THE JUICE LOOSE? EXPERTS SAY PAROLE LIKELY FOR OJ SIMPSON

LOVELOCK, NV — O.J. Simpson, the former football player and subject of one of the most televised legal trials in history, may soon be a free man according to legal experts.

Simpson, who was infamously tried and acquitted for the 1994 murders of his former wife Nicole Brown- Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, is currently serving a 9-33 year sentence at Lovelock Correctional Facility in Nevada after being found guilty in 2008 of 12 counts of robbery and kidnapping.

While lawyers who’ve studied Simpson’s case say it’s likely the now 70-year-old will be granted parole at his next hearing, scheduled for July 20, it’s unlikely that the former B-list actor will find himself living the life of luxury he once enjoyed.

Decades of legal woes, in addition to a $25 million dollar civil judgement against him by the Brown and Goldman families, have left the one time millionaire playboy virtually penniless aside from a football pension that’s protected under California law.

“The big question is, if Simpson is paroled, how would he be received? With open arms? Slammed doors?” columnist Scott Ostler wrote of the former Heisman trophy winner’s ongoing dramas in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/O-J-Simpson-faces-parole-board-this-month-11274407.php). “He would be retried a million times in the court of public opinion, gossip TV and social media. Psychopathic murderer or frame-up victim? Rehabilitated soul or consummate con man?”

Dubbed by the media as the “trial of the century” Simpson’s trial on double murder charges held the attention of public for months. The images of Simpson’s beautiful blonde wife Nicole nearly decapitated on the steps of her Brentwood, California home after being stabbed to death alongside the much younger Goldman horrified and angered the public and the resulting press coverage turned the daily televised hearings into a what many legal analysts declared a media circus.

The fact that Simpson’s alleged victims were white led to a heightened battle over race relations that continued for years after his acquittal.

Most legal analysts who covered the trial declared the not guilty verdict by the mostly African-American jury a case of jury nullification and Simpson was subsequently found responsible for the murders by a civil jury.

In Nevada, parole consideration is based heavily upon good behavior while behind bars. Based on that scenario, Simpson, known now officially as inmate number 1027820 by the Nevada Department of Corrections, is likely to again walk the streets.

“Assuming that he’s behaved himself in prison, I don’t think it will be out of line for him to get parole,” said David Roger, the retired Clark County district attorney.

Not all legal scholars, however, think parole is an open and shut case.

Michael Shapiro, a New York defense lawyer who provided commentary during Simpson’s conviction in Las Vegas in 2008 and his acquittal in Los Angeles in 1995, says the accused murder’s freedom in this particular case is no certainty.

“The judge (in the robbery and kidnapping case) believed he got away with murder,” Shapiro said. “That’s the elephant in the room. If the parole authorities feel the same way, he could be in trouble.”

If granted, Simpson will likely be be released in early October. If denied, he will likely remain behind bars until his next parole hearing, which would be some time in 2022.

ojsimpson

 

DEFENSE RESTS: SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE HEADS TO JURY AFTER COSBY ANNOUNCES HE WILL NOT TESTIFY

NORRISTOWN, PA — Jurors in the sexual assault case against “Cosby Show” icon Bill Cosby heard final arguments by Cosby’s defense team on Monday and could get the case as early as Monday afternoon.

Cosby, 79, is charged with drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004.

Constand, a 44-year-old former employee of the women’s basketball program at Temple University, testified last week that Cosby penetrated her as she lay paralyzed and half-conscious after giving her three blue pills.

Despite weeks of speculation as to whether or not Cosby would take the stand, the father of 5 waived his right to testify Monday on his own behalf.

A spokesman for Cosby suggested last week that the comic might take the stand, but many legal analysts said doing so may only open the door to additional claims of sexual assault.

“He could be a fantastic witness. … He’s an actor and he’s a very good actor,” Duquesne University School of Law professor Wes Oliver told Philadelphia’s Action 6 News (http://6abc.com/news/defense-rests-after-cosby-announces-he-will-not-testify/2086642/). But “he is potentially opening the door to a whole lot of cross-examination that they fought really hard to keep out.”

Prosecutors in the case fought for the 13 other women who had accused Cosby of sexual assault to testify at the trial, but the judge allowed only one, a woman who met Cosby while working as an assistant to his agent at the William Morris Agency.

In it’s closing arguments Cosby’s defense team argued that, although the comic admits to engaging in sex with Constand, the interaction was consensual.

If convicted, the television star and stand up comic could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Bill Cosby Heads To Court For Preliminary Hearing

TRUMPED AGAIN: 9TH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS BLOCK ON TRAVEL BAN; RULES PRESIDENT DISCRIMINATED ON BASIS OF NATIONALITY

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In yet another blow to the Trump administration the 9th Circuit Court on Monday again ruled against the president’s embattled travel ban.

In a hearing to determine whether or not the president discriminated against people based on their nationality, the court upheld a prior injunction from the 9th Circuit, which blocked enforcement of a Trump executive order that would have temporarily prevented immigrants from terror prone countries from entering the United States.

“We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the opinion (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf), which came from an anonymous three-judge panel, reads. “Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.”

“In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority,” the ruling continues. “Here, the President has not done so.”

In its ruling to uphold the previous ruling, the 9th Circuit cited the president’s tweet on The judges cited a tweet by the president on June 5, in response to the terror attack in London.

“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” Trump tweeted.

“Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban,'” one judge on the panel wrote.

The panel also cited comments by White House press secretary Sean Spicer that the President’s tweets are “considered official statements by the President of the United States.”

“The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Further, the Order runs afoul of other provisions of the INA that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the President to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees. On these statutory bases, we affirm in large part the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order,” the jurists concluded.

President Trump has said a temporary travel ban on individuals seeking to enter the U.S. from terror prone countries is essential to providing the federal government the time it needs to develop enhanced vetting procedures. Critics, however, claim the executive order amounts to an unconstitutional “ban on Muslims”.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also ruled against the travel ban in an opinion given on May 25. That ruling has been appealed by the Trump administration to the Supreme Court.

9thcircuit