O.J. on ice

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

The AA population in LV was 10.36% as of the 2000 census.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Look, the lawyers picked the jury. If you have a beef with the fact that there are no blacks on the jury it very well may be his attorneys' fault. Hard to imagine the prosecutors got away with knocking off every African American without raising a Batson problem. So blame OJ's lawyers, not the system.

As for the "crucial" question that you mentioned, as stated above, the judge repeatedly and emphatically covered this during her own comments and questions to the jury. Believe it or not, the lawyers are not always allowed to do the questioning of jurors, sometimes judges get involved -- like in most federal cases. Somehow defense attorneys manage to represent their clients without ever getting the chance to question the jury directly or to get every question they desire put to the jury.

As for your concern that OJ may not get the "fairest" trial he could, I hate to break it to you but almost no defendant gets the fairest trial he could. OJ received a lot more breaks than the average defendant during his first trial. You should be more concerned with the average African American defendant in American courtrooms that is not a cult figure to many communities, that does not have the resources to pay for Johnnie Cochran and a team of lawyers and experts. The average African American defendant gets crushed in courtrooms every day in our country. Yet all anyone cares about is poor OJ Simpson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Paul, which equates to one juror. In OJ's murder case he had 9 AAs (75%); yet the jury pool was only 28% black.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

I'm with you on this Jeff. I was refuting ali's statement about doubting LV's pop was only 10% black.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Ali, I think Jeff is in violent agreement with you...

Jeff, your last post on the Mastro thread was friggin' hilarious!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

Psst, Ali.

You might want to trust Jeff's opinion on this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Is anyone covering the OJ trial on TV. Court TV did such a great job on high profile cases in the past and I was wondering if there were any cameras in the courtroom now that the trial is starting.

Thanks

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Ali,

If I can get Mel Stottlemyre Sr. to drop by the board, would you be willing to debate him on the proper mechanics of pitching?

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

He's the expert.

BTW, when the OJ case came up it was supposed to be tried in the West district, in the Santa Monica courthouse. Santa Monica is a coastal community near the murder scene that would have drawn jurors from an affluent area known as the "Westside" of LA. Odds are the jury pool would have looked pretty much like the OJ civil trial (which was held in Santa Monica) did; 3/4 white with a few Hispanic and Asian jurors. Instead, the case was transferred downtown to the criminal courts there, where the jury pool tended at the time to be mostly poor and minority, drawn from East LA and South Central (all the jury pools have changed somewhat since the 1990s owing to changes in the jury process that now pool jurors from all over the place downtown, but I digress). At the time of the OJ case, among the civil lawyers in LA downtown was known as "The Bank" for the propensity of its juries to stick it to perceived powerful, rich or corporate defendants, and my colleagues who practiced criminal defense also liked their odds downtown with a black defendant as compared to a wealthier, whiter community.

I remember having a conversation with the other attorneys at the firm where I was working when the venue change was announced and the first thing all of us said when we heard was that the fix was in, OJ was not going to be convicted, because getting a downtown jury to convict him would have been next to impossible in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. Personally, I don't see that the officials conspired to throw the case but I certainly think part of the idea behind the transfer of venues was a political play designed to make sure the faces judging OJ would mostly be black, so that there would not be anothe race riot if he was convicted. You may recall that the Rodney King beating case was transferred out of Los Angeles County to a distant bedroom community called Simi Valley, that at the time was also known as "Copland" because it was very white and heavily populated with law enforcement personnel families, and the ensuing verdict was the trigger for the riots.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Why am I sitting here on a Sunday night reading a thread where someone instructs Jeff and Adam in the nuances of jury selection?


(Rob D.- Mel Stottlemyre Sr. was the best you could do as a pitching coach?)

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

why are you reading it Jim? BTW, I don't recall Ali instructing on the nuances of jury selection. I do see a couple of people expressing their opinions and discomfort with the jury makeup in OJ's pending trial. Should they be allowed to have an opinion?- or should you and the few others who make their snide comments and add nothing to the discussion effectively squelch them and tell them to go back and sit in their corner?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Good questions Todd.

1.)I guess, technically, by the rules of the board, we shouldn't be having an OJ Simpson discussion on a vintage baseball card board. You ask: "Should they be allowed to have an opinion?" Sure. But not here.

2.) I never mentioned ali, or anyone else by name. That's your inference.

3.) There was nothing snide in my original post. (Can't promise the same for this one.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

beg to differ pretty much all the way around. Why not object to the topic being discussed at all, since this a vintage baseball card forum? That wasn't your point at all.

