home

O.J. Simpson Loses Bid for New Trial

A Las Vegas judge has denied O.J. Simpson's bid for a new trial. Lawyers for Simpson argued at a hearing held months ago that his trial counsel was ineffective and had a conflict of interest. From the opinion:

“Mr. Simpson failed to demonstrate that counsel experienced an actual conflict of interest that substantially impacted counsel’s performance at trial. Mr. Simpson also failed to establish that the State withheld exculpatory evidence. Finally, Mr. Simpson failed to establish that appellate and trial counsel were ineffective or that any deficient performance by counsel resulted in prejudice. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence, neither the errors in this case, nor the errors collectively, cause this court to question the validity of Mr. Simpson’s conviction.”

Simpson's current attorney says he will appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, and if he loses, file a habeas action in federal court.

< Monday Open Thread | Who's Cooking Tomorrow? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My take: (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:50:56 PM EST
    I think everyone believed he was guilty, including the jurors and all those who checked off "not guilty" in the subsequent polls.
    Saying someone is "not guilty", in this case, equated to, "I don't care if he's guilty, I want him to get off."

    The jurors:

    a. Hated the L.A.P.D.
    b. Hated Marsh Clark

    c. Loved O.J. Simpson
    d. Loved Johnnie Cochran

    e. Blond Bombshell "got what she deserved"
    f. Who cares about a white jew-boy?

    g. Evidence meant "0" Zero.
    h. Payback's a Bea-ach.

    Now, having said these things, let me emphasize that I don't believe ALL blacks think O.J. was Not Guilty, nor do I believe that ALL blacks would have behaved in the disrespectful, disingenuous, and damaging manner as did that jury. Treating their solemn oath as jurors like a joke, and turning "trial by jury," the backbone of our legal system, on its head is the legacy that jury will take to their respective graves.

    There appears to be a lot (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    of interest in OJ these days. Of the four comments here when I arrived, two were spam from the same account, and the other two rightly called them out as site violators.

    My opinions on this subject (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Are not generally well received around here.

    But wait awhile - PK will tell you exactly what I think.  :)

    Parent

    What's to Discuss... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    ...the guy who wrote about about the murders he committed, but was acquitted for, isn't getting out of jail for some other crime ?

    No one cares that OJ didn't get out of jail, had this gone the other way, the thread would probably be close to filling up IMO.  But then again, I believe he would still be in jail for other crimes beyond the ones he wanted a new trial for.

    Parent

    According to Vincent Bugliosi, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    OJ's defense attorneys did their job.  The prosecution just got lost.  And in the end, it was a rare opportunity for citizens of Los Angeles County to pass judgement on their County and City police departments.

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

    How many people