O.J. Simpson accomplices who testified get probation

[jaysunb]

Four of the men who accompanied O.J. Simpson last year during the now infamous raid of a Palace Station hotel room will not serve any jail time.

District Court Judge Jackie Glass sentenced Charles Cashmore, Charles “Charlie” Ehrlich, Michael McClinton and Walter Alexander just after 9 this morning.

The accomplices all fulfilled plea agreements to testify against Simpson during his three-week long trial in exchange for lesser charges.

Glass assigned suspended sentences ranging from 12 to 84 months, effectively putting the men on probation and sparing them from doing any jail time.

The judge sentenced Simpson and his co-accused, Clarence “C.J.” Stewart, on Friday. Simpson, 61, received 33 years in prison without parole until at least 2017 while Stewart, 54, was handed a 27-year prison term and parole eligibility after 7 1/2 years.

District Attorney David Roger failed to offer Stewart a plea agreement before the trial began on Sept. 15. Stewart’s lawyers said unlike the four others, their client went to trial because he “didn’t have anything to offer” prosecutors in terms of inside knowledge

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/dec/09/oj-simpson-accomplices-be-sentenced/


Well...unfortunately for O J, he's going to have to cool his heels in the big house while waiting for the appeals court to overturn his sentence, if not the entire conviction.
I can hear the howling now, but that's what happens when you look for retribution instead of justice.

[sandnsea]

1. Why would it be overturned?

This happens all the time. It's how the system "works".

[jaysunb]

5. No...not exactly.

I won't try to give you chapter and verse, but the list of trial errors is quite long.The disproportion in sentencing only magnifies the intent of the judge and the prosecutes. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

12. There may be trial errors

I haven't paid that close of attention. But rewarding the ones who talk is not going to be one of them. That happens all the time.

[jaysunb]

15. It does happen every day,

but most perps don't have the money to get past the railroad station. It'll be different w/ this.
Defense attorneys don't like to get played...

[JuniperLea]

18. Who would be paying the defense attorneys? OJ?

Not going to happen. If there's a slight whiff of money surrounding OJ that can be tied to OJ, it is automatically the property of the Brown's and the Goldberg's.

[JuniperLea]

22. Yep... all the time... every day... all day long...

Nothing unusual or illegal about this practice.

[varkam]

32. Even if there were errors, those significant enough to get a conviction overturned...

are quite rare. Appellate courts tend to give a wide birth to the trial courts.

[acmavm]

38. Your bias is showing. OJ was, is, and always will be guilty.

Nothing will change. Like the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, he's guilty. Only this time they didn't have some pathetic idiots who can't keep their minds on the ball to deal with.

edit: had to change the tense (to past) of a word

[DJ13]

2. I've heard that many legal experts say OJ was overcharged by the DA

This is a real test of the judicial system.

[JuniperLea]

7. Then your sources are fools...

The judge went by the book on this for the very reason that retribution would be claimed. You need to look at the historic record on the sentences for these charges, and I don't have the time to link you so you'll have to find it yourself. The only thing I didn't like about this is the plea bargains. But those guys probably wouldn't have spoken up otherwise. They sold their friendship for their freedom. Still, how many of us wouldn't have done the same thing when faced with a prison term?

[DJ13]

9. Its not the sentences, its the charges brought to trial

The biggest charge was kidnapping, which is bullshit.

[JuniperLea]

19. Holding someone against their will for even a minute is kidnapping...

This was kidnapping, no question.

[Thorandmjolnir]

44. it is not kidnapping

it is false imprisonment.

* An "Act". The act must be physical and volitional.
* An Intent to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor
* Confinement actually occurs
* The act caused the confinement
* The person confined is aware of their confinement or harmed by it

Kidnapping

• to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
• An act or instance or the crime of seizing, confining, inveigling, abducting, or carrying away a person by force or fraud often with a demand for ransom or in furtherance of another crime.
• To take (any one) by force or fear, and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.