Second, to whom were you referring as having "instructed on the nuances of jury deliberation" if not Ali? Whoever it was, substitute his name and my remark stays the same.

You were not trying to be snide? What then--funny?

IMHO, there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

<<there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time.>>

And you're asking me why I'm reading the thread? If you hate the board so much why read and post at all?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

who said I hated this board? I do dislike what I perceive to be a downturn in quality and increases in what I perceive as cliques and uncivility, and I am registering my opinion toward that end. As I mentioned to you in another thread, I've been around, and I have seen this forum in a variety of conditions. I will opine that there are others who post less frequently or not at all because of what they see as the personalities and direction of the board, myself included. Disregard my opinion if you wish. I will leave or post as I see fit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

<<Disregard my opinion if you wish.>>

I will gratiously accept this piece of advice from you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

"If I can get Mel Stottlemyre Sr. to drop by the board, would you be willing to debate him on the proper mechanics of pitching?"

Personally, I would rather have Col. Sanders expound on those eleven uber-mysterious herbs and spices. I'm finger-lickin' curious, damnit!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

When I first posted, was coming off the the discussion on Mastro of those who damage the hobby (reporters or those who try to scam). Yes, I led with the question about OJ getting a fair trial, but followed up with he question about the 'dealers' who he is accused of kidnapping and robbing [sic].

You're right that this is not a forum about vintage football, but it does seem to be the place to out unscrupulous people who really do damage the hobby by trying to take advantage of others. Was hoping people would have some insight into who these folks are/were as that seems to have been completely bypassed by the DA, judge, and media, save for the nephew of the the judge who briefly acknowledged they were not good folks, but that didn't make them any less victims.

From his treatise on what a super jurist his aunt is, and his assertion that OJ will get a fair trial since his aunt is so on point (regardless of being challenged in the Nevada Supreme Court and letting perjurists into the jury pool), I couldn't disagree more. I think the fix is in, these people are looking to grab headlines (the circus is in full swing in Vegas) and the issue of the thieves who were fencing stolen goods is almost completely ignored. Shame on the DA, Judge Glass, and the media for ignoring the issue of what thieves these folks are.

And just one more question, seriously, what is the race/color of the "victims"?

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Circus is correct but the race/color of the victims is no consequence because there is no hate crime committed.

The trial is not about whether the victims are truly horrible people (they may well be) but if a crime was committed by the alleged criminals.

Are you of the opinion that because these "victims" are the scum of the hobby that they got what they deserved?

As to my aunt...every Judge is appealed. Show me one who has not been appealed in their career.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dave, I agree with your sentiment about how bad the 'victims' are; however, this kind of situation plays out all the time in court. I can't tell you how many murderers I've cross-examined who have spent a total of 2 years in prison for their crimes but suddenly are presented as decent, law-abiding folk when testifying for the government. Witnesses get caught lying on the stand every day and are never charged with perjury if they cooperate with the government. This is just how the system unfortunately is.

As I stated above, I find it hard to believe OJ would have been charged in this case if not for his past transgressions. For what it's worth, however, none of this suggests that the judge is crooked; she's presented the case that the prosecutors brought.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Not sure how I missed this: "Personally, I would rather have Col. Sanders expound on those eleven uber-mysterious herbs and spices. I'm finger-lickin' curious, damnit!"

Snarky!

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

I remember vividly my disbelief when the prosecution agreed to the change of venue in the murder trial -- that they could be so naive to believe that the evidence was so rock solid that any jury would convict him. I agree that the rationale behind the venue change was to avoid another race riot if he was convicted, but my feeling at the time was that the prosecution lost the case the moment they agreed to it.

I also am amazed at how stupid Simpson was to have taken the actions he did in Las Vagas. If there was any current of electrical activity going on between his ears, he had to know that he was a marked man and that law enforcement would be looking for any opportunity for payback. After all, in his murder trial didn't he forcefully argue that the LAPD was biased against him, that despite the likelihood that over the years they probably bent over backwards to give him special celebrity privileges. It still blows my mind the absolute dumb luck of the defense that the guy (Mark Fuhrman?) who found the bloody glove on Simpson's property was a documented racist. Talk about a dream situation for the defense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Josh,

How naive can you be?

There are reams of data to show that blacks do not get a fair shake from all white juries -- even when they are the victims. Just ask Medgar Evers widow.

What crime?! They were fencing stolen goods.

