The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 970,745 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.

NV. vs. Simpson – Closing Arguments – Galanter

Posted by thedarwinexception on October 3, 2008

Yale Galanter delivers the closing argument for the defense. He immediately begins by attacking the state’s theory on “conspiracy”, pointing out that Roger himself said that a conspiracy is a “secret agreement” and he reminds the jury that these plans were anything but secret – that OJ was telling strangers, people at the pool and everyone else who would listen that he was going to “get his stolen stuff” back. Galanter says he specifically asked every single witness if there was EVER any discussions among them and OJ about committing a crime – and every single one said No.Every single witness said that this was about recovery of stolen property. 

Galanter says that this *was* about recovery of stolen property. There were no secrets, there were no hidden agendas. Most of this event was tape recorded. So when Roger says that this was a secret agreement and that there was talk of committing a crime, and a conspiracy – that never occurred. Galanter says that he told the jury in opening remarks that this wasn’t a robbery, but a recovery, and the only thing on OJ’s mind when he went into that room at the Palace Station was to recover his family heirlooms and stolen property – items that had absolutely no value to anyone in the world besides OJ. Galanter says he is confident that the trial has shown this to be true. 

Galanter says that this will be his only opportunity to address the jury – the state gets to speak last, and Galanter admits he has much ground to cover. But he hopes that after he sits down that the jury will remember his words. 

Galanter then says to the jury that we are a country and people of laws – and that the jury has been instructed on the laws of this state. These laws are common to all of us and we rely on the law, and the law is there to help us and that we should all be judged equally under the law and with common dignity under the law. 

But, Galanter tells the jury, this case has never been about a search for the true facts, this case has taken on a life of it’s own because OJ Simpson was involved – Galanter says “You know that, and I know that.” Every cooperator, every person who had a gun, every person who had an ulterior motive or a book contract or got paid money – the police, the DA’s office, every person was only interested in one thing – Mr. Simpson.  He has always been the target of this investigation and nothing else mattered. 

Galanter goes on to tell the jury that our law says that people are presumed innocent and during a trial they are worthy of respect – but that’s not what OJ has gotten in this case. This case was decided by the police and the DA’s office on the date of the incident, without a thorough and full investigation – because they didn’t want to hear the truth or search for the truth. Galanter says that as he goes through the testimony with the jury that they will agree with him – because they will hear on the night of the incident the tape of the police investigators at the scene being recorded, unbeknownst to them, and they are making jokes and saying things like “We’re going to get him.” The lieutenant of the robbery division, who was not a witness in this case, is caught on tape laughing and joking and giving his opinion as to the guilt of OJ Simpson – and you can hear him say these things in his own words. That’s how this case got started – they wanted to get him. 

It is the state’s burden to prove every element of the crimes charged. OJ Simpson has sat through these proceedings and maintained his innocence throughout this case and says again that he is not guilty. All criminal cases are a search for the truth. And it’s not a twisted or colored truth – but a search for the real truth of what really happened. 

You have received an instruction about witnesses lying and throwing out their testimony. When you are back there in the jury room going over these witnesses that the state brought to you and you are reading that jury instruction, discuss the credibility of  people who say “Yeah, I’ll sway my testimony for money.” 

So let’s go through the facts and try to figure out what really happened here. 

And to do that – we need to go back to the beginning….

Riccio gets a call from Beardsley – of course, Beardsley says he got a call from Riccio, but it doesn’t matter who called who. Riccio was told by Beardsley that they had an opportunity to recover some of OJ’s stolen property. Now, this is before OJ is even involved. And Beardsley keeps calling Riccio, he keeps saying “I’ve got OJ’s stolen property…find a buyer.” And Beardsley was actively trying to sell these things – he said he had press releases, he had contacted TMZ, and he couldn’t get buyers. 

