decide if OJ Simpson should have a new trial, in a 101-page decision,
ruled against giving the former Hall of Fame running back and Heisman
Trophy winner from USC the opportunity of a new trial despite the fact
that his previous trial was a sham and a payback for the California
case over a decade ago.
In 1995, Simpson was acquitted in Los Angeles of murdering his former
wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, and many
people cannot accept the jury’s decision; many believe that his guilty
finding in the Las Vegas courtroom was nothing but a payback for the
not guilty verdict.
In a telephone interview with a member of Simpson’s new defense team,
Attorney Patricia Palm told the Las Vegas Tribune they were very
disappointed with Bell’s decision, but that they will appeal to the
Nevada Supreme Court.
The attorneys say the case is far from over: “Simpson could appeal to
the Nevada Supreme Court. If he loses that, he could petition the
federal courts to argue that his constitutional right to effective
counsel was violated,” said Palm.
In her decision, Bell said Simpson did not prove that he was denied a
fair hearing during his trial.
“Mr. Simpson alleges that his attorney labored under an actual
conflict, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from both
trial and appellate counsel, and that the state withheld exculpatory
evidence,” the judge wrote. “All grounds in the petition lack merit
and, consequently, are denied.”
However, others believe that his Miami attorney was a joke and
represented Simpson in a very undisciplined way, looking only for the
television cameras and the spotlights. Simpson’s new lawyers argued
that he was merely trying to recover property that was rightfully his.
Simpson has said he didn’t know that the five men who accompanied him
to the Palace Station Hotel had guns.
He was convicted in the gunpoint robbery and kidnapping of two sports
memorabilia dealers and the two men with the guns were given a free
pass by the judge in the trial.
During the appeal hearing, Simpson told Judge Bell “It was my stuff,”
and “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.”
Bell didn’t buy that argument, saying any errors on behalf of
Simpson’s attorneys were outweighed by the facts in the case. “Given
the overwhelming amount of evidence, neither the errors in this case,
nor the errors collectively, cause this court to question the validity
of Mr. Simpson’s conviction.”
Attorney Patricia Palm told the Las Vegas Tribune during the telephone
interview that they are ready to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court
and at the same time they are preparing to argue the case in federal
court. “The appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court may take about ninety
days and then to the federal court if necessary,” the attorney said.