[JuniperLea]

50. Look at your own definition...

OJ, et al, came to the room... armed... and "confined" the people... and it was "in furtherance of another crime"... the theft of the articles in question. Carrying to another place is not a requirement. See the bullet point above this wherein it says: "An act or instance or the crime of seizing, confining, inveigling, abducting, or carrying away a person by force."

OR carrying away a person... not AND.

[Wizard777]

66. No that is typically charged as False Imprisonment.

What allowed them to charge OJ with kidnapping was holding in a robbery. Without the robbery it's simply false imprisionment.

[jaysunb]

11. Fools ??

:shrug: where did you attend law school ? Seriously.

[JuniperLea]

20. Sweetie, I have a whole houseful of lawyers at my disposal...

It's part of my job. Lawyers refer work to me, and I to them. It is the mainstay of my business.

[Wizard777]

33. How can you charge someone with robbery without ever determining who owns the property?

Robbery in Nevada is defined as an unlawful taking of property from the person of another. Once they let OJ into the hotel room. He was in constructive possession of his property and he has a right to defend his property under Nevada law. Beardsley and Fromong who were not the lawful owners of the property by their own admission. They have no right of Resistance. That belongs to OJ. That also entitles him to use force to defend his property. Also OJ being 61 places him in a special class of protected persons. People 60 and over. The Police are require by law to investigate any crimes against him. Including the theft of his property in that hotel room.

[JuniperLea]

51. It isn't his property

Legally, it belongs to the Browns and the Goldmans... the only reason the dealer, OJ's "friend" had them was because they were with a bunch of stuff OJ tried to hide from the Browns and the Goldmans. OJ should have gone to the police instead of taking the law into his own hands. But of course he wouldn't do that, because he knew the items in question would have been deemed the property of the Browns and the Goldmans.

[Wizard777]

56. At the time it was legally OJ's property. The Goldmans at this date still are not the legal owners.

Judgement recovery doesn't work the way you think it does. The Goldmans and browns were awarded a dollar amount. Not all of OJ's personal property. In the process called judgement recovery Goldman must locate assests owned by OJ, prove that OJ is the legal owner of the assests, and that the assets are not exempt from Judgement recovery. Once they have done this. The court then transfers title of the property to the Goldmans. But until the court transfers title. OJ is the legal owner with all rights.

[JuniperLea]

57. I think you missed the point...

The families have the right to go after all of his property to satisfy the judgment amount. This is why OJ hid everything. Once something surfaces that is owned by him, the Goldman's and the Brown's have the right to go after it. That is why he wouldn't go to the cops, but instead would take matters into his own hands. He had no right to take the law into his own hands the way he did, with brute force. That is why he is in jail, and rightfully so.

[Wizard777]

63. Riccio informed the FBI who were uninterested in the Interstate transportation of stolen goods.

But I think it is you who are missing the point. This entire cases hinges on who is the legal owner of the property at the time of the incident. That is OJ. In Nevada robbery is defined as an unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another. It is not unlawful for OJ to take his property that is in his constructive possession. Nevada law also gives him the right to protect and defend his property by force. Without the robbery the kidnapping charges are simply false imprisonment. Before you can determine that the taking was unlawful you first determine who the lawful owner is. That was never done in this case.

[JuniperLea]

64. Oh bullshit

The entire case is based on firearms, brute harassment, and holding someone against their will (kidnapping).

[Wizard777]

65. Oh bullshit this case had nothing to do with firearms.

If it did they wouldn't have given plea bargins to the guys that actually brandished the guns to testify against the guy on tape yelling, "put the guns away!" If this really about firearms they would have refered the case to the feds for tougher penalties. Holding someone against their will is false imprisonment.

[JuniperLea]

68. You need to look up "kidnapping"

You're wrong.

[Wizard777]

69. I have looked up kidnapping in the Nevada Statutes.

KIDNAPPING

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

<1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05>—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)


FALSE IMPRISONMENT

NRS 200.460 Definition; penalties.

1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.

2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

3. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 4, if the false imprisonment is committed:

(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or

(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,

Ê the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years.

4. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 5, if the false imprisonment is committed by using the person so imprisoned as a shield or to avoid arrest, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

5. If the false imprisonment is committed by a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement with the use of a deadly weapon, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.

