So Long OJ

[MrBug708]

Guilty on all 12 counts

[Lathum]

Sentancing is Dec 5th and he faces life

[Chief Rum]

I don't know the facts too well on this case, so for all I know, it was an open and shut case. But you can't tell me those jurors didn't at least a little have 13 years ago in mind. I wonder if OJ was really convicted of armed robbery, or if he just had a long delayed sentencing for double murder?

[Lathum]

He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of

[MrBug708]

He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of

Huh?

[Lathum]

Huh?

He was found not guilty of murder, and I am certain every one of the jurors in his current trial were familiar with the previous case.

Their knowledge of past events probably tainted their judgement in this trial.

[stevew]

Glad to see these people didn't drop the ball.

He should have been executed by now for chopping off his ex's head.

[stevew]

dola

But please, no Fred Goldman. Don't ever need to see that guy again.

[NoMyths]

He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of

What's your position on his most recent dangerous idiocy?

[st.cronin]

From what I was able to pick up about this case the evidence was not really very persuasive - it seemed to me that he was indicted mainly for being OJ. I didn't think he was going to be convicted of anything.

[Lathum]

What's your position on his most recent dangerous idiocy?

I wasn't aware I declared a position on his first trial.

[NoMyths]

I wasn't aware I declared a position on his first trial.

Probably why I asked you about his second. Postion?

[Lathum]

Probably why I asked you about his second. Postion?

I think OJ kiled his wife and Goldman and got away with murder.

I also think since he was found innocent of those crimes the jury in his current trial needed to seperate the two and I doubt that happened which is unfair to OJ.


That being said I have no problem with him going to jail for the rest of his life.

[NoMyths]

I think OJ kiled his wife and Goldman and got away with murder.

I also think since he was found innocent of those crimes the jury in his current trial needed to seperate the two and I doubt that happened which is unfair to OJ.


That being said I have no problem with him going to jail for the rest of his life.

Okay. So in terms of his second trial...the sense I'm getting is that you're not up on the details? Not trying to pin you into a corner or anything, but with some pretty strong statements I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you don't seem to think he's guilty of his latest apparent transgressions.

[Lathum]

Again you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said I think he is guilty or not guilty. I said I dont think it was possible for him to get a fair trial based on his history, anyone that thinks otherwise is naive, IMO.

[Scoobz0202]

Again you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said I think he is guilty or not guilty. I said I dont think it was possible for him to get a fair trial based on his history, anyone that thinks otherwise is naive, IMO.

I understand what you are saying, and agree. But with your original statement I can see where people would assume you were implying that the current trial was bullshit and he was guilt based upon his prior trial.

You might say that's idiotic, but I could see it.

[NoMyths]

Again you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said I think he is guilty or not guilty. I said I dont think it was possible for him to get a fair trial based on his history, anyone that thinks otherwise is naive, IMO.

Not putting words in your mouth -- just trying to figure out your position on the latest trial. I suppose I'll just settle for "not going to give an answer". Fair enough. You and I are certainly agreed on his first trial, and on the odds that the second trial's jury was tainted.

[Lathum]

I understand what you are saying, and agree. But with your original statement I can see where people would assume you were implying that the current trial was bullshit and he was guilt based upon his prior trial.

.

to be honest if jurors went into this trial with preconceived notions about his guilt or innocence then I do think the recent trial was bullshit.

That being said I think he is probably guilty in this case

[Scoobz0202]

to be honest if jurors went into this trial with preconceived notions about his guilt or innocence then I do think the recent trial was bullshit.

That being said I think he is probably guilty in this case


Agreed 100%.

I felt the only way O.J. was walking away from this one is if something major happened for his side. I felt the evidence was there for a guilty charge, and with his past, it was a guarantee.

[Lathum]

yup

[Deattribution]

Guilty is guilty, regardless of his past there was enough evidence to find him guilty in this case by just about anyone, even if they never heard of OJ.

[Lathum]

Guilty is guilty, regardless of his past there was enough evidence to find him guilty in this case by just about anyone, even if they never heard of OJ.

do you honestly think he was given a fair trial by an impartial jury?

[SCgoatman]

i think lathum was the whiny child that so wanted to physically assault me or whatever extremely immature/borderline illegal threat he made w/ regard to my last post, but I completely agree with him. It's highly doubtful that it was an "unbiased" jury; and frankly is yet another example of what a complete joke the jury system is. Any intelligent person that has suffered the pain of being on a jury w/ 11 average americans knows just how easily stupid people are swayed not by facts but by the most expensive/talented lawyer.

That said, from what I've seen, there is fairly substantial evidence that "OJ did it!" as the white people as my HS screamed 13 years ago in both cases. So maybe jury trials actually do work ~50% of the time. Or maybe OJ just didn't have enough $$$ left to buy the case.

[Karlifornia]

I'm fine with OJ being locked up. At best, he was an abusive husband that dared to behave irresponsibly afterward.

At worst, he is a double-murderer that dared to behave irresponsibly after getting away with the most heinous crime there is.

See ya, OJ, you fucking idiot.

[thesloppy]

There was another dude found guilty with him. Despite the fact that no jury may not be able to give OJ a completely fair trial, I also believe no jury would knowingly send another person to jail as well, possibly for life, for OJs actions 13 years ago.

[Flasch186]

on stupidity alone he's guilty.

[Logan]

Amazing to me that this verdict came 13 years to the day after the last one.

[sachmo71]

OJ got a second chance, and he blew it. I guess in the realm of right and wrong it sucks that he could probably never get an impartial jury, but in the realm of karma, it's quite a juicy kettle of fish.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I also believe no jury would knowingly send another person to jail as well, possibly for life, for OJs actions 13 years ago.

You overestimate juries IMO.

[GrantDawg]

on stupidity alone he's guilty.


Yup. Even if his defense was true, was still guilty as an accessory. You and I in the same case would be going to jail for the same thing, but no one would care because our name isn't OJ.

[cartman]

So who is now going to carry on the search for the killers? Or maybe that was OJ's plan all along, and he was almost certain that the killer is in the Nevada State prison system, and this is his way of continuing the search.

[molson]

do you honestly think he was given a fair trial by an impartial jury?

What's your point?

Should OJ just get a pass the rest of his life because he lucked out once?

He wasn't "cleared" or "found innocent" last time. He WAS found responsible in a civil trial.

It's impossible to have a perfect criminal system (if our system were perfect, OJ would already be doing life). If you are charged with 4 crimes, plead guilty to 2 and have 2 dismissed per plea deal, at your next sentencing, the judge WILL consider all 4 crimes. The prosecutor will consider ALL 4 crimes when deciding whether to charge you next time, or when deciding how many crimes to charge you with, or when deciding what penalties to ask for.

And that's not really a bad thing, because generally, innocent people do avoid even criminal charges. If you'd prefer a criminal justice system in a vacuum, I anxiously await your law review article about how such a thing is possible, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

But as for OJ, he got a lucky break, and STILL threw it all away. What a moron. It's a great day for justice. MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY criminals walk free, most without being charged. I'm not going feel bad about enjoying the fate of one of the worst criminals who walked free, who's now going back where he belongs.

OJ of ALL people, should understand a perfect criminal justice system is impossible, and he should have certainly known that he ran the risk, the rest of his life, of scrutiny from not only law enforcement, but regular people walking down the street. Wouldn't you live a different kind of life? Wouldn't you be a tad more careful about bullying drivers and schemes with guns? He thought he was above the law.

[Lathum]

i think lathum was the whiny child that so wanted to physically assault me or whatever extremely immature/borderline illegal threat he made w/ regard to my last post.


Gimme a break. You were probably the kid who got stuffed in lockers and got his ass kicked everyday then yelled "I'm gonna sue you!"

"Illegal threat" don't be such a faggot about what someone says to you on a message board you little bitch.

End of threadjack

[Lathum]

What's your point?

Should OJ just get a pass the rest of his life because he lucked out once?

He wasn't "cleared" or "found innocent" last time. He WAS found responsible in a civil trial.

It's impossible to have a perfect criminal system (if our system were perfect, OJ would already be doing life). If you are charged with 4 crimes, plead guilty to 2 and have 2 dismissed per plea deal, at your next sentencing, the judge WILL consider all 4 crimes. The prosecutor will consider ALL 4 crimes when deciding whether to charge you next time, or when deciding how many crimes to charge you with, or when deciding what penalties to ask for.

And that's not really a bad thing, because generally, innocent people do avoid even criminal charges. If you'd prefer a criminal justice system in a vacuum, I anxiously await your law review article about how such a thing is possible, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

But as for OJ, he got a lucky break, and STILL threw it all away. What a moron. It's a great day for justice. MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY criminals walk free, most without being charged. I'm not going feel bad about enjoying the fate of one of the worst criminals who walked free, who's now going back where he belongs.

OJ of ALL people, should understand a perfect criminal justice system is impossible, and he should have certainly known that he ran the risk, the rest of his life, of scrutiny from not only law enforcement, but regular people walking down the street. Wouldn't you live a different kind of life? Wouldn't you be a tad more careful about bullying drivers and schemes with guns? He thought he was above the law.

Not really sure what you are getting at other then trying to pick a fight.

I made it very clear I am glad he was found guilty and I hope he goes away forever, he is an idiot, etc...

My only point was ( and many others agreed) was that there is no way he got a fair trial based on his last trial. And you may not like it but in the eyes of the law he is innocent of the last charges against him, despite what the outcome was of the civil suit.

[molson]

And you may not like it but in the eyes of the law he is innocent of the last charges against him, despite what the outcome was of the civil suit.

There IS a legal difference between innocent and not guilty in the eyes of the law. He's not innocent in the eyes of the law, for purposes of sentencing, prosecutorial discretion, etc. The fact that he was charged, and found responsible in a civil trial can fairly be considered.

The facts of the first trial could even be potentially relevant evidence in this trial in certain circumstances - though I'm sure the defense was careful not to "open the door" for such relevance, and the prosecutor was reluctant to go there since they had a slam dunk case.

It's just kind of telling (to me) that your first reaction to this news is noting the trial's unfairness, even though you clearly don't know anything about the second case.

"He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of". Geez, you sound like his defense attorney.

[Vegas Vic]

Guilty on all counts:

COUNT 1
Conspiracy to Commit a Crime: 1 year in prison

COUNT 2
Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 3
Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 4
Burglary with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison

COUNT 5
First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 6
First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 7
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 8
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 9
Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 10
Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 11
Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 12
Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

[MrBug708]

He was found not guilty of murder, and I am certain every one of the jurors in his current trial were familiar with the previous case.

Their knowledge of past events probably tainted their judgement in this trial.

That's true, it's not like OJ was found liable for the murders either.

He was found guilty for committing a crime that was recorded on tape. The only change he had of escaping was if the tape had been thought to have been tampered with

[MikeVic]

in

[MrBug708]

do you honestly think he was given a fair trial by an impartial jury?

It was as fair as impartial as the first trial he was in

[Lathum]

There IS a legal difference between innocent and not guilty in the eyes of the law. He's not innocent in the eyes of the law, for purposes of sentencing, prosecutorial discretion, etc. The fact that he was charged, and found responsible in a civil trial can fairly be considered.

The facts of the first trial could even be potentially relevant evidence in this trial in certain circumstances - though I'm sure the defense was careful not to "open the door" for such relevance, and the prosecutor was reluctant to go there since they had a slam dunk case.

It's just kind of telling (to me) that your first reaction to this news is noting the trial's unfairness, even though you clearly don't know anything about the second case.

"He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of". Geez, you sound like his defense attorney.

well maybe you should read all of what I said instead of picking the parts you can argue about.

For fucks sake, I wasn't even the first one to suggest that the jury wasn't impartial.

I think he is guilty and hope he goes away for life, not sure how many times I can say that, but frankly you are an idiot if you dont think the jury wasn't somewhat infuenced by his first trial. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty. I was mearly making 2 seperate points and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

[Lathum]

It was as fair as impartial as the first trial he was in

I have no interest in defending OJ, I think he was guilty as hell of both trials.

[molson]

well maybe you should read all of what I said instead of picking the parts you can argue about.

For fucks sake, I wasn't even the first one to suggest that the jury wasn't impartial.

I think he is guilty and hope he goes away for life, not sure how many times I can say that, but frankly you are an idiot if you dont think the jury wasn't somewhat infuenced by his first trial. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty. I was mearly making 2 seperate points and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

Maybe you're right, I don't know.

Tip though, if you're at a party, you might rub people the wrong way if you started saying how OJ "was cleared", "was found innocent", and that these jurors were prejudiced and that OJ didn't get a fair trial.

All of that is wrong except maybe the 3rd one, and in this case, it's a completely moot point - if you have a crime committed on tape, are the jurors really "prejudiced" when he's found guilty? Whatever. Don't be all shocked if people think you're defending him.

[Lathum]

he was cleared and found innocent in his first criminal trial so I'm not sure why people would be upset.

As for his second trial I hope he gets prison raped over and over and over...

[Oilers9911]

Karma's a bitch...see ya OJ.

[DanGarion]

Guilty on all counts:

COUNT 1
Conspiracy to Commit a Crime: 1 year in prison

COUNT 2
Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 3
Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 4
Burglary with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison

COUNT 5
First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 6
First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 7
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 8
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 9
Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 10
Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison

COUNT 11
Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

COUNT 12
Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement)

It's seems sort of hookie that they can piggy back counts on top of each other... I mean don't you have to normally conspired to commit?

[ace1914]

he was cleared and found innocent in his first criminal trial so I'm not sure why people would be upset.

As for his second trial I hope he gets prison raped over and over and over...

Huh?

[DanGarion]

he was cleared and found innocent in his first criminal trial so I'm not sure why people would be upset.

As for his second trial I hope he gets prison raped over and over and over...

Yeah I thought people are innocent until proven guilty. He was never found guilty in criminal court. Thus he is innocent... Unless there is some other form of logic that people are using to say he's "not guilty" instead.

[DanGarion]

Huh?

buttseks

[Deattribution]

do you honestly think he was given a fair trial by an impartial jury?

If he was guilty for what he did this second time, how does it even matter?

If the end result was they had him on audiotape, with 5 or 6 guys testifying against him who were directly involved and something like 19 witnesses who had other information - again, if the information was so sure fire that doesn't matter who it was, he was going to be found guilty. There's nothing impartial about that.

[molson]

It's seems sort of hookie that they can piggy back counts on top of each other... I mean don't you have to normally conspired to commit?

You have to prove different elements for each, and can be found guilty of one and not the other. No, you don't have to have conspired to commit, or vice versa.

[molson]

Yeah I thought people are innocent until proven guilty. He was never found guilty in criminal court. Thus he is innocent...

He's only innocent in the sense that the state isn't allowed to punish him for it. They're ONLY allowed to punish you if you're found guilty.

But ya, he beat the shit out of his wife and then cut her head off. So no, he's not innocent. Not even "in the eyes of the law". Our criminal system isn't concerned with establishing anyone's innocence.

[sabotai]

but frankly you are an idiot if you dont think the jury wasn't somewhat infuenced by his first trial.

A lot of people thought OJ was framed for the murders. Of course they were all influenced by his first trial, but unless the lawyers asked each one of them during jury selection what they thought of the first trial (which they might have, I haven't paid attention to this thing), you can't know which side of the fence each juror is on. It's possible 3 or 4 of the jurors thought he was set up by the LAPD 13 years ago, but still convicted him on these crimes.

[DanGarion]

He's only innocent in the sense that the state isn't allowed to punish him for it. They're ONLY allowed to punish you if you're found guilty.

But ya, he beat the shit out of his wife and then cut her head off. So no, he's not innocent. Not even "in the eyes of the law". Our criminal system isn't concerned with establishing anyone's innocence.

Wow you were there, you saw it with your own eyes?


I feel he was guilty too, but stay away from claiming what I believe are facts in a case that someone has been found innocent in criminal court. But that's just me. Plus I don't think she was his wife at the time.

[ace1914]

Wow you were there, you saw it with your own eyes?


I feel he was guilty too, but stay away from claiming what I believe are facts in a case that someone has been found innocent in criminal court. But that's just me. Plus I don't think she was his wife at the time.

Everyone knows OJ was guilty. Its just that he was rich. And rich people are supposed to be treated just like regular people.

[Lathum]

If he was guilty for what he did this second time, how does it even matter?

If the end result was they had him on audiotape, with 5 or 6 guys testifying against him who were directly involved and something like 19 witnesses who had other information - again, if the information was so sure fire that doesn't matter who it was, he was going to be found guilty. There's nothing impartial about that.

They could have all the evidence in the world against him, the sixth amendment grants us the right to trial by impartial jury.

Do I think that any jury would have found him guilty based on the evidence, of course, but according to the constitution if the jury wasn't impartial he wasnt given a fair trial.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think OJ is a stupid man.

[molson]

Wow you were there, you saw it with your own eyes?


I feel he was guilty too, but stay away from claiming what I believe are facts in a case that someone has been found innocent in criminal court. But that's just me. Plus I don't think she was his wife at the time.

Juries are morons. They convict innocent people and acquit guilty people all the time. So no, I don't rely on them for my opinions on anything. (And in the case of OJ, technically I guess it's a strongly-held opinion, but there's as much evidence that he did than there is of many strongly held "facts").

[molson]

They could have all the evidence in the world against him, the sixth amendment grants us the right to trial by impartial jury.



This trial was valid under the 6th amendment. The 6th amendment doesn't require robots as jurors - that's impossible.

Otherwise, you're implying that it was impossible to try him Constitutionally, and that "under the law", these charges should be dismissed.

[Lathum]

This trial was valid under the 6th amendment. The 6th amendment doesn't require robots as jurors - that's impossible.

Otherwise, you're implying that it was impossible to try him Constitutionally, and that "under the law", these charges should be dismissed.

If the jury wasnt impartial then how exactly was it a valid jury?


this is all assuming one thinks the jury wasn't impartial...

[TargetPractice6]

I really don't get what your point is Lathum. Whose fault is it that OJ can't get an impartial jury? And what do you propose to do to get a valid jury? Should any OJ trial be thrown out because it's impossible to get an impartial jury?

I agree that the jury members likely knew about and had an opinion of the previous case. But seeing that most everyone old enough to be a juror does, I don't see what the point is or what could be done about it.

[DanGarion]

Couldn't an impartial juror be held in contempt of court?

[molson]

If the jury wasnt impartial then how exactly was it a valid jury?

this is all assuming one thinks the jury wasn't impartial...

If you find me the caselaw that holds that a jury with a mere outside knowledge of a defendant's prior charge violates the sixth amendment, I'd love to read it.

[molson]

Couldn't an impartial juror be held in contempt of court?

Because they heard of OJ???

No jury, ever, has been 100% impartial. It's up to the voir dire process to ensure the most impartial jury possible is chosen. The defense is of course a part of that process.

I wonder if the the defense objected to the panel of jurors as a whole - the judge always asks that, though I'm never heard of a case where the defense actually did. If the defense didn't object, that defense is waived - there was nothing wrong with the panel, and from there, it's up to the defense to get the best jury they can.

And if they did object - then, I guess they could make a wacky constitutional argument that OJ can't be constitutionally tried anywhere in the United States, by ANY jury. I don't think would fly though.

Juries simply aren't required to have zero outside knowledge of the participants and even the facts of the case. That's simply impossible in much of small-town American anyway (even more so 200 years ago). If during voire dire, someone says, ya, I know the defendant, that isn't an immediate DQ. He can be questioned by both sides, who still have to show that the juror can't possibly be fair.

[DanGarion]

Because they heard of OJ???

No because they already have preconceived notion that his is guilty.

[DanGarion]

Because they heard of OJ???

No jury, ever, has been 100% impartial. It's up to the voir dire process to ensure the most impartial jury possible is chosen. The defense is of course a part of that process.

I wonder if the the defense objected to the panel of jurors as a whole - the judge always asks that, though I'm never heard of a case where the defense actually did. If the defense didn't object, that defense is waived - there was nothing wrong with the panel, and from there, it's up to the defense to get the best jury they can.

Alright cool.

[molson]

No because they already have preconceived notion that his is guilty.

If the defense could SHOW that, specifically, (and that the juror thus lied to the court in voir dire), then ya, now we're on to something (like if a tape surfaces of a juror saying, "ya, I was all about payback, I wasn't even paying attention at the trial). Simply having heard of the case isn't enough though.

[Chief Rum]

Curious, molson, because I don't really know. Are you a prosecutor or defense lawyer?

[molson]

Curious, molson, because I don't really know. Are you a prosecutor or defense lawyer?

I was a prosecutor for about 2 years. (and thus do have a big-time bias in this area). I certainly didn't prosecute anyone unless I was sure as hell they were guilty, and 100% of the time it's obvious. The game is always getting as much as you can in front of a jury, because the trend is definitely towards exclusion of evidence.

The big area where prosecution is losing is Domestic Violence.

[Chief Rum]

I thought that might be the case, since you seemed to be talking with too much authority to be some goombah off the street.

I am not a lawyer, I admit, but I am a reasonably intelligent person, I believe, and almost this entire thread smacks of semantics, including your argument with Lathum.

[molson]

I am not a lawyer, I admit, but I am a reasonably intelligent person, I believe, and almost this entire thread smacks of semantics, including your argument with Lathum.

Definitely true. It always stings though when someone refers to a domestic batterer as being "cleared" of a crime because of the failings of our criminal justice team. Domestic Battery (and the murder that it often leads to) are pretty easy to get away with in America.

[Lathum]

Definitely true. It always stings though when someone refers to a domestic batterer as being "cleared" of a crime because of the failings of our criminal justice team. Domestic Battery (and the murder that it often leads to) are pretty easy to get away with in America.

my sister was beaten and verbaly abused by her now dead husband so I am the last person who will ever defend someone of battery.

[EagleFan]

Why are we having this discssion? The idiot got what he deserved in this case.

The jurors who found him guilty will never get a fair shake as it was 100% certain that if they found him guilty people would say that this was because of what happened 13 years ago.