So when Riccio calls him back and says “I’ve got a buyer.” Beardsley was ecstatic. Riccio asks Beardsley for a list or inventory of the property and after Riccio gets this information – he calls OJ. And he describes the items to OJ. And included are family photos, photos of OJ’s deceased child, photos of his deceased parents, family pictures that date back to the 1940’s that had been stolen from his home. These are items that were taken off the walls of his home – Fromong said on the witness stand that the items were in the same condition as when we took them out of OJ’s house. Now, that may have been a slip – but that’s what he said. 

Riccio says that he contacts Beardsley at OJ’s request and they get an inventory of all the items, and Riccio and OJ discuss it – OJ tells Riccio that these are his items, items that he has been looking for for years and that he wants it back. OJ is so excited about this that he is telling everyone he sees – what was the secret here? Was there anyone who didn’t know this was going to happen? He’s telling strangers that come up to his room, he’s telling people at the pool, he’s telling strangers at the Palms Pool Bar what’s going to happen. Was his intent to commit a crime, or was his intent to recover property that was stolen from him years before? Everything the state says about a conspiracy to commit a crime did not happen and was not proven. It was never meant to be a crime. It was always about the recovery of stolen property. It was about Riccio calling OJ saying “This deal has to happen – it has to happen.” 

Mr. Roger said in his opening remarks that people should go to the police with property disputes. But they did! They contacted the FBI and the police and told them what was going to happen. Once the FBI finds out that OJ Simpson is involved – they aren’t interested. Can’t help you. Riccio said on the stand that he was frustrated and kind of pissed that the FBI, when told of a crime, when told that Beardsley was in possession of stolen property, that the FBI wasn’t going to do anything about it. They didn’t even write a report. Riccio says he was amazed. But that didn’t stop him – he then went to local law enforcement, saying “I need your help, I’ve got this guy who says he has stolen property belonging to OJ Simpson and we need to get this property back” And the police, once they know OJ is involved, say “We’re not interested.” 

Riccio pursues the matter and he and OJ keep talking, and it takes 5 or 6 weeks for this event to occur. There were a number of calls between Riccio and OJ and they discuss where this is going to happen and when it’s going to happen and there were a lot of different dates and destinations and it ends up that it’s going to take place in Las Vegas on the weekend of the 13th. 

OJ wasn’t here to commit a robbery – OJ was here to be best man at his best friend’s wedding. And Fromong lived in Las Vegas, and Beardsley came from California and Riccio was flying to California from New York. Riccio didn’t know Fromong was the one bringing the property – Riccio was getting all his information from Beardsley. Riccio didn’t even meet Fromong until he got to the Palace Station. 

Now, in order to evaluate what is going on here, you have to look at what is going through OJ’s mind on the 13th. And we know what’s going on in his head, because we have his words on tape. To him, and his mind, it’s all about the recovery of his stolen items. And although the state says that this is memorabilia, it’s not. It’s heirlooms. These are not the items that are in the normal stream of commerce – these aren’t things you are going to walk into a local sports shop and buy. Fromong himself said on the stand that OJ would never sell these heirlooms and personal mementos. Fromong said OJ never sold his own property. This is Fromong the “victim”. 

You know from Riccio that he was incredibly sensitive to stolen property issues –  because of events in his own life he was sensitive about this. That’s why Riccio wanted to make sure that police were involved or the FBI was involved because there was never an intent to commit a crime. If there had been the intent of committing a crime – Riccio would have been on the next plane back to California. Riccio never would have participated. 

So Riccio and OJ are going back and forth about where and when this was going to take place – and it wasn’t until late in the day that Riccio decided that it was going to take place in his room – he made that decision because nobody could make a decision. And he wanted to get this over with – he was investing way too much time into this. He was sick of dealing with Beardsley. There was no secret plan to get a back room – the participants didn’t even know where the room was – OJ says on the Palms tape that he thinks the room is on the 12th or 13th floor – he didn’t know it was in the back courtyard. They were thinking they’d have to get trucks to lug all this stuff and OJ doesn’t even realize that half the stuff isn’t going to be there. OJ is saying “We’ve gotta get people to help move all this stuff” There was no secret back rooms. And don’t you love when people start talking about secrets and everything is on camera and audio tapes? There were no secrets. 

