NationStates Jolt Archive

O.J. Simpson found guilty on all counts:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html

anyone surprised?

Well, no. Duh.

It was a prosecutor's dream.

Johnny Cochran's been dead for years. It was inevitable.

I don't know how you get an impartial jury for this case. After the Bush Administration, he's probably the most hated man in America, or close to it.

They had to find him guilty since they let him slip away on murder charges. The people, i.e., the judge and jury who let him get away, should be charged with criminal idiocy.

I anticipate the #1 issue he will raise in his appeal is the fact it was an all white jury.

I also think he should have asked for a change of venue to Siberia in order to find a truly impartial jury.

Karma caught up with that thug. There isn't any golf in prison, but I'm sure there will be plenty of balls going around his hole.

13 is definitely an unlucky number of OJ. Jury took 13 hours to decide and it's 13 years to the day since he was acquitted of double-murder. In keeping with this, the Judge should sentence him to 13 years.

Karma caught up with that thug. There isn't any golf in prison, but I'm sure there will be plenty of balls going around his hole.

He's rich and famous, he won't serve a day in prison.

13 is definitely an unlucky number of OJ. Jury took 13 hours to decide and it's 13 years to the day since he was acquitted of double-murder. In keeping with this, the Judge should sentence him to 13 years.

And he'll have 13 boyfriends in San Quentin.

I doubt anything of the sort would happen to him. Remember - most Black people thought him innocent and that the murder trial was just another example of LA's police favourite game, "Pin the blame on the Black guy".
It's likely he'll be viewed as a hero in prison and will have plenty of crims only too happy to ensure his safety and wellbeing.
As well, he'll be able to argue for secure, more private cells base on his celebrity status.

I doubt anything of the sort would happen to him. Remember - most Black people thought him innocent and that the murder trial was just another example of LA's police favourite game, "Pin the blame on the Black guy".
It's likely he'll be viewed as a hero in prison and will have plenty of crims only too happy to ensure his safety and wellbeing.
As well, he'll be able to argue for secure, more private cells base on his celebrity status.

That's assuming IF he goes to prison.

He won't.

That's assuming IF he goes to prison.

He won't.
very likely. His lawyers would have filed an appeal before he even left the court, with main provision that he be allowed to remain out while it's being heard.

That said surely he must be running out of money soon, so how long can he afford to keep paying his lawyers to keep him out of prison?

If he does go to prison, I reckon it'd be minimum security anyway. At 61 with only one serious criminal conviction, he hardly fits the profile of a crim needing to be put in max security.

That's assuming IF he goes to prison.

He won't.Wouldn't bet on that. The Judge has already denied bail pending formal sentencing. He's in jail as we speak.

Wouldn't bet on that. The Judge has already denied bail pending formal sentencing. He's in jail as we speak.

There's a difference between Jail and Prison.

Jail is where they hold you after you've been arrested, waiting on bail being posted, waiting for trail, or waiting for your sentencing.

Prison, is where you serve out your sentence.

You get away with murder and then do this...

...how do you fuck that up?

You get away with murder and then do this...

...how do you fuck that up?

Good question.....

There's a difference between Jail and Prison.

Jail is where they hold you after you've been arrested, waiting on bail being posted, waiting for trail, or waiting for your sentencing.

Prison, is where you serve out your sentence.
I know this, former criminal defense attorney here, however, the fact that he was ordered held in custody pending sentencing does not bode well in my mind for his chances to avoid prison altogether. If he is held pending sentencing, I think it likely he'll also be held during the course of his appeal which will likely result in his going to prison while the appeal is being prepared and heard.

I know where I live, a conviction on felony kidnapping and armed robbery automatically exclude you from consideration for freedom pending the appeal. No, I think it likely he will go down, at least for a little while.

There were four motions to either postpone the deadline for them to file an appeal or to extend their time before they were taken into custody and they were all quickly shot down.

Doesn't bode too well.

I doubt anything of the sort would happen to him. Remember - most Black people thought him innocent and that the murder trial was just another example of LA's police favourite game, "Pin the blame on the Black guy".

Then a lot of Black people after they calmed down realized he likely was guilty.

Did he really think he would be lucky enough to be found not guilty in 2 major trials? Ridiculous.

No black jurors. Cue racism cries in 3....2....1....

