Now in Legal Rebels:
Posted Oct 25, 2010 11:43 am CDT
The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld O.J. Simpson’s robbery conviction for a botched attempt to recover his own sports memorabilia.
The court turned down Simpson’s arguments that his case was marred by improper rulings and the rejection of two potential jurors, the Nevada Appeal reports. The court did a grant a new trial, however, for co-defendant Clarence Stewart, saying he had not received a fair trial because of the “spill-over prejudice from Simpson’s notoriety,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Simpson was sentenced to up to 33 years in prison for his role in the armed robbery in a Las Vegas hotel room, but he is eligible for parole in nine years. He was convicted of conspiracy, kidnapping and robbery.
One of the issues on appeal was whether the judge prejudiced jurors by warning lawyers about their conduct during the trial. The supreme court noted that the lawyers didn’t object to rulings at the time that they now claim were prejudicial, according to the Nevada Appeal.
“The district court had, at any given moment, multiple attorneys speaking over one another,” the supreme court said. “The record is peppered with instances of the district court attempting to maintain control of the courtroom by saying ‘stop’ or ‘sit down’ or ordering the parties to behave in a professional manner.”
Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter plans to file an appeal with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Review-Journal reports. One issue in the appeal will be the dismissal of two potential black jurors, he said.