Whatever Riccio’s motives are – we know that Riccio made a decision to do it in his room. There was supposed to be a buyer and Charlie was going to be the buyer, but that was all nixed and the person who nixed that was Riccio. We know that Riccio was the one who made a decision to do it in his room, and he’s the one who said “We’re scrapping the original plan.” He’s the one who said – look, let’s just go in and get the property. 

As OJ walks into the room at the Palace Station, he sees neatly displayed on the bed – his stuff. Everything Riccio had told him, OJ visualizes. And who displayed all the stuff on the bed? Riccio said that he’s the one who took all the personal items and one of a kind presentation balls and plaques and games balls and lined them up on the bed. All the things that OJ hadn’t seen in years. He sees them when he walks into that room – and this stuff, it isn’t his property – this is the foundation of this mans life. Imagine an athlete who has many milestones in his career, and those milestones are measured by one of a kind footballs. These are things that a boss gives to an employee for years of dedicated service, things that folks like you and I would have framed on our walls. Those things that our boss gives us to commemorate work well done. When his life – these footballs, these plaques, these pictures, that’s what this stuff represents. This is a timeline, this is a continuum, along with his family photos, this is what he sees. 

And as you can imagine, and as you can hear on the tape, the emotions from OJ Simpson were running high. He starts screaming “You stole my stuff! You stole my shit!” And you hear in his voice how incredibly upset and emotional he is. “This is my stolen stuff.” One thing that wasn’t discussed in this trial is that the two people in the room are Fromong and Beardsley – these are not strangers to OJ – they all knew each other. They’ve all had prior business dealings and relationships. And that’s hwy you hear the conversations you hear. “You stole my shit!” “No, no, no, Mike took it!” And when OJ goes into that room yelling “You stole my shit!” What do these people say to him? They say “Mike took it!” And OJ says “Well let’s get Mike on the phone.” And the guys in that room don’t argue with OJ when OJ says they stole his shit – they don’t say “No, this is my shit” or “No, OJ you were paid for this stuff last year.” Or “No, OJ, You sold this stuff to Mike” – they say “Mike took it.” So everything Riccio says about them knowing that this was stolen property – they confirm. They could have said anything they wanted in that room – but they didn’t – they say “Mike took it.” 

Now, Riccio says that thing are going like they are supposed to be going – until McClinton takes over in that room. And McClinton starts yelling and screaming and giving people orders and telling people to bag shit up – and OJ is saying “Don’t take anything that isn’t mine.” 

I’ll be the first one to tell you that going on your own into a hotel room and getting your own stolen stuff back is not bright. It’s just not bright. It’s stupid. But being stupid and being frustrated is not being criminal. When things start going South, when McClinton takes over, OJ starts saying “Don’t take things that aren’t mine.” And “:Anything that gets taken accidentally will be returned. We’ll make arrangements.” And OJ and Fromong are talking – they are trying to resolve their differences – and McClinton grabs OJ by the arm and takes him out of the room. We know that from McClinton’s testimony.  

Now, the state told you that this was a small room, and because it was a small room that OJ would have had to have seen a gun. I would submit to you that because this was a small room, OJ couldn’t have seen a gun. 

We know that OJ is in a corner of the room – a far left corner. And he is face to face with Fromong and they are face to face yelling at each other about the stuff.  Riccio is in the back of the room – and we know that Riccio was in best position to see everything that was going on and Riccio says that OJ was so focused and so emotional with Fromong and Beardsley for stealing his stuff and being in that room that he probably didn’t see a gun. 

