Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Mixed Juice

Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court (specifically the three justice panel of Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons) decided that O.J. Simpson got a fair trial and his conviction should stand - and the decision had nothing to do with the fact that he killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend and got away with it.

In the same breath, the same panel decided that C.J. Stewart did not get a fair trial and reversed his conviction - you know, because O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend and got away with it.

What do you guys think ... did they get it right?

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

OJ yes, CJ no. If CJ didn't get a fair trial simply because he was tried with OJ then it's impossible for OJ to ever get a fair trial simply because he's OJ. That may or may not be true, but that's really not the point. The point is if OJ's trial was fair it's incongruous to hold that CJ's wasn't fair.

Anonymous said...

You completely misunderstand the whole basis for severing criminal trials. OJ has to live with his baggage, thus, to say he can never get a fair trial may or not be accurate. However, CJ does not have to live with OJ's baggage. The Supremes held CJ was entitled to his own trial where he would only have to endure his own baggage and not the baggage of OJ.

Anonymous said...

OJ should have to live with Amber Candelaria's baggage. But Troy Fox shouldn't have to live with OJ's baggage. CJ and Amber Candelaria are getting married and have added Coach baggage to their bridal registry. Troy Fox is Best Man and OJ is Maid of Honor.

Mike Cherry will officiate.

Anonymous said...

Saitta will be flower girl.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:58 - I don't misunderstand anything. To say that he was convicted simply because he was tried with OJ, when he had nothing to do with the Murder in the freaking 90's is absurd. Plus, let's say it was error. The evidence against both of them is pretty much the same. Harmless error anyone?

Anonymous said...

Let's face it: The Nevada trial was payback for the California trial.
OJ might have beat the system in the 1990s -- and I think he did -- but Roger et al abused the system in the 2007 trial.
As for the question posed in the thread, the Supremes got it right.
I would compare it to trying a NAZI bureaucrat with, dare I say, HITLER if, you know, Hitler had ever been tried.

Anonymous said...

How can taking a case to jury trial be an abuse of the system? Do you understand how hard it is to get a case to trial and all the pitfalls along the way? Then a jury decides his guilt. The DA doesn't determine guilt.

Anonymous said...

No, but DA's pick and choose what cases to prosecute for political reasons. If you don't think that's the case, well, have fun at the junior prom this year.

Anonymous said...

Troy Fox for DA!

Anonymous said...

"More importantly, what we should be focusing on is the fact that Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"

Anonymous said...

Had OJ been a run of the mill crook, this would never have gone to trial. It would have been a normal DA tract case and either an offer would have been made (probably a misdo or dismissed).

But Roger saw a political opportunity and jumped on it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah biatch! Double kickstands for Troy Fox. Pow. Amber Candelaria.

Anonymous said...

John L. Smith column from this past Sunday has some enlightening comments:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/justice-system-...

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Rogers for great work.

Anonymous said...

11:57 - The only one who gets it.

OJ needed the Chewbacca defense (again) to get out of this one.

The system does not work, but the Chewbacca defense does.

Anonymous said...

Pow. Yeah. Chewbacca defense bitch. Double kickstands Rogers.

Anonymous said...

Good work Las Vegas! http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/26/americas-dumbest-city-annual-report-says-its-las-v/

Anonymous said...

Offers were out there and CJ said no.

Anonymous said...

Political prosecution? Ja, these exist, for sure, but I think the deep sentiment of "the People" was properly expressed in a "stick it to murderous thug" prosecution. There's nothing wrong with scumbags being given harsh terms for the same crime that would net a nice fellow probation. Prosecutorial discretion, baby.

Seriously, what's the point of "society" (whatever that is) if punks don't get treated differently than nice people? Equality is for commies and bubble-headed academics.

It is a bit sad that OJ didn't pull this in Maricopa. How fetching he would look in pink jammies!

Anonymous said...

"when it's OJ's case on the stand, there ain't no choice but remand"

Anonymous said...

Bam bitch! Bubblegum yeah!!! Pow, double kickstands in YOUR face bitch!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Seriously folks, a judicial candidate is publicly censured by the Nevada Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices, and this blog does not post it? What is more important, a debate about OJ/CJ or Righthaven or some other inane topic, or an issue affecting a potential judge we may all appear before for the next several years?

Anonymous said...

8:39 - ok Phil, we get it. She didn't fully disclose every detail about your transaction with your client during her 20 second sound-bite on Ralston. Do you really think that's enough of a reason to vote for your complaining whiny-ass?