<1911 C&P § 175; RL § 6440; NCL § 10122>—(NRS A 1967, 472; 1981, 614; 1995, 1190; 2003, 387)

[JuniperLea]

70. And you still don't see how the kidnapping fits

Amazing.

[Wizard777]

72. Only if the charge of robbery stands.

CPersonononntakes us back to determining who the legal owner of the property is to establish that it was in deed an unlawful taking of the property from the person of another. Here are the definitions of person and personal property.

NRS 193.0205 “Person” defined. “Person” includes this State or any other state, government or country which may lawfully own property within this State whenever it is used to designate a party whose property may be the subject of an offense.

—(NRS 973, 355; 1983, 815; 1985, 510)

NRS 193.021 “Personal property” defined. “Personal property” includes dogs and all domestic animals and birds, water, gas and electricity, all kinds or descriptions of money, chattels and effects, all instruments or writings completed and ready to be delivered or issued by the maker, whether actually delivered or issued or not, by which any claim, privilege, right, obligation or authority, or any right or title to property, real or personal, is or purports to be, or upon the happening of some future event may be evidenced, created, acknowledged, transferred, increased, diminished, encumbered, defeated, discharged or affected, and every right and interest therein.

—(NRS A 1973, 355; 1983, 815; 1985, 510)

[JuniperLea]

73. So you think this loophole should stand?

The property might be his at the moment of the alleged robbery, but anyone with any sense knows the court would award the property to the Browns and Goldman's. To allow OJ off because of this would be a horrible crime in itself. The only reason this collector had the property in the first place is because OJ was attempting to circumvent the law by hiding his possessions.

[Wizard777]

74. Yes it should stand. OJ was the legal owner at the time.

Any future proceeding bu Goldman or Browns is irrelevent. The property wasn't hidden assests. It was stolen from OJ by his former manager. Beardsley and Fromong do not dispute this. They say they obtained the propertry from his former manager. When OJ entered the hotel room he came into Constructive possession of his property. He has a right of resistence and this also covers the people with him.

NRS 193.240 Resistance by party about to be injured. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured:

1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family or some member thereof.

2. To prevent an illegal attempt, by force, to take or injure property in his lawful possession.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1469)

NRS 193.250 Resistance by other persons. Any other person, in aid or defense of a person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent the offense.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1469)

For Beardsley or Fromong to try to retain possession of this stolen propertry would constitute a theft on their behalf under 1, a).

NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theft.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, he knowingly:

(a) Controls any property of another person with the intent to deprive that person of the property.

(b) Converts, makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or placed in his possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use.

(c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person of the property or services. As used in this paragraph, “material misrepresentation” means the use of any pretense, or the making of any promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact which is fraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act.

(d) Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates that property to his own use or that of another person without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner.

(e) Controls property of another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen.

(f) Obtains services or parts, products or other items related to such services which he knows are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so.

(g) Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes of property in which another person has a security interest, with intent to defraud that person.

(h) Commits any act that is declared to be theft by a specific statute.

(i) Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, if he knows that the check will not be paid when presented.

(j) Obtains gasoline or other fuel or automotive products which are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation.

2. A person who commits an act that is prohibited by subsection 1 which involves the repair of a vehicle has not committed theft unless, before the repair was made, he received a written estimate of the cost of the repair.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 1204; A 1999, 2706; 2001, 3024)

[JuniperLea]

75. Do you know how it was stolen?

That makes a difference.

I think the man is dangerous as all hell. Anyone who thinks they have a right to be a thug, and use a gun, is dangerous. They should not be allowed to wander free in society. I cannot imagine the robbery charge not sticking. There were guns involved, and everyone knows that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Guns make it robbery and make it a kidnapping. That is dangerous. If he had the right to that property, and he knew where it was, he should have called the damn cops instead of being a vigilante. Had he gone without the guns, it would have been a whole 'nuther ballgame. But no, he was an idiot, and he is so stupid he is dangerous.