And there is no discussion of a gun in that room. There was no waving of arms and no one said “Out the gun down.” And you know that from the tape – there is no mention on hat tape about a gun. You don’t hear anyone say “Put the gun down.” It’s not the center of attention in the room. What is the center of attention is OJ yelling and the two guys admitting this is stolen property. 

Now, the one thing about being OJ Simpson is that everything he does is news. And this story broke in the news on the very night it happened. It was all over the media and people were giving interviews and people started getting paid that very night. There were reports about Beardsley’s call to the police before OJ even got back to the Palms hotel. And the report on the 911 call was “OJ Simpson committed an armed robbery!” That’s what the initial media reports were. And OJ is on the phone saying “What are they talking about? There were no guns – I was just getting my stolen property back – there was no robbery.” And they get back to the Palms hotel and they are all in the parking area and what’s happening? We know from Cashmore that OJ was saying “Look, whatever’s not mine – take it back!” 

Now, before someone is branded a criminal in the United States, their intention has got to be to commit a criminal act. In law school they call that Mens Rea – an evil criminal mind. Is there any evidence that that’s what occurred here?

The DA’s office in this case gave out so many “Get out of jail free” cards and so many probation cards in this case that they could have had these people say anything they wanted. But what was going through OJ’s mind – because I asked every single one of them that question, and every one of them said “to get his shit back.” 

This case has some amazing twists and turns – you have Riccio recording the entire event – you have Alexander and McClinton – and their intention is to videotape the event and audiotape the event. And when Alexander was on the stand, I asked him when it was that he went out to buy the video and audiotape equipment and he said that it was after he left the Palms, that’s when he went to the spy shop. Why is this important? Because the only thing that’s not on tape in this entire case is the meeting between Alexander and McClinton and OJ in OJ’s room. And that’s when OJ said to bring a gun. Isn’t that amazing? That we have to rely on McClinton’s word that OJ said that. And is McClinton the kind of guy you would have baby-sit for you?

I can show to you and prove to you that that conversation never took place. How? Because of this – if Alexander and McClinton had a conversation after they left OJ’s room and the government’s theory is correct that there was a discussion to bring a gun and commit a crime, then why would these guys want to videotape themselves committing a crime? And that was the purpose of having this equipment. The equipment didn’t work – but they wanted it to work. If they were going to go in there and pull out guns – who videotapes that? Who creates that evidence? 

So there was never a conspiracy by OJ to commit a crime – But I’ll tell you what it was – there was an agreement – that was an agreement between Alexander and McClinton to make some money off of OJ’s back. To create some publicity for themselves. They were going to tape this event and then sell the tape to the tabloids. Their motives weren’t genuine. They weren’t helping a friend They left OJ’s hotel room and he was telling them about stolen property, just like he told Lowell Katz, Riccio’s friend, and they decided in the elevator on the way down to videotape this and make money from it. If OJ had told them “Bring a gun and let’s commit a crime” Why would they leave the hotel room and say “Let’s videotape this and sell it to the tabloids!” They are going to create evidence that could put them in prison? That defies logic. 

So you have Riccio’s secret tape and you’d have McClinton’s secret tape – they would be competing to see who could get tot eh tabloids first – there’d be a bidding war. But OJ didn’t know anything about this. 

Now, I was specific with Alexander when he was on the stand about this video equipment. Because this is highly specialized stuff. This isn’t stuff you just walk into a 7-11 and buy. This took effort and planning – and they bought this stuff. The fact that it didn’t work is irrelevant – it was their intention. And their intention was to set up OJ and make money off of his back. 

We know that McClinton was the hothead that was giving orders in that room – he was the one making threats. He was the one barking orders at people. He decided when OJ needed to leave. He grabbed his arm and pushed him out. This happens when OJ is actually talking with Fromong. So not only do I submit to you that this conversation at the Palms never happened, because of the Audio and Video recording that Alexander and McClinton intended to make, but we also know that never once did McClinton tell the police or mention in his preliminary testimony that OJ said to bring guns. That was here and now that we first heard this. 

