Nevada high court: O.J. jury questions should have been public!

[Galileo]

Nevada high court: O.J. jury questions should have been public!

By The Associated Press

LAS VEGAS — Jury questionnaires in last year's O.J. Simpson robbery-kidnapping trial are subject to public disclosure and should not have been kept from the news media by the judge, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.

In a 6-0 ruling Dec. 24 in Stephens Media v. Dist. Ct., the court sided with open-records arguments by the Associated Press and Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Attorney Donald Campbell, who represented AP and the Review-Journal in the case, hailed the decision as "a victory for the First Amendment and a victory for every citizen."

"One of the most critical features of our legal system is public access and open trials," Campbell said. "This decision reinforces just how important that commitment to full access is."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=22442

This is the first set in overturning an outrage of justice; the persecution of O.J. Simpson by a Police State.
____


Complete O.J. Simpson juror questionnaires released after Supreme Court order

"The 27-page questionnaire with 116 questions was filled out by about 500 potential jurors before the trial.

But only about 50 of the questionnaires are in the District Court evidence room, where the documents are kept.

It was not immediately known what happened to the remaining questionnaires."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/complete-oj-simpson-juror-questionnaires-released-after-supreme-court-order-80254892.html

Hmmm??? Could it be that biased jurors were allowed to judge Simspon?

[ChumpDumper]

No.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm??? Could it be that biased jurors were allowed to judge Simspon?
Hard to say, but so many people were convinced he was guilty of murder, that I would say it is possible.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This is the first set in overturning an outrage of justice; the persecution of O.J. Simpson by a Police State.

no, it's not. this suit is about the ability of the press to view certain public documents and has nothing whatsover to do with the validity or strength of the criminal charges levied against O.J.



Hmmm??? Could it be that biased jurors were allowed to judge Simspon?


probably not, because the judge sitting on the criminal trial would have excluded any juror that expressed a bias against O.J. or any potential criminal defendant similarly situated for that matter.

[Galileo]

no, it's not. this suit is about the ability of the press to view certain public documents and has nothing whatsover to do with the validity or strength of the criminal charges levied against O.J.





probably not, because the judge sitting on the criminal trial would have excluded any juror that expressed a bias against O.J. or any potential criminal defendant similarly situated for that matter.

Mass Deception! You have all been duped!

The OJ Simpson murder trial was the crown jewel of the police state; makes the public think that people acquitted by juries are still guilty, even when they are proven innocent!

You can't win!!!

You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty!

PROOF that OJ Simpson is INNOCENT of murder!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl

[ChumpDumper]

Simpson was proven guilty of kidnapping and robbery.

[Galileo]

Simpson was proven guilty of kidnapping and robbery.

The Supreme court is going to throw those charges out soon.

[Nbadan]

Hard to say, but so many people were convinced he was guilty of murder, that I would say it is possible.

When you remove all the media fluff from the case....the physical evidence points to a strong likelyhood that Simpson did not commit the murders himself...

Now, there's still the possibility he paid someone to do it but that's not how he was tried..

as far as the kidnapping charges, he shouldn't have gone to the hotel room with weapons, but he was just retriving stuff which was his...

...the case should never have been tried in Vegas county..

[Oh, Gee!!]

The OJ Simpson murder trial was the crown jewel of the police state; makes the public think that people acquitted by juries are still guilty, even when they are proven innocent! You can't win!!!

O.J. won that trial--he was free to search for the "real killers" on every exclusive golf resort from L.A. to Honolulu.


You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty!

yep


OJ Simpson is INNOCENT of murder!

according to a jury of 12

[Oh, Gee!!]

The Supreme court is going to throw those charges out soon.

no they're not

[Nbadan]

O.J. won that trial--he was free to search for the "real killers" on every exclusive golf resort from L.A. to Honolulu.
k

Seriously, why should he after the Brown's took all his money? Besides, he knows who the attacker was, his shoe prints were in the blood at the murder scene...

