|
OJ case 'no slam dunk'
16/11/2007 14:06 - (SA)
Las Vegas - A kidnapping and robbery trial against OJ Simpson would give his attorneys a chance to knock holes in the credibility of dubious prosecution witnesses. But it also might tempt jurors to pass judgment on a criminal case Simpson walked away from.
Though a judge found enough evidence on Wednesday for the former football star and two other men to be tried, the four-day preliminary hearing showed the case to be anything but a slam dunk.
Prosecutors are not commenting on their case, including on whether they think it could be bolstered by jurors holding the unspoken belief that Simpson should have been convicted 12 years ago of killing his ex-wife and her friend.
A judge would surely admonish jurors to focus only on the case at hand.
Memorabilia dealers who have long profited from selling Simpson collectibles claim they were victimised in September when the former football star and an odd raiding party tried to take back sports items and family heirlooms he claimed were stolen from him.
One dealer had to be brought to court from jail, where he is serving time for a probation violation in a domestic violence case. The man who arranged the ill-fated meeting at a Las Vegas casino hotel room testified under a grant of immunity.
Then there were the men who accompanied Simpson, including two who said they packed guns at his behest. One of them admitted he offered to slant his testimony if he was paid enough.
Jurors' judgment
Justice of the Peace Joe M Bonaventure found enough evidence to go to trial, but said there were a number of questions raised about "bought" testimony and witnesses who were portrayed as liars, pimps and con artists trying to make a quick buck off of Simpson.
"Much time was spent attacking the credibility of witnesses," Bonaventure said. "There are a number of motive and credibility issues here. However, the ultimate determination of the credibility of witnesses should be left to a jury."
Will jurors' judgment be affected by Simpson's acquittal in the 1994 slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said that case will shadow any trial in Las Vegas.
"The prosecution could gamble that a jury's judgment may be clouded by a desire to do justice writ large rather than focusing on the particular facts of the particular case before them," he said.
That would be a scary proposition for co-defendants Clarence "CJ" Stewart and Charles "Charlie" Ehrlich, who may fear being swept along in a campaign to convict Simpson. Kidnapping, the most serious count they and Simpson face, carries a maximum life sentence.
Within minutes after Bonaventure's decision, Stewart's lawyer, Robert Lucherini, raised the possibility that he will move to separate his client's case from Simpson's.
Simpson attorney Yale Galanter said he understood Lucherini's concerns.
Simpson is 'very well-revered to this day'
"You don't want to try your case in front of the cameras if you don't have to," Galanter said. But he added that in some circles, Simpson is "very well-revered to this day".
Severing the trials of Stewart and Ehrlich from Simpson could be complicated legally. And there remains the possibility that the pair could follow three other co-defendants who decided to testify against Simpson in hopes of receiving probation for their roles.
And what of the chance that Simpson himself might seek a plea bargain? Out of the question, Galanter said.
"Unless the DA gives us an outright dismissal, we will go to trial," he said. "Mr Simpson is obviously very concerned. These charges are as serious as it gets. But he knows in his heart he is innocent of these charges."
Al Lasso, a Las Vegas lawyer who followed the proceedings, said the preliminary hearing exposed weaknesses in the case that makes a trial unlikely.
"What are we to make of this group? I don't think it's the same case now that prosecutors thought going in. Now that we've heard their testimony, this case is ripe for a plea deal."
Armour said the case "has that feel of a den of thieves," which hurts the prosecution "because only those who've admitted to being thieves are left to testify against others who're accused of being thieves".
"A week or two ago, the prosecution seemed very invested in the case and confident in the strength of its case," Armour said.
"Now that it's been subjected to some scrutiny and examination, the prosecutors have to make the following judgment call: Are the chances of success worth the expense and time and effort of trying these defendants given the evidence that has come out?"
The long legal road to trial continues on November 28 with arraignment and entry of pleas before a new judge. Motions will be filed and arguments heard for months before the search begins for a new jury - one that will pledge to be fair and impartial and put aside everything they have heard about Simpson and his past.
- AP
|
News