The state has enormous power – they really do. They have the power to charge people with crimes. They have the power to give people probation or to dismiss charges all together. And that’s incredible motivation and incentive to lie and shade the truth. And that’s one of the reasons why McClinton never said this before. He needed to ensure a conviction for OJ in order to get himself the probation card that he so badly wants. 

On cross examination McClinton said “It slipped my mind.” It slipped his mind to tell the police that OJ said to bring guns. When you consider his demeanor on the stand – the huge difference between his attitude between when he was answering the state’s questions or answering our questions – we all saw the difference –  you remember, at one point he said “Grasso!” and the judge had to reprimand him. When he was answering questions for the state? Then it was “Yes, sir” and :No, sir” and “How high do I jump, sir?” And they’ve done nothing ethically wrong – but when you pre interview people and are able to offer them ROR for an Armed Robbery as they did to Alexander – and get him a deal that guarantees probation – well, that’s an enormous power. 

There are two great aphrodisiacs in this side of the law – one is money and the other is liberty. And Alexander, at his preliminary hearing testimony, said on cross that he would sway his testimony for someone who paid him money. And you heard the message he left for Tom Scotto. The lawyers for the state tried as hard as they could to impeach Scotto about the shakedown at the party – but you don’t have to believe Scotto – we have a tape of it occurring and Alexander places that call. And what does he say? He says “I can help your boy – I can be of some help.”  What is that all about if it’s not about money and swaying testimony?   People come in a courtroom and swear to tell the truth and yet these are the conversations they have beforehand? Swaying their testimony and leaning their testimony for money? 

Then Galanter plays the tape of the message Alexander left for Scotto. 

Is that not consistent with what Tom Scotto told us happened at that party? Scotto says he was scared to report it the first time it happened – but he also said that when it happened the second time he thought “ok, enough is enough” and he contacted the police and plays the recording for them. HE sends them the tape. And what did the police do? Do they follow up? Did they arrest Alexander for extortion? Do they do an investigation? No, they put it in a file and forget about it. Why? Because it’s OJ that they want to convict. 

Now, you realized early on that the defense and the prosecution have not agreed on the content of these transcripts. You know that because of the judge’s admonition to you every time you pick one up. And we don’t agree because half this transcript is wrong. Either words and conversations were left out, or words were misattributed to people, or attributed to people who didn’t say them. These transcripts do show you, however, the effort that’s being used to try and get a conviction in this case. Things like this: In the transcript the words “You can’t lie, You can’t lie” originally, in the prosecution’s transcript, were attributed to someone besides OJ. Why is that? Why did that happen? These transcripts were prepared and supervised by Detective Caldwell, one of the detectives in this case. They weren’t sent to a professional transcriptionist – and there are professional transcriptionists. People who do this for a living. But they weren’t sent out to a professional who had no motives and no biases in this case or who could give us an accurate rendition of what was said on these tapes. 

Mr. Grasso went through these transcripts with you when McClinton was on the stand to show you that these words were attributed to other people. And all these grave errors. And the reason we did it with McClinton is because McClinton is the one who sat with Caldwell for hours and hours and tried to decipher these tapes. And Caldwell actually said on the stand “Yeah, I did my best, it was frustrating, I guessed a couple of times.” He guessed? This is their burden of proof. There are people who do this professionally for a living, they could have had them do it. But we had Caldwell translating words with the guy who brought the gun into the room – and has a probation card. And a reason to have a bias – he wants to please the people who control his probation card. Grasso asked McClinton “Why didn’t you challenge Caldwell on some of these words and attributions?” And McClinton said “It is what it is.”

And let’s think about this – Why – out of all the statements on the transcript – do they attribute the words “You can’t lie” to someone other than OJ? 

When someone is on trial for their liberty – these mistakes should not be made. OJ is talking to McClinton and Alexander as he doesn’t know he’s being taped – and he’s saying to these people “You can’t lie.” and their true intent is being portrayed – That’s a direct omission of fact by the state and why did that occur?

