term of law that does NOT mean innocent. It simply means that the state didn't prove their case well enough so they couldn't convict. It has nothing to do with whether or not he actually did the crime. He had expensive lawyers who were willing to go way over the top to divert attention from the evidence, and the DA's were bumbling fools most of the time. It was a circus, not a trial. And if you really look at the evidence and listen to the testimony, he actually did it.

The Vegas crime was just as real. If they let him out and vacate the judgement it will prove once again that money and fame will let you get away with anything.
12:37 PM on 08/04/2009
U r right he was not found innocent bc under the law u r presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. The problem is tht some jurors dont understd tht.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mort
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.
12:47 PM on 08/04/2009
And some jurors don't understand the difference between theatrics and evidence.
gparks
Fan of truth, justice, prosperity for all!
03:45 PM on 08/04/2009
U R presumed innocent unless you are Black! Ask Professor Gates or any countless number of Americans who happen to be accused while "Black".

Funny how the "justice" system works for Whites who have less money and fame ... oh well ...
12:54 PM on 08/04/2009
Those of you who keep claiming that OJ was not found 'innocent' but 'not guilty' ...

Are you thinking? Presumption of Innocence is a legal right of the accused in criminal trials. What does it mean? That those being tried are innocent until proven guilty. So if not proven guilty or if found 'not guilty' the accused is ... legally innocent of criminality.

Might OJ have committed murder? Of course. It is possible ... even likely. Is it a virtual certainty? Obviously not. He was acquitted of criminal murder charges. He was found 'not guilty' of the crime, which makes him legally innocent of the crime.

If all of the anger over OJ is really anger over a misstep of the criminal justice system, then say that. But if that's your point, you should also advocate for the growing number of convicted criminals who have been exonerated after years and years of unwarranted jail time. We have a huge criminal justice problem, but OJ hardly bares the brunt of it.

If it's not a failure of the justice system that you're disputing, you should ask yourself what you're really angry about. OJ himself did not/ could not decide to be found innocent.

Get real, people.
01:03 PM on 08/04/2009
U r fanned. Thks 4 intelligent intervention.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
04:33 PM on 08/04/2009
Right On The Money. Thanks.

My perception of the trial held in '84 is that the LAPD framed a guilty man. He was exonerated because they framed him, not because he was innocent. When the "justice system" (and in this case I mean the police and prosecutors) misbehaves like they did in the first OJ trial, _all_ of us lose.

I have seen some aspects of our so-called justice system up close and personal and have witnessed miscarriages of justice, large and small, occur in nearly every aspect of the "system." We need a _serious_ overhaul of "the system", though exactly what should be done isn't easily articulated in 200 words or less...
.
12:26 PM on 08/04/2009
this headline is a pretty sensational one. this is just a normal appeal. appeals occur in every criminal conviction where defendants go to prison. this is no big deal, the likelyhood of the juice getting released is minuscule. it's actually a little shamless of whomever made that headline of trying to make a panic, of sorts. besides, as big a low life that the juice is, everybody is entitled to an appeal in our justice system.
11:49 AM on 08/04/2009
It's just so unfair.
All the guy did was threaten people with guns.
And they want to put him in jail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
01:22 PM on 08/04/2009
LOL,Bush and Chenney > and they are free.
11:44 AM on 08/04/2009
Would everybody just shut U.P. and talk about something else. This is exactly why the media talk about these divisive issues bc we cant help ourselves but comment negatively. Everything is a racial fight in this country. Grow up.
mrmikes
music saved me
12:35 PM on 08/04/2009
I did (grow UP). O J had the life that us poor minorities dream of, but he can't stop blowing it. that's not a minority issue. It's a humanity issue.
12:39 PM on 08/04/2009
U r not a minority stop fibbing. If u rd my post I didnt say this was a minority issue.
12:44 PM on 08/04/2009
When u have to fib about your race to make a point then u know u r bias in your reasoning.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mort
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.
12:45 PM on 08/04/2009
Not everything is a racial issue. And THIS particular thread is all about OJ. If you want to talk about something else there a plenty of other threads to choose from. Oh, and it's a little difficult for folks to be stop talking and talk, as you asked.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:32 AM on 08/04/2009
He was put in jail for his other crime. The one he was found innocent of.
11:42 AM on 08/04/2009
Was found guilty in civil court in California in the death's of the two he killed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
01:23 PM on 08/04/2009
Civil court about money,baseless your point.
01:25 PM on 08/04/2009
And civil ct is about liability not guilt. Guilt is associated w/ criminal and liability is associated with civil. Rd a book.
photo
TremoluxMan
Politics: BS on Steroids.
12:04 PM on 08/04/2009
Wrong. He was found 'not guilty', not 'innocent', two very different things. In other words, the state didn't prove their case against him. It doesn't mean he was innocent of the crime, just that they couldn't, or didn't, prove he did it. Criminal Law 101.
12:28 PM on 08/04/2009
So, your point of contention here is the use of the term 'innocent' rather than 'not guilty'?

Mr. Criminal Law 101 (heh), if he was found 'not guilty' he still should not be sentenced for a crime unrelated to the proceedings at hand. So what are you saying? The point is the sentencing in this case is excessive for all involved.

What you believe OJ Simpson did in the early 90s is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Especially considering he was found ... 'not guilty' of that crime.

TwinReverbMan
12:50 PM on 08/04/2009
It does mean UNDER the law he is innocent bc he wasnt proven guilty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:07 AM on 08/04/2009
A true American hero.
11:40 AM on 08/04/2009
Sympathy from the Devil, huh?