[ChumpDumper]

as far as the kidnapping charges, he shouldn't have gone to the hotel room with weapons, but he was just retriving stuff which was his...Yeah, but that's kidnapping.


...the case should never have been tried in Vegas county..There is no Vegas county.

[Galileo]

When you remove all the media fluff from the case....the physical evidence points to a strong likelyhood that Simpson did not commit the murders himself...

Now, there's still the possibility he paid someone to do it but that's not how he was tried..

as far as the kidnapping charges, he shouldn't have gone to the hotel room with weapons, but he was just retriving stuff which was his...

...the case should never have been tried in Vegas county..

OJ's son Jason ... is HE the guilty one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUg_wzuWAJw

[Galileo]

Yeah, but that's kidnapping.

There is no Vegas county.

The kidnapping charge will be thrown out on appeal. Basically, if you get into an argument with your wife/girlfriend/husband/kid etc. and someone claims that the other blocked the door for 30 seconds, then you have a kidnapping charge.

Sorry, the courts have a limit.

[ChumpDumper]

The kidnapping charge will be thrown out on appeal. Basically, if you get into an argument with your wife/girlfriend/husband/kid etc. and someone claims that the other blocked the door for 30 seconds, then you have a kidnapping charge.

Sorry, the courts have a limit.As I understand it, if you hold someone against his will with a gun in Nevada, that's kidnapping.

I have seen no potential appeal based on the applicability of the kidnapping charge. If you have one, you should post it.

[Galileo]

As I understand it, if you hold someone against his will with a gun in Nevada, that's kidnapping.

I have seen no potential appeal based on the applicability of the kidnapping charge. If you have one, you should post it.

It might be now if your name is OJ. But soon the Supreme Court will throw it out. OJ, at minimum, will be getting a much shorter sentence.

A 60 year old first time offender does not deserve 33 years for a simple argument in a hotel room.

[ChumpDumper]

It might be now if your name is OJ. But soon the Supreme Court will throw it out. OJ, at minimum, will be getting a much shorter sentence.Again, if you have seen a potential appeal based on the actual kidnapping charge, post it.


A 60 year old first time offender does not deserve 33 years for a simple argument in a hotel room.He deserves it for armed kidnapping and robbery. I believe the judge actually received a harsher sentence recommendation from the parole board than Simpson ended up getting.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It might be now if your name is OJ. But soon the Supreme Court will throw it out. OJ, at minimum, will be getting a much shorter sentence.

A 60 year old first time offender does not deserve 33 years for a simple argument in a hotel room.

you have zero understanding of the law. do us a favor and stop posting about things of which you know nothing.

[jack sommerset]

OJ was found guilty because he murdered his wife and that waiter. This trial was payback. One of the dudes he "kidnapped" said OJ didn't kidnap him. The two "victims" said OJ took his own shit back. Some people in the hotel room said there was a gun and others said there was no gun. All of them said OJ did not have a gun.The prosecution durning closing arguements were allowed to discuss the murder trial back in the 90's. The detectives were caught talking about getting OJ back. Of course some others involved in the case got sweetheart deals to go against OJ.

I have zero trouble with OJ being in jail. He is a killer and should have been executed! If this was not OJ, charges would not have been filed. Way too many holes let alone someone being found guilty and gets 10-12 years for this weird ass story/crime. OJ is in jail for taking his own shit back but really killing his wife and that waiter. :lol

[Galileo]

you have zero understanding of the law. do us a favor and stop posting about things of which you know nothing.

I'm an expert. My nme is Galileo. The kidnapping charge is going to be thrown out. OJ's co-defendant is going to get a separate trial as well.

This is the bare minimum. The entire trial was a joke, and it needs a do-over.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm an expert.How long have you practiced criminal law in Nevada?

[Galileo]

How long have you practiced criminal law in Nevada?

Not very long, but my friends do.

[ChumpDumper]

Not very long, but my friends do."Not very long" -- meaning never, right?

Which friend? The one who didn't have a gun in his pants but was just happy to see the police?