Anonymous said...

Dude, it ain't Phil Dabney, it's someone who is sick and tired of listening to Kirshner's whiny voice and what a horrendous judge she would make.

Anonymous said...

Sorry the whole Joanna Kishner thing is REALLY blown out of proportion. I actually think less of Mr. Dabney for making a mountain out of this molehill.

Candidly--no one heard the Kishner comment. Dabney has made sure that 10x as many people are aware of the unusual circumstances in which he became the beneficiary of a client's estate planning.

Anonymous said...

Either way, no female candidate gets my vote for judge. We need more penis and less vagina on the bench.

Anonymous said...

@7:53 - I really really hope you're not a prosecutor. First of all, nice guys don't hang out with OJ Simpson. Secondly, nice guys, in general, aren't charged with violent crimes. This wasn't a nice guy versus a bad guy type of prosecution....this was the prosecution's (and yes the public's) chance to convict a man whom they believed should have been locked up a long time ago.
The first jury found OJ innocent of the murder. The problem is that we don't know if this jury found him guilty of the same murder

Anonymous said...

"The problem is that we don't know if this jury found him guilty of the same murder"

-- They did.

Anonymous said...

Who cares?!?!? He robbed someone at gun point. Toss him in jail and hand him a jar of butt lube.

Anonymous said...

Bam! Butt lube yeah! Pow, double kickstands in your face bitch! Amber Candelaria bitch!

Anonymous said...

OJ's son did the killing. He asked OJ if he could borrow the car.
OJ said: Go axe your mom.

Anonymous said...

Does double kickstands guy have the day off work today? Or maybe he got fired for being such a tard.

Anonymous said...

2:45 PM: Thanks! :)

"Earlier today, O.J. Simpson was charged with 11 criminal counts, including kidnapping, robbery and assault. Afterwards, O.J. said, 'Wow. Now I really have done it all.' –Conan O’Brien

Anonymous said...

What did Ron Goldman say to Nicole Simpson in heaven?

"Here's your &*%$*@ glasses."

Anonymous said...

So, I just got back from that hotel in Bandung. It was nice, but to be honest, what it really needed was some DOUBLE KICKSTANDS IN MY FACE, BITCHES!!

Anonymous said...

Ron Goldman said POW! Double kickstands BITCHES! Bam, Bam POW, Kickstands, Double Ones, Bitches!!

Wait, I need a break from all of this. Alas, at some point in life you start to ponder your existence and wonder what it is all about. Sure, you can get by for a while, even prosper, writing "Pow" and "kickstands" all day, but there has to be more to life.

I do feel that it is just the longing in my heart, for there is a girl, a woman really, who is the object of my desire, but it is an unrequited attraction that has caused me to resort to the “Pow” and subsequently, the “Double Kickstands” way of life.

Maybe if I could, just for a moment, have her fancy me, I could break this way of life, but I fear that she may be out of my league, for this is an attraction that transcends social barriers and a level to which I, a lackey at a 5th rate insurance defense firm, cannot rise.

Ladies and gentlemen, the object of my desire:

http://www.mtv.com/photos/jersey-shore-cast/1626282/4400605/photo.jhtml

Such a beautiful shade of orange, she is.

In any event, this is a love that cannot be, so I must return to my true calling in life, and this lucid moment must end, I bid you a farewell and POW!! Kickstands Bitches…

Anonymous said...

http://www.slate.com/id/2272621?nav=wp

SLATE
moneybox

A Case of Supply v. Demand
Law schools are manufacturing more lawyers than America needs, and law students aren't happy about it.

By Annie Lowrey
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010

During the recession, the logic was ubiquitous: The economy is terrible—better to wait it out! It is a three-year fast track to a remunerative, respectable career! It's not just learning a subject—it's learning how to think! Law school, always the safe choice, became a more popular choice. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of LSAT takers climbed 20.5 percent. Law school applications increased in turn.

But now a number of recent or current law students are saying—or screaming—that they made a mistake. They went to law school, they say, and now they're underemployed or jobless, in debt, and three years older. And statistics show that the evidence is more than anecdotal.

One Boston College Law School third-year—miraculously, still anonymous—begged for his tuition back in exchange for a promise to drop out without a degree, in an open letter to his dean published earlier this month. "This will benefit both of us," he argues.

(snip)

Anonymous said...

The "Juice" should have stuck with Holper. Out of 15 felony trials, he only lost six. Galanter and Grasso, WTF!!!