No, not every judge is appealed... only the ones who don't follow the law. Nice generalization though.

And of course no mention of her letting people who purjure themselves into the pool. Yeah, she's really on point on that one.

But I will acknowlege that the real fault lies with the DA in this case. Your aunt is just an enabler. She should be going out of her way to be FULLY transparent, not hiding the info the prejudiced folks wrote in the questionaires. I served on a jury in Manhattan last year and some clown who lied on his application got to spend a night in jail for perjuring himself -- and he wasn't even a cop. That's how it's supposed to work. The court is supposed to be above reproach.

And OJ is a dope for using self-help -- he should have called the police. But kidnapping and armed robbery?

Please.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Regardless of how you feel about the case or the judge's actions, it would be kind of everyone to keep in mind that she's the fellow's aunt. Thanks for reading.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

"IMHO, there is far too much good-ol-boying here, and this forum has suffered from it for some time."

But good ol boy isn't one of them.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Dave S.,

I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, have never picked a jury, and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. Your observations are completely inaccurate in almost every respect.

First, every judge is appealed. Sometimes they are wrong, more often they are right, at least according to the appellate courts. When you start dissing a judge, whether they are appealed is absolutely NOT the issue. I am far more concerned with their reversal rate.

As for picking a jury, prospective jurors routinely say things that you would think should cause them to be removed for cause (i.e., that they should be removed because they can't be fair), then they reverse themselves upon further questioning. Lawyers call that "rehabilitating" the juror and it happens in almost every case that's tried.

Whether or not the "rehabilitation" has been successful is the question that the judge has to decide when the challenge for cause is made. Lots of time, the judge decides that the juror has been rehabilitated and denies the challenge for cause. Then the lawyer can decide whether or not to strike the juror by use of a peremptory challenge, which more or less means that you kick them off because you still think he or she won't be favorable to your side. While there are some constitutional limits to the use of peremptory challenges in theory, as TBob noted earler, there aren't too many in practice.

You may not like it, but that's the way it works. The composition of the jury that was seated in OJ's case is almost certainly not the fault of the judge. Nor does the fact that the news services appealed the judge's ruling on their right to get the jury questionnaire mean anything about her ability as a jurist. In fact, I fervently hope that they lose that appeal because there is NO institution I am aware of that is more able to influence the result of a jury deliberation than the press. If you are truly concerned about OJ getting a fair shake, IMO you should applaud the judge's decison not to allow the press access to the questionnaires before the start of trial, not claim that it shows how wrong she is.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Last on this from me...I cannot believe people emailed me some hate filled notes and essentially called my aunt (and as an extension) myself a racist.

Let me thank Kenny, Jeff, Adam, and Jodi for being the voices of reason and support.

I am not a judge or lawyer and get my news the same way as everyone else (not from my aunt). I really just wanted to point out that she really did not want this case and that she will do her best. If you disagree with her rulings, decisions, or the way she runs her court...move to Vegas and vote or run for her judgeship (I will tell you she ran unopposed in the last election).

Do not send me emails, write on here that she is wrong, misguided, or a fool. I will no longer respond. I love cards but I love my family more.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

I'm sorry to hear that people have hate spammed you -- that is a bummer -- and uncalled for.

WRT your aunt, she's a civil servant and she ran for office, so there is no sympathy that did not want the case. I can tell you about a number of cops I know that did not want to go into drug infested neighborhoods and get shot at, but that's the job. No one made her run for a seat on the bench. I don't need to move to a frontier town to have that opinion or to state it.

My original question, again, was can OJ get a fair trial from an all-white jury, not can he get a fair trial from your aunt. Sadly, based on the fact that she allowed that ex-cop and others into the jury pool, the perception is that he will not get a fair trial. You opened the door when you expounded on what a great lawyer and fair judge she is and based on what has been reported, I think quite the opposite. Call me crazy, my opinion, which I am entitled to. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.

BTW, if you get your news from the regular media outlets, how do you know that she didn't want the case? Josh, I've been dinging you on your inconsistencies, but certainly not for being a racist.

Kenny, if you have ever tried a case in NYC or been on a jury in what is surely one of the most liberal districts in the USA, you know that lying on a jury questionaire is not tolerated for two seconds. And it shouldn't be. It taints the jury pool and is not in the spirit of jury service. The courts have enough trouble getting people to empanel juries w/o having to deal with jackasses who think they can game the system. I don't think he was trying to game the system though, I suspect he was being honest on the questionaire and lied when he was called out -- hence the perjury.