[Wizard777]

76. No I don't. I haven't heard the specifics of that.

OJ didn't have a gun. Supposedly it was his idea to take them. But on the tape he can be heard saying put the guns away. It seems odd for someone to want others to take guns and then not want them to brandish them. Whats the purpose of taking the guns? Another thing I find odd is that some one who supossedly brutally butchered two people not having a gun. I think it's evident that OJ doesn't do weapons. If Ron & Nicole were beaten to death. Then I would say yeah that would fit OJ's personality type. But I don't think he has the stomach for stabbing someone to death. That's up close, personal, and very messy. A gun is much easier and cleaner. OJ wouldn't have anything to do with a gun.

[joeunderdog]

55. They got Al Capone on tax evasion. nt

[remember2000forever]

3. If You Can't "Roll" You Pay The "Toll". Definately, The System!

[redstate_democrat]

4. Wait a minute. How is it that they got off with no jail time?

Can a lawyer explain this to me, please? Weren't they the ones with the guns, etc? I really didn't follow this case, but isn't it true that OJ bust into the room with a bunch of men with guns? Did OJ have a gun? What happened, exactly?

[remember2000forever]

6. Because All The DA Wants Is Info For The Case To Indict SOMEONE!

Too bad if you can't supply that someone to them. Those guys "Rolled Over" on their accomplices. Happens every day.

[jaysunb]

8. You're right

those brandishing unregistered handguns ( convicted felon to boot) were given probation for saying, OJ told them to do it....
It's almost laughable.

[JuniperLea]

17. I understand your frustration; however,

This is a longstanding and oft used method of making sure charges stick. Plea bargains are not new, and they were used in this case just like they were used in thousands upon thousands of cases before... nothing illegal about it. If those guys lied (as you seem to be inferring), that is called perjury and that would make all bets off, and their sorry asses would go to jail.

[chimpymustgo]

27. It is almost laughable, if it weren't so disgusting and FRIGHTFUL. This is our JUSTICE system. And

this case is utter bullshit. You gotta pray they don't decide someone you know or love deserves retribution. It ain't even about justice.

Thank you for posting this.

[JuniperLea]

30. So you think it's ok to take the law into your own hands...

And bring guns to boot?

[jaysunb]

34. Thank You, for " getting it."

The main point seems to miss many....

[sandnsea]

10. Because the system rewards cooperation

or those who provide testimony to convice the bigger fish. It's written into a lot of gun and drug laws these days. There are women in prison for longer than the boyfriend because the boyfriend spilled and the woman had no information to spill because she wasn't really involved in his crimes.

[redstate_democrat]

14. That's messed up! All of the criminals should go down. Don't pick and choose.

[sandnsea]

21. Why would anybody talk?

If they had nothing to gain from it? It would be a lot harder to get conviction. I think the mandatory sentencing laws have made it even worse than it was, but there is a time when it's worth letting a little fish go if you truly get a really big fish. Usually it's just a bunch of little fish flopping around and trying to get away, and the last fish ends up stuck in prison for life.

[LisaL]

62. It's done all the time.

There is also such a thing as a plea bargain to avoid trials.

[JuniperLea]

23. Plea bargains...

Look it up.

[Thorandmjolnir]

45. Pleas bargains sucks

Maybe that's why only a few countries outside of the US allow them, and why they are directly banned in many countries.

[JuniperLea]

49. Yep

I've always felt they reeked to high heaven.

[malaise]

40. OJ is a jackass

but he was well set up.

[JuniperLea]

52. He initiated this

I don't see how he was set up.

[SoCalDem]

13. That's how the justice system works.. Play ball with the prosecutors & you get a deal

stonewall them, and you may end up in jail..

I would be willing to bet that if OJ had shwon up at the Vegas PD, with a reporter in tow, THEY would have gone with him to the hotel, confiscated "his stuff" and turned it all over to the courts to decide..

It was OJ's antagonistic, egotistical nature that let him think that he could just go TAKE what he wanted..and that he could get away with it..

[jaysunb]

16. I won't argue your assessment of OJ,

But just like the murder trial, you have to at least make it seem fair. Too many lawyers in America,and most appellate judges pride themselves on getting it right.