[jack sommerset]

Galileo. If you think OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron then OJs recent trial should disturb the fuck out of you. I doubt it does. Other than that, let that dirty fucking piece of shit rot in jail until he dies. He had more than a weekend pass for that murder he committed. He is one lucky mofo being alive.

[doobs]

lol, open records

[Galileo]

Galileo. If you think OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron then OJs recent trial should disturb the fuck out of you. I doubt it does. Other than that, let that dirty fucking piece of shit rot in jail until he dies. He had more than a weekend pass for that murder he committed. He is one lucky mofo being alive.

OJ = Innocent

[FromWayDowntown]

OJ = Innocent

OJ = acquitted in California
Acquitted <> innocent

OJ = guilty in Nevada
Guilty <> innocent

OJ <> innocent

[Nbadan]

OJ = acquitted in California
Acquitted <> innocent

OJ = guilty in Nevada
Guilty <> innocent

OJ <> innocent

....hmmm..

if x <> y
and -x <> y
then x <> -x
and -x<> x

....false...

[FromWayDowntown]

....hmmm..

if x <> y
and -x <> y
then x <> -x
and -x<> x

....false...

Um,

1 <> 2
-1 <> 2
1 <> -1
-1 <> 1

True.

[Fabbs]

When you remove all the media fluff from the case....the physical evidence points to a strong likelyhood that Simpson did not commit the murders himself...
Yes he just assisted Al Cowlings.
The Bruno Magli shoes, the glove, the blood? That skunk Kardashian coming to the house and taking something out (the knife?).

Did you watch the competent trial put on by the civil attys?

[FromWayDowntown]

That the same guys who believe in the 9-11 conspiracy plots also believe that OJ Simpson is somehow just a patsy who is being persecuted by the government strikes me as entirely unsurprising.

[Galileo]

Yes he just assisted Al Cowlings.
The Bruno Magli shoes, the glove, the blood? That skunk Kardashian coming to the house and taking something out (the knife?).

Did you watch the competent trial put on by the civil attys?

The government has to prove that evidence was not planted. Some of the evidence, the defense proved, was planted. For example the bloody glove and the bloody sock.

Other evidence excluded OJ. The timeline excluded OJ. Also, there is no motive. No murder weapon connected to OJ. etc.

The prosecution in the OJ case has a history of charging people with crimes.

[FromWayDowntown]

The government has to prove that evidence was not planted. Some of the evidence, the defense proved, was planted. For example the bloody glove and the bloody sock.

Other evidence excluded OJ. The timeline excluded OJ. Also, there is no motive. No murder weapon connected to OJ. etc.

The prosecution in the OJ case has a history of charging people with crimes.

That's an incorrect statement of the law. The government has to prove a chain of custody when its evidence is challenged, but short of that, the evidence introduced by the government (or by the Defendant) is entitled to a presumption of validity and is susceptible of attack by impeachment -- which places the burden of proof on the party urging that the evidence is somehow not credible. And then, resolution of the question of credibility of the evidence lies with the jury. If the jury doesn't buy the government's story, it elects to disregard the evidence. And if the evidence is significant enough, that election can provide the basis for an acquittal.

One might argue that such is the basis for O.J. Simpson's acquittal.

Likewise, motive is not an element necessary to prove homicide in any state. A person can be convicted of murder without having had any motive at all -- that's exactly the basis for convicting people of murders committed in "the heat of the moment," which is a fairly common basis for intentional homicides.

But the fact that OJ was acquitted of a crime has NOTHING to do with his civil liability for the conduct that led to the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

You repeatedly conflate the burdens of proof in civil cases and criminal cases. They are entirely different and pretending that they are not is silly. A person who is acquitted of the crime of intentional homicide (murder) is not necessarily innocent of participating in the killing; an acquittal is more appropriately a finding that the State failed to sustain its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the Defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. This means there is a greatly reduced burden of proof on the Plaintiff in a civil case. Thus, a jury could find that it is more likely than not that Simpson was involved in the wrongful deaths of Nicole and Goldman and a different jury could find that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson intended to murder those two -- and given the varying burdens of proof, the two verdicts are entirely consistent.

