OJ Simpson sentenced to 15 years
Cropduster84
Posts: 1,283
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
O.J. Simpson Sentenced to as Much as 33 Years for Robbery
O.J. Simpson Goes to Prison for Hotel Armed Robbery
O.J. Simpson appears during his sentencing hearing at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, Friday, Dec. 5, 2008.
O.J. Simpson appears during his sentencing hearing at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, Friday, Dec. 5, 2008.
12/05/2008 1:22 PM ET; Updated 2:56 PM ET
LAS VEGAS (AP)- A broken O.J. Simpson was sentenced Friday to as much as 33 years in prison for a hotel armed robbery after a judge rejected his apology and said, "It was much more than stupidity."
The 61-year-old football Hall of Famer stood shackled and stone-faced when Judge Jackie Glass quickly rattled off his punishment soon after he made a rambling, five-minute plea for leniency, choking back tears as he told her: "I didn't want to steal anything from anyone. ... I'm sorry, sorry."
Simpson said he was simply trying to retrieve sports memorabilia and other mementos, including his first wife's wedding ring, from two dealers when he stormed a Las Vegas hotel room on Sept. 13, 2007.
But the judge emphasized that it was a violent confrontation in which at least one gun was drawn, and she said someone could have been killed. She said the evidence was overwhelming, with the planning, the confrontation itself and the aftermath all recorded on audio or videotape.
Glass, a no-nonsense judge known for her tough sentences, imposed such a complex series of consecutive and concurrent sentences that even many attorneys watching the case were confused as to how much time Simpson got.
Simpson could serve up to 33 years but could be eligible for parole after nine years, according to Elana Roberto, the judge's clerk.
The judge said several times that her sentence in the Las Vegas case had nothing to do with Simpson's 1994 acquittal in the slaying of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
"I'm not here to try and cause any retribution or any payback for anything else," Glass said.
Simpson was immediately led away to prison after the judge refused to permit him to go free on bail while he appeals.
Simpson's co-defendant and former golfing buddy, Clarence "C.J. Stewart, also was sentenced to at least 15 years.
Outside court, Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, and sister, Kim, said they were delighted with the sentence.
"We are thrilled, and it's a bittersweet moment," Fred Goldman said. "It was satisfying seeing him in shackles like he belongs."
The Goldmans took a measure of credit for Simpson's fate, saying their relentless pursuit of his assets to satisfy a $33.5 million wrongful-death judgment "pushed him over the edge" and led him to commit the robbery to recover some of his sports memorabilia.
Simpson and Stewart were both brought to the courtroom in dark blue jail uniforms, their hands shackled to their waists with chains. Simpson, who looked weary and had not been expected to speak, delivered a somber statement to the judge.
As he spoke in a hoarse voice, the courtroom was hushed. His two sisters, Shirley Baker and Carmelita Durio, sat in the front row of the courtroom, along with his adult daughter.
Both men were convicted Oct. 3 of 12 criminal charges, including kidnapping and armed robbery.
"As stupid and as ill-conceived as it was, it wasn't something that was from this evil mind they teach us about," Simpson attorney Yale Galanter said before sentencing.
"Not bright, not smart, not well thought out, but certainly not from an evil mind," Galanter said.
Most of the 63 seats in the courtroom were taken by media, lawyers and family members of the defendants. Fifteen members of the public were also allowed.
After sentencing was over, the Goldmans left the courtroom and Kim threw her arms around her father and wept.
Simpson's sisters declined to comment, but Shirley Baker said on her way out: "It's not over."
Jurors who heard 13 days of testimony said after the verdict that they were convinced of Simpson's guilt because of audio recordings that were secretly made of the Sept. 13, 2007, robbery at the Palace Station casino hotel.
The confrontation involved sports memorabilia brokers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong. It was recorded by collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio, who was acting as middleman.
"Don't let nobody out of this room!" Simpson commands on the recordings, and instructs other men to scoop up items he insists had been stolen from him.
On Tuesday, Glass is scheduled to sentence four former co-defendants who took plea deals and testified against Simpson and Stewart.