Maybe in whatever court you practice in that is tolerated, but when someone's life is at stake, it's shameful to allow that kind of behavior. This is a high profile case and it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of media coverage. That is not a bad thing, unless you live in Russia or China where the media is controlled.

No one wants to come right out and say it, but the truth is the deck is totally stacked against OJ, and it doesn't look good for him. And maybe in Karma World, he does have it coming... but in the America, justice is supposed to be blind, and for that I would like to see the DA and the courts act accordingly so that if it is me, or you, or one of your family members or Bill Mastro one day in the dock you at least know you will get a fair and impartial trial by a jury of your peers.

Forgive me for being so idealistic as to expect that in the 21st century.

Fine with you not reponding, I have no problem with whatever cards you like and believe you are standing up for your family, however misguided.

C'est la vie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

O.J. Simpson accuser says he had football star's family heirlooms



Fromong said he called "Inside Edition" shortly after he was allegedly robbed at gunpoint by Simpson and his associates.

Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong's testimony appears to support the defense argument in the robbery-kidnap case.

By Ashley Powers and Harriet Ryan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 17, 2008

LAS VEGAS -- Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong testified today that he considered some of the items taken from him by O.J. Simpson to be the former football star's family heirlooms.

"I believed these items belonged to Mr. Simpson's family," he said. "They should go to his kids."

Full coverage: O.J. Simpson trial Alleged O.J. Simpson robbery victim...Though Fromong estimated the value of the items taken at up to $100,000, he said he and Simpson "could have come to some arrangement" regarding their return.

Fromong was not asked to reconcile this belief with his attempt to sell the items at Palace Station Hotel & Casino, where he was expecting to meet a wealthy buyer. Instead, he was confronted by an angry Simpson and five associates.

Fromong's statements appeared to support the defense argument that Simpson was simply trying to retrieve stolen mementos, including pictures of his children and his late parents, on Sept. 13, 2007. In fact, Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso intimated that Simpson had no use for the Pete Rose baseballs and Joe Montana lithographs taken from the room.

"Has O.J. ever talked to you about what a big Joe Montana fan he is?" Grasso asked this morning.

"He's a Barry Sanders fan," Fromong said, to laughter.

Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence Stewart, 54, are accused of robbing Fromong and another collectibles dealer at gunpoint. They face a dozen charges -- including kidnapping, which carries a potential life sentence.

In his second day of testimony at the robbery-kidnap trial here, Fromong acknowledged trying to sell sports collectibles on eBay by advertising them as "the same as the ones stolen from me" by Simpson. He also admitted phoning the TV show "Inside Edition" shortly after the incident.

"You wanted big money," charged Grasso. Fromong initially denied it, but the attorney confronted him with an audiotape in which he said of his call to the tabloid program, "I told them I want big money."

Simpson's attorneys are expected to accuse multiple witnesses -- including former codefendants now cooperating with the prosecution -- of seeking media attention, book deals and money after the alleged robbery.

Grasso also tried to point out apparent inconsistencies in Fromong's account of the confrontation. Fromong's testimony was cut short Monday after he complained of feeling dizzy and lightheaded.

Fromong had also testified that Simpson and five associates -- two of them carrying guns -- rushed into the hotel room. During the six-minute encounter, Fromong said, Simpson waved an arm up and down while someone yelled "put the gun down."

Under questioning, Fromong admitted that he never mentioned those details during statements to police or in his preliminary hearing testimony.

Fromong also conceded that the initial description he gave police of the perpetrators' race was incorrect. He told a detective all the men accompanying Simpson were African Americans. Two were actually white.

Fromong's turn on the stand also provided additional insight into what prosecutors say is a connection between the alleged robbery and Simpson's attempts to avoid paying a civil judgment.

Simpson was acquitted in the slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995. Two years later, a civil jury ordered him to pay $33.5 million.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dave, I may be in the minority, but I am convinced OJ will not get convicted in this case. I'm still amazed they brought it at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"Grasso also tried to point out apparent inconsistencies in Fromong's account of the confrontation. Fromong's testimony was cut short Monday after he complained of feeling dizzy and lightheaded."

I wonder if this would work with my wife next time she confronts me. Why didn't I take out the garbage? Er...Emmm....I feel lightheaded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Jeff, I think you may be right by virtue of the fact of how lame the prosecution and their witnesses were today. KTLA.com is streaming the trial live and I had it on in the background for a while this afternoon. I think he was feeling dizzy and lightheaded from having his ass handed to him by defense council -- there were a couple Law and Order moments, the only thing missing was the gong-gong and cut to commercial...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

I guess we have our answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

he deserves life in prison.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

He deserves life in prison for killing two people, but not for breaking into a hotel room.

