The Case of the State of Nevada Vs. Orenthal James Simpson Et Al

The trial and conviction stage of the case of Nevada vs. Orenthal James Simpson et al, case #07-C-237890-C is over. All that remains to be done are the sentencing hearing scheduled for December 5, 2008. The jurors have spoken and the State of Nevada won their case. On October 13, 2008, Simpson and his co-defendant, Charles "CJ" Stewart, were found guilty of all twelve charges against them, including felony kidnapping, felony armed robbery, conspiracy, coercion, and assault with a deadly weapon.

From the beginning and before the trial itself started, it was, from my personal viewpoint, obvious that the witnesses for the State were lying in exchange for their testimony against Simpson. Almost every person involved in the kidnapping and robbery itself became State witnesses. Thomas Ricco astoundingly was granted total immunity from prosecution even though he set these events in motion. Walter Alexander, Michael McClinton, Charles Ehrlich, and Charles Cashman, each one made a sweetheart deal with the prosecution in the hopes of getting lighter sentences. Some of the witnesses will not receive a sentence at all. These particular sweetheart deals are highly suspect since the witnesses hoped to gain leniency for themselves at the expense of "truth and justice" and the personal freedom of Simpson.

Alfred Beardsley stated in the current court trial that he and Simpson had been setup by Thomas Ricco. He wanted to drop the charges against Simpson and just wanted everything to go away. After all, he knew the property he and Bruce Fromong were trying to sell did not actually belong to them and was already stolen property. Ricco himself, who set up the meeting and then recorded everything that happened with a view of using it to make money, to the tune of $210,000.00, believed Simpson was not guilty. There were many players in this trial, but only two certain losers because the deck was stacked against them from the moment Simpson decided to retrieve his belongings.

Regardless of the moral conviction of many that Simpson was guilty in the 1995 murder case, the legal laws of the United States found that the State did not prove their case against him. Without being able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that Simpson committed the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, Simpson became a free man.

Whose fault was that?

Perhaps, it was the witnesses Jose Camacho, who because he sold his story to the tabloid National Enquirer for $12,500, was not given the opportunity to testify against Simpson. Prosecutor Marcia Clark dismissed Jill Shively, in part because of the now defunct HardCopy interview Shively did for the sum of $5000 on June 20, 1994, and because of an untruthful statement made during the Grand Jury proceedings on June 22, 1994. Perhaps as stated on "CNN Presents" with Correspondent Art Harris, it was all the other witnesses not heard by the jury in Simpson's trial. People like Mark Fuhrman, Fay Resnick, Marcus Allen, Rosa Lopez, Mary Anne Gerchas, and even Simpson himself.

Perhaps, it was the criminologists who could not gather or record and store evidence according to the law? Perhaps, it was the police who, in order to make a stronger case against Simpson, may have manipulated and created evidence? Perhaps the fault lies with the prosecution who insisted on asking the one question they did not know the answer to prior to asking. Then again, maybe it is the possibility, if not fact, that Simpson did not commit the murders.

Should Simpson have been found guilty based on what happened in his murder trial in 1995? Only the jurors would be able to make that decision if they were competent to follow the law (as is written) and the rules given to them by the judge. They should have made their decision based on their legal and ethical views of these laws and not on the moral view of the "presumption of guilt" that many of the jurors had.

Yet, the evidence exists that these jurors did indeed make the decision to make Simpson "pay for his alleged previous crimes" regarding the 1994 murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. According to jury questionnaires, five of the 12 jurors stated that they disagreed with the 1995 verdict that cleared Simpson of murder. The rest claimed to be uncertain or did not answer the question. It is obvious to many that these jurors were lying because they did not dare lose their chance at finally convicting the man they believed responsible for the murders in 1994.

The fact that the media continued to trumpet that Simpson "got away with murder" made the legal battle for Simpson more difficult. Since it was impossible that Simpson was going to get away from the media-induced public opinion of the case from 14 years ago, he faced certain conviction in his current trial. Selecting a jury in this case was tantamount to selecting jurors against Osama Bin Laden from the relatives of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

In this country, being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent", but these are the laws that we have in place. To continue to vilify a man because he was legally deemed not guilty is against all that we hold valuable in our society. This is why we have trials in the first place. To convict a man based on a crime that happened in 1994 and for which he was found not guilty is a shame and another black eye against the United States and every one of its citizens.

Should Simpson have been convicted due to the notion of "belated justice" in his current trial based on what happened in his murder trial in 1995? There was never any doubt that the answer would be yes. As reported by Fox News on October 4, 2008, Gloria Allred, attorney for the Goldman family, in an interview after the verdict stated, "There is justice. Justice was delayed, but in this case it was not denied. Now that he may spend the rest of his life in prison, the law, and not O.J. Simpson, will have the last word."

Delayed justice? Is this the new legal concept for the United States of American today? If this is true, it should strike fear into the hearts of every man, woman, and juvenile who has been an offender or may become an offender in the criminal justice system, because decisions in your favor now may become the fodder for your next conviction.

Simpson now convicted of an armed robbery that happened on September 13 and found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial. Was it karma for past sins? Or, instead "belated justice" for alleged past crimes? In my opinion, The State of Nevada and its jurors, in order to make a statement, carefully and pointedly orchestrated every moment from the filing of charges to the conviction. The statement for the world to know is that "belated justice" does work.

The case of Nevada vs. Orenthal James Simpson et al is over. The jurors have spoken and the State won their case. Congratulatory pats on the backs and high fives may rule at this time for those involved in convicting Simpson. They indeed have shown our nation that they have had the last word. Or, have they?

Sources:
O. J. Simpson Transcripts, Jose Camachio 1995 Witness List - Preliminary Hearing
O. J. Simpson Transcripts, Jill Shively 1995 Grand Jury, June 22, 1994
Fox News, 'In the end, O.J. Simpson comes up a loser in Vegas"
Saturday, October 04, 2008, By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
"CNN Presents" with Correspondent Art Harris, "What the jury didn't see"
September 24, 1995
O.J. Simpson Found Guilty On All Charges In Robbery-Kidnap Trial, Associated Press