[JuniperLea]

25. The law never has to make it seem fair...

As long as they follow the letter of the law. Many laws are NOT fair, IMHO. But that isn't something that is decided in a criminal court. That's what the legislature is for.

[JuniperLea]

24. Exactly...

And the judge is no doubt happy to take anyone off the street who is so dangerous that they have those types of delusions of granduer... to the point that they take the law into their own hands. And OJ was double dumb for saying he had no idea what he was doing was illegal. Ignorance is no defense, and judges really hate that sort of thing.

[jaysunb]

26. It didn't matter what he said

she already had the sentence and her denial at the ready.

BTW, I'm not denying or trying to refute any of your comments. Like I originaly stated, this won't stand up on appeal.

[JuniperLea]

28. It may not have mattered to the court...

But his rep in and out of court is gone. Flat gone. His final comments are part of the proceedings and will follow him through appeals.

[bertman]

29. OJ is biding his time waiting for his public apology from the court.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[chimpymustgo]

35. Why is it hilarious that a man has been railroaded into prison?

[bertman]

41. You must be kidding.

[JuniperLea]

58. Am I missing something?

Did someone else put a gun to OJ's head and force him to attempt to take property back, armed and with brute force? Because unless someone forced him to do that, no one railroaded him into jail.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. The man murdered two people and got clean away with it

It's not hilarious at all.

Pardon me if I don't cry for this sociopath who clearly thought he was going to use his money and fame to buy his way out of another mess.

[mondo joe]

31. Those who cooperate get better deals than those who don't. Not grounds for an appeal.

[RetroLounge]

36. retribution instead of justice.

Yup, I agree. And many DU'ers here are gleeful and blind to the railroading.

I think OJ was guilty of murder. But that doesn't excuse this farce of a trial.

RL

[screembloodymurder]

37. Absolutely.

It was a sting.

[depakid]

39. It was clearly a case of overcharging and retirbution for the previous acquittal

And had it been anyone other than OJ Simpson, this would have been a relatively minor matter worth somewhere between a county lid and 5 years or so, dependiong on the judge and the jurisdiction.

THat said, it was probably within the bounds of the law- and I doubt an appeal is going to be successful.

Just one omore of the 999 reasons America has the worlds largest, growing and most expensive prison system.

[tjahome]

42. My .02

As an attorney who has been quite interested in this case, I must say, the probability that an appellate court would even take this case is slim. Can you cite a single issue you believe might be successful on appeal? I am interested in your thoughts, but really enjoy specifics.

[IndianaJones]

43. white jury...white judge...white justice! nt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Overturned ROFLMAO!!!!! Ain't Gonna Happen. We FINALLY GOT HIM!! OJ'S GONNA FUCKING ROT!!!

FUCK YOU OJ!!!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[deaniac21]

47. A virtual lynching.

[Nye Bevan]

48. Yes. How DARE they put him in jail for armed robbery.

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

59. Indeed

Someone must have put a gun to his head and forced him to gather a gang of armed brute force... shocking, isn't it?

[rollin74]

53. If OJ had any brains

he would have agreed to a plea bargain. It's his own stupid fault that he got a significant prison sentence.
I think he figured that no jury would ever convict him of anything.

The sentence delivered was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines for those crimes. He actually got a rather light sentence considering what he was facing. There are no grounds to overturn the sentence.

Realistically, there is very little chance that a Nevada appeals court is going to knock down the jury's verdict.

the dipshit should have accepted a plea deal. too bad
:nopity:

[JuniperLea]

54. That's what happens when you have an ego bigger than your brain... eom

[Wizard777]

67. If he had any brains he would have reported this to the Nevada Police.

In Nevada OJ is in a special class of protected persons. That being people 60 and over. OJ is 61. If he would have reported the crime to Nevada police. It is a crime for them not to investigate the crime against him. The officers refusing can be arrested.

[JANdad]

60. Yeah....and????

What is you point?

[LisaL]

61. Hah, hah, hah. Keep on dreaming.

Prosecution offers deals all the time in exchange for testimony. There is nothing illegal in that.