I don't think the jury found him guilty because their racist, I think it was because he's a murdering, gun wielding robber that has no regard for the law. But who knows, it could be racism.

"The jury of nine men and three women, none of them African-American....."

RACISM!

Then a lot of Black people after they calmed down realized he likely was guilty.
but how many of those more reasonable ones are likely to be in prison now?

Add in that an all-White convicted him this time round, and I figure he'll have lots of support inside.

Wouldn't bet on that. The Judge has already denied bail pending formal sentencing. He's in jail as we speak.

He has been found guilty of kidnapping. That carries a sentance of 5 yrs to life in Nevada, so he will be going to prison for a minimum of 5 yrs.
But not only will he appeal based on the all white jury, apparantly 4 of the jurors have said they thought he was guilty of the double murder charge from last time, so expect his legal team to claim that they were punishing him for getting off last time.
On that basis, expect him to be out pretty soon.:eek2:

He's rich and famous, he won't serve a day in prison.

He's famous, but he's by no means rich anymore.

See, he lost the civil suit filed agianst him by the Goldmans. To the tune of over 12,000,000 dollars, plus costs. This was long after he was really earning Hollywood money, and after paying Johhny Cochran's exhorbitant fee for clearing him of a double homicide.

Not only must he also pay through the nose in support for the his (and his murdered wife Nicole's)children who, if im not mistaken, are being raised by the Goldmans.

Basically, just about every dollar he makes, wich aint much, goes straight to them.

Last I heard, he has to "make do" on about 45,000 a year.

Pfft.
I should be so lucky.

Last I heard, he has to "make do" on about 45,000 a year.

Pfft.
I should be so lucky.

You're from Midland, right? I thought all of you were rich with Dow money up there.

Yes, I'm joking

The wookie defense didn't work this time, eh?

i expect things will change to some extent on appeal

depending on the sentence.

it would be ridiculous to send him to prison for life for this stupid crime.

He's famous, but he's by no means rich anymore.

See, he lost the civil suit filed agianst him by the Goldmans. To the tune of over 12,000,000 dollars, plus costs. This was long after he was really earning Hollywood money, and after paying Johhny Cochran's exhorbitant fee for clearing him of a double homicide.

Not only must he also pay through the nose in support for the his (and his murdered wife Nicole's)children who, if im not mistaken, are being raised by the Goldmans.

Basically, just about every dollar he makes, wich aint much, goes straight to them.

Last I heard, he has to "make do" on about 45,000 a year.

Pfft.
I should be so lucky.

Plus, there's the $1.5 million in back taxes that he owes the government.

Minimum sentencing on his convictions means he'll do at least 15 years (unless overturned on appeal), and with multiple convictions I can't see any judge sentencing the minimum. In essence at his age it's a life sentence. I personally love the irony, he beats a murder rap but gets life for stealing a bunch of his old crap back. Karma eventually catches up to everyone.

The wookie defense didn't work this time, eh?

Johnny Cochran is still dead.

He's rich and famous, he won't serve a day in prison.

He's a lot less rich now thanks to the Goldman family. :)

You get away with murder and then do this...

...how do you fuck that up?

An excellent question. I suspect it's equal parts arrogance and idiocy.

An excellent question. I suspect it's equal parts arrogance and idiocy.
Well if you literally get away with murder it's no stretch to imagine other rules don't apply to you as well...

Who cares?

Well if you literally get away with murder it's no stretch to imagine other rules don't apply to you as well...

He didn't so much get away with murder as had to pay the damages. It's like a kid that breaks a window, you know? No allowance for 2 months, but you don't throw the kid in jail, do ya? ;)

Who cares?

I think people are just happy that the Teflon Idiot is finally getting some sort of judgment that'll stick.

He didn't so much get away with murder as had to pay the damages. It's like a kid that breaks a window, you know? No allowance for 2 months, but you don't throw the kid in jail, do ya? ;)Limme see if I got this right... OJ 'broke' his ex-wife and her friend so we took his allowance away for a decade or so?



Ya know ... sadly that does sort of sound like a fair descrption of how our judicial system treats celebrities...

Limme see if I got this right... OJ 'broke' his ex-wife and her friend so we took his allowance away for a decade or so?



Ya know ... sadly that does sort of sound like a fair descrption of how our judicial system treats celebrities...