Unrated
As much as O.J. is a prick who deserves to rot in jail (allegedly), it's hard to feel really good about this kind of retroactive justice in a legal sense. The judge kept saying it had nothing to do with his 1995 case, but I don't think anyone truly believes that--especially not in light of the sentence.
On the bright side, it is O.J., so fuck him.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
HA! I think so as well. Getting at it from the inside.
I hope Simpson gets what he deserves.
I can't say I'm unhappy about that. Perhaps it's an example of the 'system' working in unusual ways.
I'm pretty sure he was innocent of murdering two people according to the state of California and by a jury of his peers. However, my news sometimes is incorrect.. but lemme guess.... you got your own news source...
Ignorant Times
Criminal Court he was not guilty.
Civil Court he was declared guilty. Boo yaa.
I'm not attacking you, but if you were around at the time of the trial you would recall that O.J.'s well paid attorneys successfully turned the case from a murder trial into a trial on racism. It wasn’t too hard considering O.J. had the Harlem Globetrotter’s of lawyers versus the state of California’s version of the Washington Generals (not to mention that the LAPD was so corrupt and inept it wasn’t even funny). I’m glad he was let off the first time because the rioting would have been disastrous. But in the end it all worked out.
no need to try and educate someone.. I know there were two cases and he was FOUND INNOCENT ON CHARGES OF MURDERING 2 PEOPLE.... READ YOUR ORIGINAL REPLY... in the civil court he was found responsible... not guilty of murdering. BOO NOTHING... my god.. this place doesn't change... people arguing facts presented clearly to them... ABSURD!
and guess what... I WAS AROUND FOR THE TRIAL... lol the whole world was...hehe and guess what else.. we all remember the trial... and you know what the key part of a trial is???
THE VERDICT
INNOCENT
Yahtzee!
no it was called "If I Did It"
Uno!
lol.. I love how you turn me into an O.J. fan when I actually think he probably did kill those 2 people.... congratulations... youre a superstar
is depressing to you when you have to actually open your mind and be willing to learn reality... or would you just rather lay back in a chair and claim to know things the rest of your life...
sorry if that seems mean... but i have a feeling no one has ever said that to you
Jason P would make outrageous claims.. like he invented the question mark...sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy
Just to clairify, the jury didn't find him "innocent", he was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury never said he didn't do it, all they said was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did it.
Correct.. the prosecuters dropped the ball and never proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell even I, as a college freshman, could see that by watching the daily trial playbacks on E!
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
So you are saying the jury didn't find him innocent... the jury didn't find him guilty because there was a reasonable doubt? And than you say the jury never said he didn't do it... all they said is that there was not enough evidence.... is this what you are saying is in the record books??
I am sorry... but you have got to look up what I said than look up the word innocent...
I'm not sure exactly why you are trying to bend words and repeat the sames things already said...
I just don't get it anymore... is this a joke?? are you guys fucking with me??
the jury doesnt say anything at all.. one preson reads the verdict... lol its a court system.. there are laws in place...
HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT or you can say he was found NOT GUILTY
lol.... is that a joke what you wrote?
No... that isnt correct chromiam... he was not found innocent because the prosecutors dropped a ball and he wasnt found innocent because they never proved beyond a reasonable doubt... he was found not guilty because of the jury's verdict. And don't downgrade your intelligence just because you are a college freshman... there are lots of people who write on the internet that can not sort out fact and opinion... its troubling
ohhh those crazy jurys
upon further thinking... '' not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'' ... can you explain this to me???
because its ''found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt''...what you are saying is that in the jurys thinking (which is on no records anywhere) is that they found him innocent with absolutely no doubt.
In a criminal court no one is ever found innocent. They are either found GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. For someone to be found guilty the proceutor has to present evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime. If they can not provide that level of evidence (which is called the burden of proof), then the defendant walks, even if they actually did it. The reason he was found liable in civil court is because the burden of proof is lower (I believe the wording is something along the lines of more likely than not). So to sum it up for you INNOCENT and NOT GUILTY are not the same thing in a criminal court.