One has to wonder if the jury had this on their minds, and it will be interesting to see what sentence is imposed.

But no sympathy from me. Hope he goes away for as long as possible.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I believe it is the judge's call except for the imposition of the death penalty.

Personally, I hope they throw away the key...anything that makes his autograph harder to get so mine goes up in value. What? Don't pretend you didn't sell NASA short the day the Challenger exploded?

J/K

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Will be interesting to see what the judge does; I mean, he robbed his own stuff from a bunch of lowlifes (like him). How much time does that deserve? Will the judge punish him more because he got away with murder? Or will the judge bend over backwards to give the appearance of fairness by only punishing him for the robbery/kidnapping?

I remember after his murder case thinking, "this is not going to be good for future criminal defendants in America" as every time a defense lawyer made an argument before a jury, the jury would think they were having one put over on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Barry, there were more counts than breaking into the hotel room, but I
agree with the sentiment. I'd think OJ will be back out while most of us
are still around. But that might take some time...

J Levine doesn't deserve emails and such. Email and fuss with me if you
want to verbally spar.

And for a judge, being appealed is kinda neat, it gives you a chance at
seeing if a higher court thought you got it right or not. Otherwise, it
would be like taking bunches of tests that were never graded. An appeal
gives you a chance to see how you did.

Realistically, it might have been a sly prosecutorial move to try to
leave one black juror on the panel, just to make appeals less problematic.
That wasn't done. Obviously it will be appealed. And the results of that
will take a while. Someone needs to revive this thread when that happens.

Jeff L, add in to your opinion of what happened that he planned with and
organized others to use deadly force to do the 'rob his own stuff', not
exactly the lawful way to go about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Could he really get years in prison for this? I could see six months, but life? Doesn't make sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Basically, yes, Barry.

OJ was convicted on 12 counts.

The 1st degree kidnapping could have a life sentence. The robbery with use
of a deadly weapon charge is quite serious, too.

1: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime
2: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping
3: Conspiracy to Commit Robbery
4: Burglary while in Possession of a Deadly Weapon
5: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
6: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
7: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
8: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
9: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
10: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
11: Coercion with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
12: Coercion with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)

[Archive]

Posted By: ROBERT ADAMS JR

It appears the kidnapping alone has a mandatory 15 years minimum .

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

He is 61 years old. Sounds like the penitentiary will be his last stop.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

From what I've been able to gather just from reading online, OJ is facing a 5 year minimum on one charge and 2 year minimum on another -- with a potential for a life sentence. I'm unsure whether the 5 and 2 year sentences can be run concurrently. Frankly, 5 years is plenty for what he was convicted of in my mind as he really should not be punished at sentencing for killing his wife.

Edited to add: the 5 year minimum reflects the earliest he can be released on parole on the kidnapping with a deadly weapon charge.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- OJ doesn't mix in with the general prison population, does he?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I'm grateful the jury was unfair... I may not be alone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, it's hard to imagine that he will anytime soon, however, being away from the general population is very hard on an inmate due to the isolation. Of course, OJ deserves (finally) exactly what he gets.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

This is big news. I know I am not the only one outraged by the 1995 verdict. It took thirteen years but justice may finally be meted out.

I am especially grateful for the Brown and Goldman families. This must be an amazing day for them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Barry,

Back-door justice is amazing?

Here I thought you were an enlighted individual.

I think this is a sad day for the justice system in general. Take a minute to think about all the black people in this country who have been executed and locked away forever by all-white juries. All of the lynchings, beatings by police while in custody, and everything else that caused that jury to let him go 13 years ago. Try to see this world through the eyes of a minority and then tell us all how amazing this verdict is.

The DA, the Judge, and the jury are a disgrace.

Shame on the state of Nevada for allowing this farce to proceed in the first place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

In the end, O.J. Simpson comes up a loser in Vegas By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
38 minutes ago



LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was 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.

And then, as only the sobs of Simpson's sister broke the silence late Friday, the lights went out.

Court marshals flipped on flashlights and shouted for everyone to stay seated. Only the judge knew what had happened. It was 11 p.m. and the courthouse lights had shut down automatically.

"Timed out," Judge Jackie Glass said in a fitting epitaph for the story of O.J. Simpson, which has long haunted America.

