O.J. Simpson !

[Murffieus]

O.J. in trouble again----and the media has all but convicted the guy already. I'm not in anyway defending him in the least----but he is a US citizen and therefore entitled to due process.

Several points enter my mind for discussion-----if someone goes into a meeting with the idea of negotiating or even threatening someone (without a gun)to recover some goods and and then out of the blue and unplanned one member of the ontourage pulls out a gun to "leverage" the negotiations-----does this mean that make another person in the ontourage (O.J.) guilty of armed robbery when he didn't know that the gun was going to be pulled-----that he didn't even know this other person in his group had a gun to begin with?

Now I don't know whether O.J. knew a gun was going to be involved or not-----but you can bet his defense is that he didn't know beforehand (his word against others).

Then too----how about the legality of using tape recorded conversations as evidence without having received a court order----I have always been of the view that without a court order, tape recordings can't be used as evidence unless the person under suspicion has been notified that he's being taped beforehand. If I am correct on this, you can bet that that will also be a key element of his defense (throwing out the tape recordings as evidence).

What do you think?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm far from an OJ guy, think he should be rotting in prison right now. He got in trouble with DIRECTV for stealing service a few years ago (this was well publicized in the papers).  Having said all that, there is something very strange about this entire story.  Whether it's the recording, the shady dealers that both have multiple felony convictions, etc, etc.  The idea that someone can be charged with kidnapping for a 4 minute incident seems beyond ludicrous to me.

I need a lot more information, but frankly the only information I have is hearing it on my drive to work...unfortunately on EVERY DAMN STATION.  Please make it go away.

[mu_hilltopper]

The media can hardly stop and take a breath with this OJ crap.  Wake me up when the jury reaches a verdict.

[Murffieus]

The media over the weekend was talking one to two million $ bail----it ended up at just $175,000.

[spiral97]

The media over the weekend was talking one to two million $ bail----it ended up at just $175,000.

not even that.. "only" $125,000 from what I've read.

[harryp]

I don't care about OJ, but would make the point that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the evidentiary standard in a CRIMINAL case, while "preponderance of the evidence" applies to CIVIL litigation.  Neither standard applies to personal judgments.  One can hold any position he/she wants to subject to listening to opposing views.

[ilovefreeway]

O.J. in trouble again----and the media has all but convicted the guy already. I'm not in anyway defending him in the least----but he is a US citizen and therefore entitled to due process.

Several points enter my mind for discussion-----if someone goes into a meeting with the idea of negotiating or even threatening someone (without a gun)to recover some goods and and then out of the blue and unplanned one member of the ontourage pulls out a gun to "leverage" the negotiations-----does this mean that make another person in the ontourage (O.J.) guilty of armed robbery when he didn't know that the gun was going to be pulled-----that he didn't even know this other person in his group had a gun to begin with?

Now I don't know whether O.J. knew a gun was going to be involved or not-----but you can bet his defense is that he didn't know beforehand (his word against others).

Then too----how about the legality of using tape recorded conversations as evidence without having received a court order----I have always been of the view that without a court order, tape recordings can't be used as evidence unless the person under suspicion has been notified that he's being taped beforehand. If I am correct on this, you can bet that that will also be a key element of his defense (throwing out the tape recordings as evidence).

What do you think?

Murff, good questions.  I'm not familiar with Nevada law, but most states are the same on some of the basic rules of evidence and criminal theories so take what I say as an educated guess by me. 

First, accomplice liability.  If you are in a group doing something illegal, each person of that group can be held liable for any action any person of the group takes.  The classic example is the look out being charged with whatever crime the people he's looking out for are doing.  So in this case, if OJ was going to threaten and someone pulled a gun, tough luck for OJ, he's liable.  Now, if OJ was going to negotiate (legally) and someone pulled a gun, that's a different story.

Tape recorded conversations.  This depends.  If the State is not doing the recording then no court order is needed.  The Constitution only limits state acts, not individuals.  The Constitution doesn't protect from unreasonable searches by your neighbor.   Your confusion about notification may be because many states have outlawed audio recording of someone without their consent.  There is always, though, an exception if the recording is of a violatin of another law.   

Due process.  You are 100% correct.  Juice is accorded all the rights bestowed him under the constitution.  What you have incorrect is that the Constitution doesn't take into account citizenship status in the area of legal rights in a criminal proceeding.

[Murffieus]

freeway----thanks for the legal opinion.

