On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If even 1 juror had the mindset that they were votign 'guilty' whether he > committed the crime or not then it was an unfair trial. One of the jurors was interviewed after his 1995 trial, and she basically said she thought he was innocent when the trial started...and wasn't going to change her mind. *shrug* That's just the manner of our justice system.... As for sentencing, and I will admit I am not up on NV laws, but when I first > heard the sentencing, it seemed a bit long. He could potentially have gotten life in prison. What hurt OJ is that all his cohorts copped pleas. The attorney I heard commenting on the case thought that OJ received bad advice by deciding to take it to trial. As for the sentence, most seemed to think it was actually more lenient then they expected. Apparently this particular judge had a history of harsh punishments. Once again, I am not saying that he does not belong in jail just that maybe > he is paying for crimes for whcih he was already tried and found 'not > guilty'. He might be....he sure might be. When your famous, and famous for the WRONG reasons, it's tough to find a truly impartial jury. OJ's best bet, if he wanted to keep out of prison...would have been not to commit any armed robberies :) -- Thinking back to what truth may be Unaware that I've been living it all along ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:282357 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