The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering five men a year ago and storming a room at a hotel-casino to seize Simpson sports mementos — including game balls, plaques and photos — from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one said Simpson had asked him to bring a gun.

After the verdict, Simpson, the sports-idol-turned-celebrity-pariah, was handcuffed and led from the room with his co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart. They could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

"There is justice," said attorney Gloria Allred, who has represented the family of his slain ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. "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."

Some observers said the Las Vegas case paled in comparison to the "trial of the century" in 1995, a yearlong opus in which Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman.

A rapt nation followed the Los Angeles trial. Tales of a gruesome murder and a bloody glove, as well as the celebrity defendant, drew a media frenzy.

In Las Vegas, Simpson's fate played out in a small courtroom dotted with empty seats. Even the stunning verdict came as most of America slept, oblivious to the irony that Simpson might spend the rest of his life in prison for what most perceived as a petty crime, a tussle among dysfunctional middle-aged men.

Simpson's Las Vegas defense tried to tell the jury that the two cases had nothing to do with each other, but it was a losing battle.

"I don't know that one trial cancels out the other," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, who attended Simpson's murder trial. "People will always be troubled by O.J. For the people troubled by the Los Angeles acquittal, this case will make small amends. Saying finally there is justice, at least from a legal perspective, is very crude way of looking at justice."

She predicted that Stewart, 54, will have a strong chance for reversal on appeal because he was forced to stand trial beside Simpson.

"O.J. was toxic, and he has been toxic since 1994, and this jury was just ready to clean up the mess," Levenson said.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter said Saturday he felt bad for Simpson but even worse for Stewart, who got dragged along in a campaign to convict Simpson.

"This was just payback," he said of the verdict. "They were on an agenda."

Galanter and Stewart's lawyers promised to appeal, in part because unlike the predominantly black jury that decided Simpson's murder case, this panel included no African-Americans. Neither Simpson nor Stewart testified.

Simpson friend Tom Scotto, who wept in court, called it "a public lynching."

"Was this something to put someone in jail for the rest of their life for? It's a total injustice. There was no justice served in that courtroom," Scotto said.

It was Scotto's wedding that had brought Simpson to Las Vegas on that fateful week in 2007, and details of wedding plans, flowers, a cake and parties formed an ironic counterpoint to testimony about Simpson gathering up a posse that included two gun-toting men to confront memorabilia dealers who were peddling Simpson's personal property to the highest bidder.

The case was set in motion by Thomas Riccio, a collectibles broker who tried to bring in the FBI when he heard that two memorabilia dealers were planning to sell a trove of Simpson artifacts. Failing to get their attention, he helped set up a "sting" by promoting an anonymous buyer who turned out to be Simpson.

Riccio, who has peddled goods including video of Anna Nicole Smith's breast implant surgery, saw a chance to profit by recording the confrontation between Simpson and collectibles dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong.

He rented a cramped hotel room away from the Las Vegas Strip for the meeting and planted a digital recorder atop an armoire. Riccio then sold the recordings of the six-minute confrontation for $210,000 before turning them over to police eight days later. Although they couldn't be authenticated, the recordings became the heart of the prosecution's case, along with audio recorded by gunman Michael McClinton at two wedding parties.

The recordings were sometimes garbled, but Simpson's voice came through loud and clear: "Don't let nobody out of this room." The words formed the basis of the prosecution's kidnapping charge.

The former football hero also was heard accusing the men of stealing his possessions. His lawyer would argue that Simpson was on a recovery mission to reclaim the artifacts of his life.

But District Attorney David Roger argued that ownership was not a defense to robbery.

Kidnapping is punishable by five years to life in prison. Armed robbery carries a sentence of at least two years behind bars and could bring as much as 30.

Simpson and Stewart were taken to the Clark County jail, where the football star will live in a 7-by-14-foot cell, far removed from his ranch-style home in the lush Miami suburbs. It will be his home until at least Dec. 5, when he and Stewart are scheduled to be sentenced.

Even before the verdict, Simpson appeared resigned that his luck had run out.

He had been prepared for the worst, his lawyer said.

And in a conversation with The Associated Press on Thursday, Simpson implied as much, saying, "I'm afraid that I won't get to go to my kids' college graduations after I managed to get them through college."

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

I agree that 5 years sounds about right and that O.J. shouldn't be punished for the murders. Nevertheless, a sweet moment for the Browns and Goldmans. Mark