OJ Simpson Denied Request For New TrialBy: Lindsay McCane - November 27, 2013
A Nevada judge has denied OJ Simpson’s request for a new trial after he was convicted in 2007 for armed robbery and kidnapping. Simpson wanted the new trial to tell his side of the story, about the botched armed robbery he was convicted of. He claims his lawyer was insufficient in defending him and that he deserved a chance to tell the truth. Simpson was convicted exactly 13 years to the day after he was acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend, Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman, in 1995.
Simpson’s other argument was that the men who were with him got much shorter sentences for the same crime. “The difference between all of their crimes and mine is that they were trying to steal other people’s property, they were trying to steal other people’s money,” Simpson said. “My crime was trying to retrieve, for my family, my own property. I missed my two younger kids who worked hard getting through high school, I missed their college graduations. I missed my sister’s funeral. I missed all the birthdays.”
Despite Simpson’s plea, the judge found no grounds to allow a new trial, which will leave Simpson serving the remainder of his sentence that could be 4 to 33 years. Simpson was sentenced in 2008 and will not be eligible to receive parole until he is 70-years-old. He is currently 66.
“All grounds in the petition lack merit and, consequently, are denied,” the Clark County District Judge, Linda Marie Bell, said.
Simpson was charged after trying to steal belongings, that he claims were already his, from two men that sold sports memorabilia. The men accompanying him were carrying fire arms that Simpson claims he did not know about. However, the judge remained firm in saying that he had not only planned the robbery, but he had also asked his co-conspirators to bring the weapons.
“Mr. Simpson’s convictions stem from serious offenses,” Bell wrote. “Mr. Simpson specifically asked two of his co-conspirators to bring weapons … to show the sellers he meant business,” she said.
“It was my stuff,” Simpson said. “I followed what I thought was the law. My lawyer told me I couldn’t break into a guy’s room. I didn’t break into anybody’s room. I didn’t try to muscle the guys. The guys had my stuff, even though they claimed they didn’t steal it.”
Simpson’s current lawyer, Patricia Palm, said that she was disappointed with the decision and plans on appealing to the Nevada Supreme Court. “I’m shocked, I’m upset, I’m disappointed, I’m confident that it’s going to be overturned when we get to the right court,” Palm said of Bell’s ruling. “We’re confident that when we get to the right court we’ll get relief because he deserves relief, because he didn’t get a fair trial.”[Image via Wikimedia Commons]