They asked questions in this case about OJ trying to manipulate Beardsley’s testimony – but that never happened. Why would they even say that? Why would they bring a false fact into this case? Why would they bring in false facts – but overlook things like OJ saying “You can’t lie” on the tape – or on the phone call he made from jail saying “I hope everybody tells the truth.”

OJ didn’t manipulate Beardsley’s testimony – Beardsley realizes immediately that Riccio set everyone up – and he goes to the media immediately and starts saying that. We can see from the phone records that it’s not OJ contacting Beardsley – that it’s Beardsley contacting Linda Deutsch – it’s Beardsley trying to contact OJ  and the phone records show that. So why would the state say that OJ is manipulating Beardsley? Why would they not attribute the words “You can’t lie” to anyone but OJ? 

Mr. Owens, in his opening remarks, used the words hypocrisy and audacity. People who say “Don’t lie” and “I hope they tell the truth” and “I want to talk to the police” on surreptitious phone recordings – that’s not hypocrisy or audacity. People who try to make that into something it isn’t. That’s hypocrisy and audacity. 

Galanter then gets into the motivations of the witnesses – and he plays the piece of testimony of Tom Riccio where Riccio is outlining how much money he has made from this case. 

Galanter then addresses the jury. You have to consider what is going on here. Other than OJ, everyone had a financial motive You have to consider the motives and biases of all the parties. Why did Riccio really do all this? It wasn’t out of the goodness of his heart. Riccio got $150K from TMZ. I’ve gotta tell ya, that’s a chunk of change. And he also testified that he got 15K from Inside Edition, and ABC paid him $20K and he got money from Howard Stern. We added it up while he was on the stand – remember? It was something like $210 thousand dollars. Because of what happened here. Because of him making a call to OJ about “hey OJ, I can help you get back your stolen property.” 

Then we have Walter Alexander – when Alexander was on the stand I asked him “Have you contacted any book publishers?” He said Yes. I asked him “I’ve seen you on TV holding up your book looking for publishers. What were you trying to do?” And he said he was trying to make money. So not only is he selling his testimony – he’s also selling books. Is he interested in the truth or is he interested in lining his pockets? 

Immediately after the event – Fromong is in the room with Beardsley and what does Fromong say? Does he say “Oh, I’m so upset” or “Oh, I’m so distraught.” No, what he says is “I’ll get Inside Edition down here tomorrow- I’ll tell them I want big money.” 

Al Beardsley – he says “Let’s call Lydia at Inside Edition – do you know how much money we’ll make off of this?” Fromong: “I want big bucks.”

Mr. Roger made the point that the fact that OJ wanted to give all of the property back that was mistakenly taken has no legal significance in this case. Well, two things I want to say about that. 1. That’s not true. It’s garbage. The court has given you no instructions to that effect. and 2. What is at issue here is what was this man thinking?  Anybody that wants to return property – does not have a criminal mind. What is at issue here is what were OJ’s intentions? 

This is a unique case for many, many reasons. We’ve got two named victims – Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley. Beardsley came into this courtroom and said he didn’t want to be here – he didn’t think this case should be prosecuted. He didn’t want to be named in the charges. Then we have the second complaining witness, Bruce Fromong, who came in here and said that he thought all of this property should be returned to OJ’s family. So you have one victim who wants to drop the charges and another who thinks all the property should go back to OJ. 

Now let’s talk about OJ Simpson and some of the things he’s done in this case. When I questioned Detective Caldwell I asked him about OJ’s attempts to contact law enforcement and he said he couldn’t remember. Oddly enough it seemed like a lot of the questions we asked him he couldn’t remember the answers to. But eventually we asked the same things of Detective Hunt and he was very professional and answered our questions truthfully and fully. And we learned from Detective Hunt the efforts that OJ made to get into contact with the police. 