Oh, and prosecutors are obligated to charge people with crimes (at least to urge grand juries to indict them of crimes) -- it's kind of their jobs.

[Galileo]

That's an incorrect statement of the law. The government has to prove a chain of custody when its evidence is challenged, but short of that, the evidence introduced by the government (or by the Defendant) is entitled to a presumption of validity and is susceptible of attack by impeachment -- which places the burden of proof on the party urging that the evidence is somehow not credible. And then, resolution of the question of credibility of the evidence lies with the jury. If the jury doesn't buy the government's story, it elects to disregard the evidence. And if the evidence is significant enough, that election can provide the basis for an acquittal.

One might argue that such is the basis for O.J. Simpson's acquittal.

Likewise, motive is not an element necessary to prove homicide in any state. A person can be convicted of murder without having had any motive at all -- that's exactly the basis for convicting people of murders committed in "the heat of the moment," which is a fairly common basis for intentional homicides.

But the fact that OJ was acquitted of a crime has NOTHING to do with his civil liability for the conduct that led to the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

You repeatedly conflate the burdens of proof in civil cases and criminal cases. They are entirely different and pretending that they are not is silly. A person who is acquitted of the crime of intentional homicide (murder) is not necessarily innocent of participating in the killing; an acquittal is more appropriately a finding that the State failed to sustain its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the Defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. This means there is a greatly reduced burden of proof on the Plaintiff in a civil case. Thus, a jury could find that it is more likely than not that Simpson was involved in the wrongful deaths of Nicole and Goldman and a different jury could find that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson intended to murder those two -- and given the varying burdens of proof, the two verdicts are entirely consistent.

Oh, and prosecutors are obligated to charge people with crimes (at least to urge grand juries to indict them of crimes) -- it's kind of their jobs.

I suggest you go and investigate what the jurors themselves said about the case (not what media "experts" said about the jurors thinking).

The media was sure to blanket us with info about everybody involved in the case; defense lawyers, witnesses, prosecutors, detectives, judges, family of victims, coke sluts, etc.

But 99% of the nation has no idea what the jurors think besides their verdict.

The jurors made this clear:

The timeline does not work. OJ and Kato went to the McDonald's drivethrough and bought some burgers. They were seen on video establishing an exact time a fair distance from OJ's house. We also know exactly when the limo driver picked up OJ and took him to the airport.

What the government claims is that OJ got home from a routine drivethrough visit with Kato, then out of the blue, decided to drive across town and murder his ex-wife because they got into an argument 5 years earlier, then he came back and got on the plane for a professional engagement. All in a half hour.

There was not enough time to do this. This proves that the blood evidence had to be planted right there.

OJ won the trial during the first two days of cross-examination. F. Lee Bailey cross-examined detectives Tom Lange and Phililp Van Atter about OJ's timeline.

Bailey proves that the government's case was impossible. The rest of the evidence has to fit into the timeline. A juror would reasonably presume that OJ could not fake the time his plane took off or the time he was seen on the McDonald's videotape. But it is easy to fake blood evidence, you just take OJ's blood and plant it.

(The other problem is that most of the blood didn't match OJ, it matched Jason Simspon, the real killer)

Here is an example of F. Lee Bailey in action at the trial:

F. LEE BAILEY -- CROSS-EXAMINATION of a witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9L4tbAhuwg

The witness is a lying ass moron. What bullshit he says is not evidence. he is full of shit and no reasonable person would believe him. The witness has to prove what he says is true, not the other wat around. The police also tampered wit the crime scene to hide exculpatory evidence, as this clip shows.

If anyone has video footage of the first two days of trial, with F. Lee Bailey crossing Lange and van Atter, please let me know.

The reason the prosecution was critisized as being "unorganized" has to do with the first two days of trial.

The prosecution knew they had lost the trial. So they had to totally change their strategy whch included planting evidence. That's why a lot of the prosecution's key evidence was not mentioned in the opening satement; it had not been planted yet!

[FromWayDowntown]

I suggest you go and investigate what the jurors themselves said about the case (not what media "experts" said about the jurors thinking).

The media was sure to blanket us with info about everybody involved in the case; defense lawyers, witnesses, prosecutors, detectives, judges, family of victims, coke sluts, etc.

But 99% of the nation has no idea what the jurors think besides their verdict.

The jurors made this clear:

The timeline does not work. OJ and Kato went to the McDonald's drivethrough and bought some burgers. They were seen on video establishing an exact time a fair distance from OJ's house. We also know exactly when the limo driver picked up OJ and took him to the airport.

What the government claims is that OJ got home from a routine drivethrough visit with Kato, then out of the blue, decided to drive across town and murder his ex-wife because they got into an argument 5 years earlier, then he came back and got on the plane for a professional engagement. All in a half hour.

There was not enough time to do this. This proves that the blood evidence had to be planted right there.

OJ won the trial during the first two days of cross-examination. F. Lee Bailey cross-examined detectives Tom Lange and Phililp Van Atter about OJ's timeline.

Bailey proves that the government's case was impossible. The rest of the evidence has to fit into the timeline. A juror would reasonably presume that OJ could not fake the time his plane took off or the time he was seen on the McDonald's videotape. But it is easy to fake blood evidence, you just take OJ's blood and plant it.

(The other problem is that most of the blood didn't match OJ, it matched Jason Simspon, the real killer)

Here is an example of F. Lee Bailey in action at the trial:

F. LEE BAILEY -- CROSS-EXAMINATION of a witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9L4tbAhuwg

The witness is a lying ass moron. What bullshit he says is not evidence. he is full of shit and no reasonable person would believe him. The witness has to prove what he says is true, not the other wat around. The police also tampered wit the crime scene to hide exculpatory evidence, as this clip shows.

If anyone has video footage of the first two days of trial, with F. Lee Bailey crossing Lange and van Atter, please let me know.

The reason the prosecution was critisized as being "unorganized" has to do with the first two days of trial.

The prosecution knew they had lost the trial. So they had to totally change their strategy whch included planting evidence. That's why a lot of the prosecution's key evidence was not mentioned in the opening satement; it had not been planted yet!

None of that has anything to do with your wholly incorrect assertions about the burdens of proof upon parties in civil and criminal cases.

Are you saying that what the 12 jurors in the criminal trial thought forecloses the possibility that any other 12 jurors, asked to review the facts under a different burden of proof and presented by a different group of attorneys, could conclude differently?

I watched the entire OJ criminal trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think it's decision to acquit him was legally correct.

I paid close attention to the OJ civil trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think the decision to find him civilly liable was legally correct.

Those verdicts are in perfect harmony, to me.

By the way, I've driven from Rockingham to Gretna Greene in mid-afternoon traffic; having done that, it strikes me as entirely possible. Particularly for someone who knows exactly where he's going and for someone who is dedicated to get there and back quickly. It's not as if he drove from Malibu to downtown LA and back.

[Galileo]

None of that has anything to do with your wholly incorrect assertions about the burdens of proof upon parties in civil and criminal cases.

Are you saying that what the 12 jurors in the criminal trial thought forecloses the possibility that any other 12 jurors, asked to review the facts under a different burden of proof and presented by a different group of attorneys, could conclude differently?

I watched the entire OJ criminal trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think it's decision to acquit him was legally correct.

I paid close attention to the OJ civil trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think the decision to find him civilly liable was legally correct.

Those verdicts are in perfect harmony, to me.

By the way, I've driven from Rockingham to Gretna Greene in mid-afternoon traffic; having done that, it strikes me as entirely possible. Particularly for someone who knows exactly where he's going and for someone who is dedicated to get there and back quickly. It's not as if he drove from Malibu to downtown LA and back.

The police have to prove that evidence was not planted. The defense does not have to prove it was planted. Providing chain of custody is not proof.

[FromWayDowntown]

The police have to prove that evidence was not planted. The defense does not have to prove it was planted. Providing chain of custody is not proof.

Are you saying that if a prosecutor wants to introduce evidence at trial, he must first prove that it wasn't planted?

That would suggest a presumption that all evidence is planted unless otherwise shown. Is that really what you're saying? If so, I'd love to see some legal authority to support that suggestion.

[Galileo]

Are you saying that if a prosecutor wants to introduce evidence at trial, he must first prove that it wasn't planted?

That would suggest a presumption that all evidence is planted unless otherwise shown. Is that really what you're saying? If so, I'd love to see some legal authority to support that suggestion.

No, I'm not saying that.

Most prosecutors have a history of blaming other people for crimes. Police have a motive to lie because they want to convict people. What they say should not be believed, unless they can prove it.

:hat

[FromWayDowntown]

No, I'm not saying that.

Most prosecutors have a history of blaming other people for crimes. Police have a motive to lie because they want to convict people. What they say should not be believed, unless they can prove it.

:hat

Since you accuse them of blaming other people for crimes, are you suggesting that prosecutors volunteer themselves for conviction for those crimes?

Or, are prosecutors not supposed to seek indictments and convictions? Should we just stop altogether with criminal prosecutions.

By the way, that whole burden of proof thing makes juries put prosecutors to their proof. They have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt to secure convictions. If juries don't believe them, they acquit those accused of crimes.

If criminal defendants and criminal defense attorneys think prosecutors are untrustworthy -- or, more to your point, if they believe prosecutors are manufacturing evidence to obtain convictions -- then they have the opportunity to rebut the evidence used to obtain convictions.

I'd tend to agree that there is no more heinous crime in our society than manufacturing evidence to support the conviction of a completely innocent person. But I don't think the fear of that should support a systemic belief that all prosecutorial proof is suspect.

[Galileo]

Since you accuse them of blaming other people for crimes, are you suggesting that prosecutors volunteer themselves for conviction for those crimes?

Or, are prosecutors not supposed to seek indictments and convictions? Should we just stop altogether with criminal prosecutions.

By the way, that whole burden of proof thing makes juries put prosecutors to their proof. They have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt to secure convictions. If juries don't believe them, they acquit those accused of crimes.

If criminal defendants and criminal defense attorneys think prosecutors are untrustworthy -- or, more to your point, if they believe prosecutors are manufacturing evidence to obtain convictions -- then they have the opportunity to rebut the evidence used to obtain convictions.

I'd tend to agree that there is no more heinous crime in our society than manufacturing evidence to support the conviction of a completely innocent person. But I don't think the fear of that should support a systemic belief that all prosecutorial proof is suspect.

I would never believe what a prosecutor says. They actually make a living off of crime.

[FromWayDowntown]

I would never believe what a prosecutor says. They actually make a living off of crime.

So do criminal defense attorneys.

And judges who preside over criminal courts.

And the personnel who work in those courts.

[ChumpDumper]

I would never believe what a prosecutor says. They actually make a living off of crime.So do criminals.

[Nbadan]

Yes he just assisted Al Cowlings.
The Bruno Magli shoes, the glove, the blood? That skunk Kardashian coming to the house and taking something out (the knife?).

Did you watch the competent trial put on by the civil attys?

I think beyond a doubt it proves that OJ was at the scene of the crime, but it does not prove that OJ committed the murder.....beyond what you mentioned, you have the physical evidence at the crime scene which you can examine in pics available on these fine internets...there was a life and death struggle with Ron Goldman, who had some karate training...... the bodies of both Goldman and Nichole, there is just no way OJ could have walked away from that with just a small cut on his finger...his attacker would have been marked up and really, really sore....

[Nbadan]

Um,

1 <> 2
-1 <> 2
1 <> -1
-1 <> 1

True.

but...

p = --p
and - (p ^ -p)
so, p = (p ^ q)