No, that is not at all accurate.

He was found to have been not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the criminal charges. He was found to have been more likely than not to be culpable for wrongful death, in a non-criminal setting.

I'm sorry you want to blame you lack of understanding on the system, and pretend that the latter is broken rather than the former.

Ah, jury trials. Putting the lives of people in the hands of people who can't deal with their own lives.

Would justice not have been better served by having a judge jail him in the FIRST time? Did these people jail him because of THIS crime or because of the OTHER? Did he commit either? Does it matter at this point? OF COURSE he'd be convicted. Many people believed he escaped justice (I don't believe either way, as I read little on the subject) in the first trial, so it stands to reason they'd convict him.

The jury system isn't really good.

No, that is not at all accurate.

He was found to have been not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the criminal charges. He was found to have been more likely than not to be culpable for wrongful death, in a non-criminal setting.

I'm sorry you want to blame you lack of understanding on the system, and pretend that the latter is broken rather than the former.Untwist your knickers. You're confusing my affection for satire and biting commentary with genuine misinformation or ignorance.


Put down the coffee and step away from the keyboard...:tongue:

Ah, jury trials. Putting the lives of people in the hands of people who can't deal with their own lives.
Actually, the reasoning of juries is pretty sound. You take a diverse group of people who must work together to develop a consensus on the facts. So the closet bigot is mitigated by the anti-bigot...the left-wing conspiracist is balanced by the right wing conspiracist etc. The flaws of the individual are subsumed by the wisdom of the whole.

These people must take direct and circumstantial evidence and decide whether someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That should be a task that does not take someone versed in the law to decide...that is what our system believes. The judge makes decisions about points of law...the jury makes decisions about facts.

Would justice not have been better served by having a judge jail him in the FIRST time? Not if the evidence didn't support the judgment that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What...you want to start changing the standard just because you (along with most of us) believe he did it? How is that justice, when what you want would necessitate ignoring the evidence as presented, just to get to the verdict that makes you feel better?

Did these people jail him because of THIS crime or because of the OTHER? Did he commit either? Does it matter at this point? OF COURSE he'd be convicted. Many people believed he escaped justice (I don't believe either way, as I read little on the subject) in the first trial, so it stands to reason they'd convict him. Sounds like the evidence in this case was pretty solid. Juries have to convict on the facts at hand.

The jury system isn't really good.Provide some reasons for this assertion, please. So far all I've gotten from you is 'well they didn't do what I think they should have', with zip all for understanding as to how the system works.

Untwist your knickers. You're confusing my affection for satire and biting commentary with genuine misinformation or ignorance.


Put down the coffee and step away from the keyboard...:tongue:
(*#&%*%^!!! *slops coffee on the keyboard*

You bastards and your 'satire' and your 'biting commentary'! I'm bloody sick of it! YOU are the reason lawyers have such a bad rep! It has NOTHING to do with rampant drug abuse, sleeping with clients, fucking off with people's money, or cynically twisting the system to achieve positive outcomes for clients. No. It's YOU! And I won't stand for it! I will correct you at every turn, and I will do so huffily! And with much moral outrage!

Basically, just about every dollar he makes, wich aint much, goes straight to them.

AFAIK he isn't paying any of that, due to some complex money shifting.

(*#&%*%^!!! *slops coffee on the keyboard*

You bastards and your 'satire' and your 'biting commentary'! I'm bloody sick of it! YOU are the reason lawyers have such a bad rep! It has NOTHING to do with rampant drug abuse, sleeping with clients, fucking off with people's money, or cynically twisting the system to achieve positive outcomes for clients. No. It's YOU! And I won't stand for it! I will correct you at every turn, and I will do so huffily! And with much moral outrage!OOOh.... Talk dirty to me some more... :D

Limme see if I got this right... OJ 'broke' his ex-wife and her friend so we took his allowance away for a decade or so?



Ya know ... sadly that does sort of sound like a fair descrption of how our judicial system treats celebrities...

I like what Chris Rock said about it: "That shit wasn't about race, that shit was about fame. Because if OJ wasn't famous...if OJ drove a bus, he wouldn't even be OJ. He'd be Orinthal the Bus-driving Murderer."

Provide some reasons for this assertion, please. So far all I've gotten from you is 'well they didn't do what I think they should have', with zip all for understanding as to how the system works.