Within 6 minutes of this event happening, OJ was on the phone with Riccio and Riccio is standing there with the police and OJ wants to talk to the police. And Officer Tucker has to get permission to talk to OJ. He doesn’t know what to do – he has to ask a supervisor. He was shocked. So he finally talks to OJ and contact information is exchanged. The next day Hunt calls OJ and OJ invites him over – and Hunt goes right over with three of his detectives – one of whom is Caldwell, who couldn’t remember – and Hunt says that OJ is professional and courteous and talkative. Now this is not the conduct of someone who thinks they just committed a crime. In the Little Buddha tape McClinton made we hear OJ saying to McClinton and Alexander “I don’t know why they haven’t called yet.” OJ is anxious – he wants to talk to the police. 

This property has been called so many things – Memorabilia, property, stuff, but in 1884, a justice of the Supreme Court had this to say

The property which every man has in his own labor is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred.

And what this really means is that the foundation of one’s labor, creates the other property that you can get. And what it’s really saying is, that this stuff of OJ’s, this isn’t property to him, this is his life. This is the timeline of his life. This is the foundation of his life. This is what allowed him, or any of us, to buy the watches, the homes, the cars, the suits, and that’s why this property raised such high emotion. This wasn’t about a missing piece of jewelry, or a missing camera or a missing car, or anything else. This was about the absolute essence, the cornerstone and the foundation of OJ Simpson’s life. That’s why this property was so sacred to him. And only him. And it’s important when you go back in that jury room and you discuss OJ’s fate that you consider that and look at this stuff. I mean just look at it, that’s what this was. This was the timeline of his life. These were the things that were supposed to be in his family, passed down to his children and their children and their children after that. That’s why this property was so so sacred and instilled such emotion in OJ Simpson. 

The property which every man has in his own labor is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred. 

In the beginning when we went through voir dire with you – you knew what my concerns were – and I questioned you all about judging OJ Simpson on these events and only these events. You all swore to all of us, collectively, that that is what would happen. And I have faith in you that this is what is going to occur. And I want you to think about these things.

Does anybody in this room truly and honestly believe – truly and honestly have a strong conviction in their heart of hearts, after every witness, after every bit of testimony, after everything that we have heard,  that OJ Simpson, when he walked into the Palace Station on that night, that he had the intent to commit a crime. That he walked into that room to commit an armed robbery or armed kidnapping. Think about that. He was here for his best friend’s wedding. Was he going there to commit a robbery? Does anyone believe that that is what was in his mind? 

I told you from the very very beginning that I was going to ask you to find him not guilty. He is not guilty. And we may all quibble with how it was done – and what was done. We may all say he didn’t use common sense. But the real issue is if he had the criminal intent to commit a crime. They haven’t proven that he did, the facts haven’t shown it. And that’s why he should be found not guilty.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “NV. vs. Simpson – Closing Arguments – Galanter”

  1. johnny o said

    I can’t commend you enough on these outstanding write ups you do every day.

    I love reading them and a big THANK YOU for the incredible work !!

  2. Tim said

    I cannot believe it. He’s going to jail.

  3. Florida Fan said

    Found guilty on all 12 counts 13 years to the day after his acquittal in the Ron Goldman/Nicole Brown Simpson case.

  4. Anonymous said

    Guilty…finally. The actual sentencing will be very interesting. Life is doubtful in my mind, but 10 years at least on all full counts.

    Thanks Kim. This was a long write for you, our “never fail us” gal.

    Hopefully you have been able to relax between all by watching P-Runway.

  5. Tim Witherspoon said

    God himself could have been representating O.J. and it would not have done him any good at all. As soon as they announced an all white jury I knew and the rest of the world he was finished.

    Question. Will Fred Goldman be looking to garnishee his prison wages now ? LOL

  6. sue said

    Amazing essay. Not sure if you’ve gone to law school or not. If not, please do so, as you have a lot to contribute.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: