OJ Simpson appeal rejected by Nevada Supreme Court
Recent Cases
Imprisoned former football star O.J. Simpson lost his latest appeal of his 2008 kidnapping and armed robbery conviction in Las Vegas.
A three-member Nevada Supreme Court panel rejected Simpson's request for a new trial, ruling in a 16-page order Thursday that there was no reason to overturn a lower court judge's decisions in the case.
"We ... conclude the district court did not err in denying these claims," justices Ron Parraguire, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry said.
Simpson lawyers filed the appeal last October, arguing that Clark County District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell was wrong to deny Simpson a new trial on charges that got Simpson sentenced to 9 to 33 years in a botched hotel room heist.
Simpson lawyers Patricia Palm, Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro argued that his trial attorney mishandled his case and had conflicts of interests. The three attorneys didn't immediately respond to messages late Thursday, and it wasn't immediately known if Simpson was aware of the ruling.
Simpson, 68, is serving his sentence in a northern Nevada prison after a jury found him guilty of multiple felonies for leading five other men in a September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel. Two of the men with Simpson testified they brought guns, at Simpson's request.
The Heisman Trophy winner, NFL Hall of Fame member and former television and movie star didn't testify at his robbery trial in Las Vegas. His attorneys, Yale Galanter and Gabriel Grasso, claimed Simpson was just trying to retrieve items stolen from him after his 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
The Supreme Court in September 2010 rejected a previous Simpson appeal, filed by Galanter.
Simpson's appeal argued that his multiple convictions and sentences for assault with a deadly weapon and robbery with use of a deadly weapon constitute double-jeopardy; that Galanter should have challenged his multiple convictions and punishments; and that the jury should have been given a chance to consider lesser kidnapping and theft offenses.
Related listings
-
U.S. military chooses rarely-used charge for Bergdahl
Recent Cases 09/06/2015Military prosecutors have reached into a section of military law seldom used since World War II in the politically fraught case against U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held prisoner for years by the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghani...
-
Clerk in gay marriage case to appear in federal court
Recent Cases 09/04/2015A county clerk in Kentucky who has repeatedly defied court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses will appear before a federal judge who could hold her in contempt of court. Rowan County clerk Kim Davis has been summoned to the hearing at 11 a...
-
Burkina Faso court rejects candidate of former ruling party
Recent Cases 08/31/2015A court in Burkina Faso on Saturday rejected the chosen presidential candidate of the former ruling party, prompting threats of a boycott of the vote in October. The presidential and legislative elections scheduled for Oct. 11 are intended to end one...
Forte Law Group is a trusted resource to protect your child’s needs.
Based on the culmination of ongoing state, municipal and board of education budget cuts, coupled with school districts having to do more with less resources, the current climate within schools often dictates that you may require a special education attorney to achieve the best results when advocating for your child’s right to a free appropriate public education. Coupled with increasing class sizes, your child may slip through the cracks within the school system itself and not be receiving an appropriate education with measurable goals and objectives.
A Connecticut Special Education Attorney Knows the Law
Often is the situation that there already exists a high level of frustration and contention between the family and school when special education and related services are not being appropriately delivered. Many times, the relationship between family and school results in an adversarial environment that is not conducive towards a team approach for the benefit of your child’s needs.