Neesika, I don't agree nor do I disagree with either verdict. For that I'd have to have an opinion regarding his guilt in either case, which I do not.

My point is that cases should be left to judges, or even to (a few) judges to solve together. I do not believe Joe Sixpack, to borrow an idiom, is intellectually prepared to decide on a person's guilt or innocence, PRECISELY because they may be swayed by "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" gimmicks, "he's black! It's racism to think he was guilty", "he's black! He MUST have been the murderer" or "well, he got off THE FIRST time..." appeals. I don't have the info to believe one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocence in either case, but with the media around him, a jury would not give him a fair trial in either: They would likely be either too lax or too severe. I don't know WHICH they were in each case, but trust them to have reached a verdict unbridled by their emotions and based on logic only, I do not.

I like what Chris Rock said about it: "That shit wasn't about race, that shit was about fame. Because if OJ wasn't famous...if OJ drove a bus, he wouldn't even be OJ. He'd be Orinthal the Bus-driving Murderer."

Orinthal wouldn't have been able to afford the sort of defence OJ had. Rich people, even if they aren't famous, are going to have better access to justice than you or I, and that's simply a sad fact. Expert witnesses run you about $10,000 an appearance at the minimum. Some academics make a killing appearing as expert witnesses.

Orinthal wouldn't have been able to afford the sort of defence OJ had. Rich people, even if they aren't famous, are going to have better access to justice than you or I, and that's simply a sad fact. Expert witnesses run you about $10,000 an appearance at the minimum. Some academics make a killing appearing as expert witnesses.

That's why he's "Orinthal the bus-driving murderer".

The real question here is, do we even care?

Neesika, I don't agree nor do I disagree with either verdict. For that I'd have to have an opinion regarding his guilt in either case, which I do not.

My point is that cases should be left to judges, or even to (a few) judges to solve together. I do not believe Joe Sixpack, to borrow an idiom, is intellectually prepared to decide on a person's guilt or innocence, PRECISELY because they may be swayed by "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" gimmicks, "he's black! It's racism to think he was guilty", "he's black! He MUST have been the murderer" or "well, he got off THE FIRST time..." appeals. I don't have the info to believe one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocence in either case, but with the media around him, a jury would not give him a fair trial in either: They would likely be either too lax or too severe. I don't know WHICH they were in each case, but trust them to have reached a verdict unbridled by their emotions and based on logic only, I do not.


Ok. Once again, you honestly seem to misaprehend how the system works.

Yes, a judge is necessary in order for there to be accurate rulings on issues of law...such as whether a certain piece of evidence is hearsay, and whether any hearsay exception applies to allow that evidence to ever be heard by the jury. The judge decides what evidence is going to be presented to the triers of fact, the jury. Specialised knowledge is necessary here.

No specialised knowledge is necessary when it comes to deciding, on the facts, whether someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. None. The evidence is presented, issues of technical importance are explained by expert witnesses (judges are not experts in nanotechnology, biomedical advances, forensic evidence and so on either, in a judge only trial, this evidence is highly important to the judge's ability to decide issues of fact too). If the evidence simply does not support the burden of proof, then even Joe Sixpack can understand that. Juries are instructed on the burden of proof...and it's a simple concept to understand.

Emotions are going to run high in many jury trials...but the emotions are not going to all run the same way.

Until there is an actual set of studies accurately detailing the rate of accuracy of juries versus judges, and not just a study (http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf) talking about how studies COULD be done...then nothing supports your supposition that the jury system doesn't work.

Orinthal wouldn't have been able to afford the sort of defence OJ had. .

..possibly cost 4 Million USD (in 1995).....Thus add 4% say, a year for 13 years....?

That's why he's "Orinthal the bus-driving murderer".

Maybe he's "That bus driver who killed some people" to the people in his home city. Maybe some of his former friends and neighbours will remember his actual name. You ask someone from another country, even another state, about Orinthal the bus-driving murderer and you'll be treated to something along the lines of :confused:

but how many of those more reasonable ones are likely to be in prison now?

Add in that an all-White convicted him this time round, and I figure he'll have lots of support inside.

Dont you know everyone is innocent in prison. they still get stabbed.

<---Discovered in 15 years of being a trial attorney that most of the time the jury got it right.