O.J. Simpson - GUILTY!

by Katherine Scardino

It has finally happened. A jury in Las Vegas, Nevada did it. They told O.J. Simpson that he is guilty of a crime. Some people have been waiting for this for many years. A Las Vegas jury found O.J. Simpson guilty of all counts: conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping, and all done knowingly with a weapon. This verdict came thirteen years to the day that a Los Angeles jury aquitted him.

In 1995, when the jury in California found him Not Guilty of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, most of the sane world was astonished. How could this have happened? I understand totally how it happened, and I will remind you that a jury must find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” You can say that it was his slick “dream team” of lawyers. I am sure that had something to do with it. Yet it has been my experience that you can be the slickest lawyer in the world, but you cannot change the basic facts.

In my office, I keep a pretty fairy wand that was given to me about 12 years ago. It was supposed to help me “change the facts” of cases. I have used it consistently, but to date, I have seen no real results. A lawyer can take the facts and try to mold them in a way that sounds better for your client, but the basic reality is still there.

A lawyer can provide the jury with reasons why his or her client was present during the killing or during a robbery, and hope that the jury will not believe that he was a participant or knew that the co-actor intended to kill or rob someone. But that is all you can do. A fact is a fact.

This Nevada court and the judge made some half-hearted attempt to keep the California murder trial out of this Nevada courtroom. But everyone, I’m sure, knew that would be realistically impossible—unless the “slick” defense lawyer could find a jury of 12 people who had been living under a rock in the Nevada desert for the last 15 years.

The lawyers were not supposed to mention the prior trial and verdict, but remember in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he said something like “make this the first real verdict” for O.J. Simpson. Well, it was clear what was meant . . . and the jury delivered for him.

I watched O.J. during the reading of the verdicts. O.J. has aged considerably since his last criminal trial. He was listening and waiting for the two-word verdict, but it did not come—ever—on any count. It was “guilty” all across the board. His face looked pained and I am sure Simpson, 61, is worried about the remainder of his life. This jury could sentence him to life in prison. He would be eligible at some point for parole, but at his age, for all practical purposes, it would be forever.

Why does this verdict make me a little sad? Is it because I am so used to fighting for the underdog, the oppressed? Am I so much a defense lawyer that I cannot see the guilt in anyone? I am beginning to wonder about myself. Do I want all defendants to win regardless of the facts of the case? No, I do not think that is it.

From what I saw and reported to you during the trial, it appeared that there was enough evidence that was presented to the jury that should have produced a “reasonable doubt” and the verdict should have been Not Guilty. The issue of whether O.J. knew that his co-defendant had a gun was not clear—at least to me and what I saw. Simpson’s attorney put up a good defense, but as with most criminal cases, the defense generally does not have many—or any—witnesses.

The defense here had one witness—and it was not O.J. Does it matter to juries whether the defendant testifies? I believe it makes a huge difference. My general rule is that in serious criminal cases, unless they have a prior criminal history a mile long, I make every effort to put the defendant on the stand to testify in front of the jury. If he is firm in his statement to you, his lawyer, that he did not do this crime—or, in O.J.’s case, that he did not know that the other guy was going in that room with a gun and all he wanted to do was retrieve his own property—then why not put him on the stand? A jury always, I repeat—always—wants to hear from the defendant. And a juror who is really honest with you will say that if the defendant does not testify, they will wonder why not.

A defense lawyer talks to the potential jurors during the jury selection process about whether their client will testify. You try to get a jury who understands every citizen’s constitutional right NOT to testify, but it really does not matter. In the average person’s mind, if you are “innocent” (which is another article in itself), then you should get on the stand and say so.

But what got me, and I bet what each individual juror was thinking, was this: Why in the world would O.J. not call the police to do this job for him? Why in the world would he think that it was acceptable for him and his cohorts to barge into this hotel room and do what he did? Why does he keep committing crimes—little or big? Does he think that he will always avoid repercussions of his actions? Does he think he is above the law? Maybe he did. But I bet he has changed his tune now. Waiting on sentencing can be very stressful and demeaning. Let’s see if he goes to prison, and for how long. For victims of crime, waiting on justice can be unbearable. I bet the Goldman family is raising several glasses of champagne. . . . What do you think?

Tweet

O.J. + Witnesses on the Rocks = Recipe for Reasonable Doubt?

by Katherine Scardino

One of the neatest things about being a defense attorney is cross examination. The defense lawyer gets to do almost anything in cross and there is always a surprise somewhere. You can get in the witness’s face; you can confront him with telling a different story prior to his testimony in trial. You know the famous question: “Were you lying then, or are you lying now? . . .”

I can’t imagine anyone who has been to law school not wanting to be a defense lawyer—just to be able to cross examine lying cops or lying witnesses. The most fun of cross examination is the witness who just is not sure what he wants to say—i.e., "Who are you really testifying for, sir? . . ."

I was reminded of this while watching the O.J. Simpson trial unfold in Las Vegas. O.J.’s co-defendant Charles Ehrlich was back on the witness stand yesterday to face cross-examination from defense attorney Yale Galanter about exactly what O.J. knew about the use of guns.

I would have loved to have been the lawyer to cross Ehrlich (mugshot left). The issue of what O.J. knew about the guns is critical to his case, since pulling a gun while committing a crime enhances the amount of time a defendant may have to serve. In response to Galanter’s question as to whether it was the understanding that nothing illegal was going to occur, Ehrlich said, “Correct.”

Galanter then asked, “This was nothing but a recovery of stolen property, correct?”

"Correct," Ehrlich said.

But there was one hitch. On Monday, Ehrlich testified in response to questioning by the prosecutor that he saw two people with guns during the alleged armed robbery and kidnapping at the Palace Station Casino Hotel. Ehrlich said that one of the people waved around a black gun. Supposedly, the person who was brandishing this black gun was another co-defendant, Michael McClinton, who has already taken a plea deal from the State.

Ehrlich also testified that he heard someone shouting “Put the gun away” and he thought this person doing the shouting was Simpson. That would have meant that Simpson knew that during this offense, there was a weapon out and being used. Ehrlich did not say anything about whether Simpson knew before the confrontation that a gun was in McClinton’s pocket.

So after cross examination by Galanter, this witness’s testimony became almost irrelevant for the State. Now, the jury has two versions to consider—one good for Simpson and one not so good for Simpson.

Monday, the jury heard testimony from another State witness, Thomas Riccio, who admitted that he had received $210,000 from the media deals he had made after secretly recording the incident. Riccio supported O.J.’s contention that Simpson had been insistent that the purpose of this incident was only to recover personal items that had previously been stolen from him. He further stated that Simpson was not aware of the use of any guns. But just the fact that he recorded the eight-minute incident—and that he profited substantially by his recording—is enough, at least for me, to be suspicious as to his motives and intent in putting together the whole shenanigan.

So . . . the bottom line so far is that we have a spider web of stories—all intertwined, all similar, but not quite. Does that mean “reasonable doubt” to the jury? It should, but will it? Let’s keep watching. . . .

Tweet

The O.J. Simpson Trial - Disorder in the Court

by Katherine Scardino

I have been watching CNN's live coverage of the O. J. Simpson trial and I am amazed at a few issues. First of all, this judge is worse than Judge Ito. And she is female, which is more distressing for me, as a woman who relishes seeing and knowing successful women who have made it in a man’s world.

I can only imagine what this jury is thinking about this entire fiasco. . . . Speaking of the jury—it is composed of 9 women and 3 men, all white. During jury selection, the defense objected to the State’s exclusion of all blacks, but the judge ruled that the State had made a racially neutral explanation for such exclusion, and overruled the defense objection.

This judge is not very “judicial.” She is having a hard time controlling Simpson's defense lawyer, Yale Galanter. I have been watching his demeanor with this judge, and he is not letting her intimidate him at all. I like that. There is a fine line between standing your ground and facing the “chief” in the courtroom in situations where you believe you are procedurally correct and putting your tail between your legs and sitting down and “obeying” orders, like a good little pup. That fine line could result in the defense attorney being held in contempt of court and possibly jailed. One of our cohorts in Women in Crime Ink, Vanessa Leggett, is well aware of this possibility after she refused to divulge the source of her information about a case, and consequently spent several months in the Federal Detention Center in Houston, Texas. I admire her for that. Not many people will stand up to a judge.

But, getting back to the subject . . . the State's first witness was Bruce Fromong, the sports memorabilia dealer O. J. is accused of robbing. Fromong testified that money was not an objective of this sordid incident. But then under cross examination, Mr. Galanter and the defense attorney for co-defendant C. J. Stewart, got Fromong to admit that he had threatened to call “First Edition” and had demanded a large sum of money. I could not tell for certain, but I believe that he did receive a sum of cash for a copy of the audiotapes. This witness looks sleazy, unethical and the perfect idiot who could be convinced by the State or by a conniving cop to tape some stupid deal like this one and make it look like O. J. Simpson was committing an aggravated robbery.

Yesterday, the lead detective was on the stand. I watched his testimony for a while and it was obvious to me that when he was being questioned by the defense attorneys, he was slow to respond, did not answer the question asked, and attempted to avoid answering questions. But, when the State’s attorney asked him questions, he sat up in his chair, responded properly, looked at the jury, and was generally a responsive, interesting witness.

This has happened to me on many occasions, and I can tell you, it is very frustrating. Sometimes, I just want to jump up out of my chair and run to the desultory detective or cop and shake him! This detective did not even run a background check on the complainants. If he had, it was apparent from the line of questioning that he would have found criminal backgrounds. Nor did this detective ask for any proof that the property that O. J. Simpson was attempting to get back belonged to these complainants. He did not ask for any receipts or any evidence at all that they, in fact, did “own” this property which obviously belonged to Simpson.

Anyway, it is interesting. I’ll keep watching. . . .

Tweet

Squeezing O.J. - Will Round II Get the Juice?

by Katherine Scardino

I am not sure whether I want to write something about O.J. Simpson. After the criminal trial in 1994, we all probably said something to the effect of "I hope I never hear this man's name again for the rest of my life."

I know there were people who watched every minute of that murder trial in California over a decade ago—you know, the one that lasted almost a year! And with an equally startling verdict.

During that trial, I remember being called by a member of the press in Houston, Texas, where I live, and asked to basically "guess" what the jury was going to do.

This phone call came during jury deliberations and—in all fairness to the newspaper reporter—he was thinking that because I had been practicing criminal law in Houston for a while, and had tried more than a few criminal cases, I might have some insight or clue as to what the jury would do.

Well, in my most J.D.-educated tone, I told him I thought that surely this jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and Mr. Goldman.

I had watched enough of the trial to feel that he was guilty. But I also recognized that Barry Scheck, Johnny Cochran, and the other members of his defense team did a fantastic job of "smoke and mirrors" and that the two prosecutors were totally outclassed and outlawyered by that so-called Dream Team. That is not supposed to matter . . . but in the glare of that circus, it was obvious.

All the same, I still felt that the State had put on enough evidence for the jury to legitimately find this man guilty.

Now we are in the midst of criminal trial number two for O.J. Simpson. This one is a crummy sequel to the first case. He is currently on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping. I have been following the newspaper about as much as you probably have—and with about as much interest.

Then I started thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do . . . but here are my thoughts. First, don't be mislead by the fact that he is accused of "armed robbery." He is not being charged with robbing these people of the property that he maintains was his.

No, O.J. Simpson is being tried for robbery because when he and his cohorts stormed into that hotel room, he snatched a cell phone, hat, and sunglasses (which probably actually fell off the man's face) from one of the people in the room.

Second, the "kidnapping" charge arose from a statement Simpson made on the eight-minute audiotape of this incident: "No one leaves. Do not let anyone leave this room." So that is the kidnapping part of his felony charge that could mean a life sentence for O.J.

Then, as if this is not enough, in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he told the jury to let this be the "true verdict."

Of course, the judge had instructed the jury that the California criminal trial was not to have any impact on their consideration of the facts in this case. Right! And, the prosecution was not to mention that trial. So, this prosecutor simply implied to the jury that regardless of the verdict in California, this verdict should be the "true verdict."

And he also mentioned in his opening statement that the jury will hear the "true O.J. Simpson" as opposed to O.J.'s public persona.

While not mentioning the murder trial, he alluded to it in the words he chose to use in front of this Las Vegas jury.

So where is this going? I am tending to believe more and more that this is a set up by O. J.'s alleged "friends." Otherwise, why the full audiotape of this entire incident?

And we have to remember, that "rant" of O.J. Simpson may just be that. He is not being charged with using profane language or with losing his temper because he wanted his "s----" back.

There is always the possibility of a jury finding him guilty because of his history, the language he used, the anger he exhibited, the fact that many people around the world, not just the United States, believe that O.J. is guilty of murder and got away with it.

And this trial may be the last chance a wrong can be made right.

O.J. Simpson might get life in prison for knocking a man's sunglasses and cap off his head, and by saying that no one could leave the room. (Lord, I hope we have not resorted to revenge verdicts.)

Let's keep watching. I'll write more as the case progresses. . . .

Tweet