• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What do you think are the chances that OJ will be found guilty this time?

moshquerade

No Lifer
Sep. 12, 2008

Simpson jurors selected

Panel consists of nine women, three men

After four long days and a marathon court session into the night Thursday, a jury has been seated in the O.J. Simpson trial on armed robbery and kidnapping charges.

The jury of three men and nine women, along with six alternates, will return to court Monday for opening statements in the trial of Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, who are charged with holding up two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007 in a Palace Station hotel room.

The panel is comprised of 10 white jurors and two Hispanic jurors. Two of the alternate jurors are black.

Simpson was involved in the selection of the panel, poring over jury questionnaires and whispering to his attorneys as they finalized their decisions.

During breaks in the process, however, Simpson was relaxed, discussing Saturday's University of Southern California vs. Ohio State football game with reporters and reading a newspaper sports section.

District Judge Jackie Glass prodded lawyers through the jury selection process in hopes of picking the panel by Thursday. She pushed through lunch to finish voir dire questioning of potential jurors by mid-afternoon, leaving a pool of 40 potential jurors for lawyers to cut down to 18.

Defense lawyers fought to keep two other black jurors in the group after prosecutors tried to remove them in the final phase of jury selection, the peremptory challenges.

Peremptory challenges allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to remove potential jurors without giving a reason, but a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Batson vs. Kentucky, prohibits the dismissal of jurors because of their race.

Lawyers for Simpson and Stewart challenged the removal of the jurors under the Batson case, saying prosecutors were systematically eliminating black jurors from the jury.

The first challenge involved a fifth-grade school teacher and church pastor who has worked in prison ministry.

District Attorney David Roger said the woman seemed to be "forgiving by nature" and unsure if she wanted to sit on the jury.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter accused prosecutors of systematically removing the only black juror who, at that time, was the only black person among the first 12 potential jurors.

"The systematic requirement is met because this is the one bite of the apple," Galanter said.

Glass denied the challenge.

"Through the last four days, there has been no evidence to me that the state has made a purposeful effort to discriminate against African-American jurors," she said.

A short time later, prosecutors wanted to excuse another black woman from the jury pool.

The bookkeeper was a devout Christian who had written in her juror questionnaire that she couldn't send anyone to jail, Roger said.

She had also said she believed her brother was wrongfully convicted of child abuse in the mid-1980s, he said.

Defense lawyers renewed their challenge, which was again rejected by Glass.

Outside the courthouse, Galanter said the rejected Batson challenges could eventually lead to appeals.

But first, the trial.

"I've been confident from day one," he said. "I don't think my client did anything wrong. I don't think my client broke any laws."
http://www.lvrj.com/news/28279434.html
 
3 men and 9 women? Quite an odd jury composition.

With the current demographic makeup of the jury, my bet would be that he is found guilty.
 
Originally posted by: xeemzor
3 men and 9 women? Quite an odd jury composition.

With the current demographic makeup of the jury, my bet would be that he is found guilty.

His murder trial jury consisted of:

2 men, and 10 women
 
Originally posted by: TwiceOver
Yes, because whether they will admit it or not (that one lady did) they all think he was guilty the first time.

Yep. I would vote guilty just because he was stupid enough to get caught again.

Dude, you got away with it. Play golf. Sip drinks by the pool. Don't write books about how you WOULD have killed your ex-wife, if you had done it. Don't commit armed robbery.
 
Many experts are saying he may get off with a far lesser charge as there is no concrete evidence suggesting that OJ told the other guys to bring guns. It was the fact that they had guns with them that makes this such a serious crime.
 
Back
Top