Trial watchers speculate about Nevada jurors, OJ jury-pandering tactics and whether the colorful array of witnesses are credible

By Stacey Silberman

HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 11/15/07 – Despite witness credibility issues, OJ Simpson and his co-defendants must be a little concerned about their fate as they prepare for a Nevada jury trial in the historically conservative state. Some have even speculated that the Clark County District Attorney’s office may offer the defendant trio a plea. However, “Unless the DA gives us an outright dismissal, we will go to trial,” said OJ attorney Yale Galanter.

“Mr. Simpson is obviously very concerned. These charges are as serious as it gets,” he told AP, adding OJ believes he is innocent and that he will prevail with a jury trial.

Galanter seconded that knowing first-hand his client’s charismatic prowess with jurors. “My only regret about being in Vegas trying this preliminary hearing over these four days, is that we didn’t have a jury seated,” Galanter said. “If we did have a jury seated, this would be over and my client would be on his way home by now.”

Despite the media-pandering circus surrounding the hearing, Justice of the Peace Joe M. Bonaventure, Jr. did what Nevada law calls for by sending it to trial, as only a slim amount of evidence is needed to bind defendants over for trial.

But he warned, “Much time was spent attacking the credibility of witnesses and 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.”

In response to the judge’s admonition, DA Owens said, “It’s not like the state sought out these witnesses. These are the types of men who spend time with Mr. Simpson. The cover-up speaks volumes as well,” said Owens.

Owens added to his closing by stating, “If you look at it as a whole, they’re all corroborative of each other on the essential facts of the elements of the crime.”

Plus, there’s the issue of intent for Simpson. This would establish a defense as to why he went to room 1203 in the first place. Defense attorneys contend that OJ and his boys went to the Palace Hotel on September 13 to retrieve personal “stuff,” that he claims was stolen from him many years ago.

Unfortunately, they entered as a group of six, allegedly had two guns with one pointed at the victims. This was further alleged to be per OJ’s request, plus they took more than OJ’s personal memorabilia “stuff” from Bruce Fromong and Beardsley, causing chaos and risking people’s lives.

According to a pleading by Simpson’s Las Vegas attorney Gabriel Grasso, “The intent issue in this case is paramount.” He went on to cite California legal precedents to support his argument, but if the items were not stolen, than his purported lack of intent may be a moot point.

For example, during the preliminary hearing, witnesses testified that the items came from a few different sources, questioning the above assertion’s validity.

First of all, some of the items came from ex-business associate Mike Gilbert, who as a favor to OJ, hid the “stuff” from marshals in connection with the Goldman and Brown families’ 1997 civil judgment. So, who stole what from what from whom and whom does the “stuff” rightfully belong to?

Secondly, Alfred Beardsley testified that the personal items, which were not involved the night of the alleged armed robbery, came from Simpson’s mother’s public storage locker that was in default and sold at public auction.

Although Beardsley is currently imprisoned on charges of probation violations and seemed least credible of all the witnesses, it sounds like he has a paper trail to back-up the defaulted storage container story, giving him fair possession of OJ’s family photos and other mementos from OJ’s glory days.

Most importantly, OJ has managed to escape any kind of forensic connection to the guns. He was neither audiotaped talking about guns nor was he found to have touched the guns. The only evidence is witness testimony from colorful characters Walter Alexander and Michael McClinton.

Alexander said that OJ asked him to “get some heat,” while McClinton ignorantly volunteered “I have a concealed weapons permit” and that “I have lots of guns” and brought them on the night of the heist.

He admits under oath that he held the gun in plain sight during the robbery.

What might make this case disturbing for the average person, is the fact that OJ has become a serial trouble-maker for the court system, but who continually walks away without taking any responsibility for his deeds.

Alexander said that when he asked OJ, “what if the police come,” OJ replied, “’F— the police, it’s my sh–. What are they going to take me to jail for taking my own sh–?”

Is it unlawful or is it acceptable under our legal system for any person, to take a gun, go with a group of hooligans, invade a person’s space and demand property if they claim it’s theirs?

While prosecutors remain mum about prospects for the future of the case, DA Chris Owens sounded confident and legally within his right, to prosecute the case to the fullest extent of the law during closing statements yesterday.“

Hence, the judge’s ruling binding Simpson, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich over for trial on all 12 counts including armed robbery and conspiracy to kidnap.

Stewart’s attorney, Robert Lucherini said he might move to separate his client’s case from Simpson’s to get a better disposition.

Perhaps the co-defendants will avoid the lengthy and costly legal process or the possibility of incarceration, following the footsteps of the other three, who’ve already turned state’s evidence.

While the dingaling OJ followers planned the time of their life with charismatic friend and football great OJ, it likely never occurred to them, that they’d do life in prison him too.

On November 28, these and other questions will be answered as the theatrics resume with the arraignment and entry of pleas before the assigned district court judge.

District attorney Owens and David Roger will file motions, while endless legal arguments play-out for months, before a jury is summoned for the highly publicized case.

Hopefully, there’s an untainted jury pool among the expanded Clark County community of presumably conservative registered voters.

This will be a sight to see.