View Full Version : OJ Simpson: I Want A New Trial!
05-13-2013, 04:03 PM
Anyone watching the coverage on HLN?
05-13-2013, 04:07 PM
OJ looks like shit. Got old.
05-13-2013, 04:13 PM
O.J. Simpson wants new trial
Updated: May 13, 2013, 1:01 PM ET
LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson was back in a Las Vegas courtroom on Monday to ask for a new trial in the armed robbery-kidnapping case that sent him to prison in 2008.
The former football hero and a new set of lawyers hope to convince a judge during the hearing that trial lawyer Yale Galanter had conflicted interests and shouldn't have handled Simpson's case.
Simpson appeared in court wearing a blue jail uniform. His hair was short and grayer than it was during a previous court appearance in 2008.
He entered the courtroom in handcuffs, flanked by guards and nodded and raised his eyebrows to acknowledge people he recognized in the second row.
A marshal had warned people in the audience not to try to communicate with Simpson. No words were exchanged.
Simpson is serving nine to 33 years in a Nevada prison. He's due to testify Wednesday.
Galanter is scheduled to testify Friday. He is declining comment before then.
Simpson says that Galanter knew ahead of time about his plan to retrieve what he thought were personal mementoes from two sports memorabilia dealers at a casino hotel room in September 2007.
Simpson also said his lawyer never told him a plea deal was on the table.
Galanter was paid nearly $700,000 for Simpson's defense but had a personal interest in preventing himself from being identified as a witness to the crimes and misled Simpson so much that the former football star deserves a new trial, lawyers for Simpson claim.
"To me, the claims are solid. I don't know how the court can't grant relief," said Patricia Palm, the Simpson appeals lawyer who produced a 94-page petition dissecting Galanter's promises, payments and performance in the trial that ended with a jury finding Simpson and a co-defendant guilty of 12 felonies.
Of the 22 allegations of conflict-of-interest and ineffective counsel that Palm raised, Clark County District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell has agreed to hear 19.
The five-day proceedings are technically neither a trial nor appeal. There won't be any opening statements. The judge will listen to testimony before deciding whether Simpson deserves a new trial. It's not clear whether Bell will rule immediately.
Simpson maintains the plan was to take back what he expected would be family photos and personal belongings stolen from him after his 1995 "trial of the century" acquittal in the slayings of his wife and her friend in Los Angeles.
Simpson was later found liable for damages in a civil wrongful death lawsuit and ordered to pay $33.5 million to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Galanter blessed the plan involving family photos and personal belongings as within the law, as long as no one trespassed and no force was used, Simpson said.
The first witness on Monday was expected to be Dr. Norman Roitman, a Las Vegas psychiatrist who is expected to say that Simpson's perception of what took place in the Palace Station hotel room might have been hampered by football brain injuries and the effects of several vodka and cranberry juice cocktails he consumed before the confrontation.
H. Leon Simon and Leah Beverly, the Clark County deputy district attorneys representing the state, are scheduled to call another psychiatrist later in the week for another opinion.
Simpson trial co-counsel Gabriel Grasso is also scheduled to testify.
Grasso and Galanter split months after the trial, and Grasso later sued Galanter in federal court alleging breach of contract and nonpayment of legal fees. Grasso alleges that Galanter promised him $250,000 but paid just $15,000. Galanter responded with a defamation and slander lawsuit, filed in Miami.
In a sworn statement outlining what he will say, Grasso said he doesn't know if Galanter advised Simpson about recovering property before the incident, and doesn't know if Galanter told Simpson about a prosecution offer of a plea deal.
But Grasso said he thought Simpson should testify before the jury.
During trial, Simpson contends, Galanter "vigorously discouraged" him not to testify, and never told him that prosecutors were willing to let him plead guilty to charges that would have gotten him a minimum of two years in prison.
"He consistently told me the state could not prove its case because I acted within my rights in retaking my own property," Simpson said in a sworn statement outlining what he plans to say when he testifies this week.
Simpson's lawyers also say that while continuing to represent Simpson through oral arguments in a failed 2010 appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, Galanter kept a lid on his own behind-the-scenes involvement. That nearly extinguished any chance Simpson had to claim ineffective representation in state or federal courts.
So the lawyer who was afraid of OJ testifying and that had a conflict also didn't want it pled out? caca
05-13-2013, 04:38 PM
"caca" is right. OJ is still a smug, obnoxious, arrogant and cocky POS.
His entrance into the courtroom:
05-13-2013, 04:50 PM
He's looking a little heavy.
He's looking a little heavy.
prison mac n cheese
05-14-2013, 06:48 PM
Attorney: O.J. didn't intend to commit robbery
By Graham Winch
updated 6:47 PM EDT, Mon May 13, 2013
O.J. Simpson returned to a Las Vegas courtroom Monday in an effort to overturn his 2008 convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping on the basis that he received bad legal advice.
In court filings, Simpson accuses Yale Galanter, his attorney during the robbery case, of failing him in numerous ways. Simpson is expected to take the stand on his behalf during this week’s hearing, which could stretch five days.
If successful at the habeas corpus hearing, Simpson could be granted a new trial for charges related to an incident in which the former football star tried to reclaim memorabilia he claims was stolen from him.
Gabriel Grasso, Simpson's co-counsel during his robbery trial, testified Monday that he believed Simpson had no "intent" to commit robbery.
"The plan was to go in, identify the stuff and call the cops," Grasso said. "O.J. had no intent to commit a robbery in this case."
Grasso said Simpson also did not know that there were firearms present in the room when he confronted the men that allegedly stole his property.
Simpson is currently serving a 33-year prison sentence, and he will be eligible for parole after nine years.
Grasso called Simpson's relationship with Galanter as "caustic," giving the example that Simpson would try to talk to Galanter at trial, but he would tell Simpson to "shut up."
Galanter allegedly failed to pay Grasso for his work on the case, and now Grasso is suing him for over those unpaid fees.
Simpson claims Galanter represented him despite a conflict of interest, improperly advised him not to testify and failed to communicate to Simpson that there was a plea offer on the table.
Grasso said he thought Simpson had to testify during his trial, and it may have made the difference in jurors' minds.
"I said hell yes you are going to testify. I felt he was our best chance to win this case," said Grasso. "I had no doubt O.J. should testify, because he could explain his state of mind."
“The combined derelictions of counsel allowed highly prejudicial argument[s] and inadmissible evidence before the jury, as to which counsel unreasonably failed to seek to limit, to object and to request curative or limiting instructions," wrote Simpson’s current attorney Patricia Palm in habeas corpus petition. "Trial counsel also failed to competently investigate and prepare a defense, advise Simpson regarding a plea offer, advise him regarding the benefit of testifying, advise him regarding his available defense strategies, present available testimony and evidence to support his defense, including expert testimony, request jury instructions that supported the defense, and move for severance.”
Galanter may take the stand to explain his actions and decisions while he was representing Simpson.
Simpson is expected to testify that Galanter advised him that he was within his legal rights to take the memorabilia back.
“Simpson fully disclosed his plan to Yale Galanter, and Galanter advised him that he was within his legal rights and could lawfully go forward with the plan, so long as he did not make any uninvited entry into property of another and did not use physical force to take the property if the sellers would not return the property upon demand,” reads Simpson’s habeas corpus petition. “However, Simpson also contends that Galanter did not advise Simpson that carrying out the plan could subject him to criminal charges, regardless of his ownership of the property.”
Simpson was famously acquitted on murder charges for killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on October 3, 1995.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.