I have a few questions:

You say if one is in a group doing something "illegal" each person in the group can be held liable for what one person does------but in this case was the group involved in "illegal activity" BEFORE the gun was pulled, or was it simply an intimidating negotiation prior to the gun being pulled?

Doesn't sound right about all being culpable for the unplanned/unaware illegal actions of someone else within a group. If for example I'm riding in a car with several others and the driver is legally intoxicated and he kills somebody (a criminal act)----does that mean we are all guilty of that crime?

I wonder if Nevada is one of those states that outlaws tape recordings without consent?

What do you mean by "citizenship status" in the area of legal rights in a criminal
proceeding?

[harryp]

Freeway is right on with his legal opinion.  The "party to a crime" statute is very broad and replaced the old idea of accomplice before the fact and after the fact.
The man on death row in TX whose sentence was recently commuted, gave a friend a ride to a convenience store.  His friend then held up the store and killed someone.  He didn't know anything about his friend's criminal plans, but received a death sentence which was commuted to life in prison.
Broadly, if you do anything that as a matter of "objective fact" aids in the commission of the crime, you're a "party".  Your intoxication exmple might be negligence rather than a crime, which would make a big difference.  Also, being a passenger might not aid the commission of the crime.

[ilovefreeway]

freeway----thanks for the legal opinion.

I have a few questions:

You say if one is in a group doing something "illegal" each person in the group can be held liable for what one person does------but in this case was the group involved in "illegal activity" BEFORE the gun was pulled, or was it simply an intimidating negotiation prior to the gun being pulled?

Doesn't sound right about all being culpable for the unplanned/unaware illegal actions of someone else within a group. If for example I'm riding in a car with several others and the driver is legally intoxicated and he kills somebody (a criminal act)----does that mean we are all guilty of that crime?

I wonder if Nevada is one of those states that outlaws tape recordings without consent?

What do you mean by "citizenship status" in the area of legal rights in a criminal
proceeding?

For your questions:

#1)  I don't know the hard facts of the case so I cannot speculate on when the gun was pulled and what was going on at that exact time.  It will be a job for the State to prove.

#2)  In the DUI case, the passenger was not part of the illegal activity.  I was a little broad in my explanation before.  To be liable, a member of the group must be part of a crime and the State must prove they are part of a crime.  So, for OJ to be guilty of the gun pulling without knowing about it, the State will need to prove that they were involved in some illegal activity before the gun was pulled.  The idea behind accomplice liability is that all people involved in a crime should be equally culpable for it.  It includes when one member of the crime committing party takes it farther then any other member planned. 

#3)  About Nevada...I doubt it.

#4)  The rights of the criminally accused found in the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments are blind to citizenship status.  Illegals, legal aliens and forgin visitors all have the same rights to an attorney, to a speedy trial, to be free of illegal searches and all the others as a citizen does.

[muwarrior87]

OJ in the news for criminal activity, GB, Denver, and San Fran all 2-0...seems like we've gone back in time 15 years! 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

OJ in the news for criminal activity, GB, Denver, and San Fran all 2-0...seems like we've gone back in time 15 years! 

I heard chicos is tight rolling (french rolling) his jeans again. 

I know ilovefreeway has to this day.   

[Murffieus]

freeway says: "So, for OJ to be guilty of the gun pulling without knowing about it, the State will need to prove that they were involved in some illegal activity before the gun was pulled."

Seems to me that will be pretty hard to prove both that there was illegal activity before the gun(s) was/were drawn-----and even if he did go in there knowing someone else was going to draw a gun as part of a plan given the background and therefore the credibility of the people he was involved with----I believe all are previously convicted felons!

What think you?

[ilovefreeway]

freeway says: "So, for OJ to be guilty of the gun pulling without knowing about it, the State will need to prove that they were involved in some illegal activity before the gun was pulled."

Seems to me that will be pretty hard to prove both that there was illegal activity before the gun(s) was/were drawn-----and even if he did go in there knowing someone else was going to draw a gun as part of a plan given the background and therefore the credibility of the people he was involved with----I believe all are previously convicted felons!

What think you?

I really don't know much about the facts, but I did hear that the V was on parole.  Anytime, as a prosecutor, your V is a crapbag (not a legal term of art, but still one we use a lot in the business) you have an uphill fight to get 12 people to convict.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[ChicosBailBonds]

OJ in the news for criminal activity, GB, Denver, and San Fran all 2-0...seems like we've gone back in time 15 years! 

I heard chicos is tight rolling (french rolling) his jeans again. 

I know ilovefreeway has to this day.   

We called it "pegging" in my day.