Comments on: Might OJ Simpson have a Sanders claim?

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:23:07 +0000

Funny, all these defense attys, and none of them can contest my showing the 2d Circuit case as utter BS.

By: And we take a look at US Law Blogs… « Insitelaw magazine

And we take a look at US Law Blogs… « Insitelaw magazine — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:18:16 +0000

[...] From Gideon’s A Public Defender blog An amusing piece entitled “10 things I didn’t learn in law school” and also “Might OJ Simpson have a Sanders claim?” [...]

By: A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:46:22 +0000

“Harmless error” never seems to work to the defendant’s advantage. Instead it seems to be a way to pile all of the bricks on top of him. These precedents might, under the right circumstances, help him to get out from under the biggest part of the ‘pile’.

I do note that two guys who did NOT have guns are punished with 9+ years. Those who DID have guns got probation. Is this really justice? Or revenge? Was Simpson ever offered the same deal to testified against them? Or is it as I suspect?

By: wtto

wtto — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:36:08 +0000

Could you explain what you mean by a counter to the “harmless error” doctrine?

I am not really clear on the relationship between a lack of information about a plea, and a procedural issue that supposedly had no effect on a trial’s outcome.

By: A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:14:56 +0000

One could see it a a counter to the “Harmless Error” doctrine, better described as “You gotta do what you gotta do”.

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:33:57 +0000

What a surprise, the 2d Circuit creates some BS law to help a defendant. This whole “I would have accepted a plea deal but my lawyer didn’t tell me” argument is unmitigated BS. Superficially, of course, it sounds good, but it fails any serious analysis. (Of course, it’s not surprising that some 2d Circuit liberals didn’t do the analysis–there are criminals to free and there is always the self-congratulations associated with putting, er, finding something in the Constitution hitherto unknown.)

First of all, in one of these cases, the defendant gets to have his cake (i.e., the plea deal) and eat it to (i.e., the trial). That patent unfairness to the state should be enough to end this silliness, but not with liberal judges around.

What really nukes this argument though is a good understanding of Cronic and what the 6A right to counsel guarantees. The 6A guarantees a fair trial, and, if the defendant gets a fair trial, then there can be no 6A violation for IAC. A matter of simple logic.

By: Lil Spicy

Lil Spicy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:46:44 +0000

I really don’t think OJ would have plead guilty to anything, including probation. He appears to be one of those clients that has convinced himself that he has never done anything illegal and as such, can’t wrap his head around the words “real consequences.”

By: Mark in Jersey

Mark in Jersey — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:14:14 +0000

Anyways, what I was concerned about is the defendant’s “rap sheet” and it having the more serious charge stick.

That will certainly affect him down the road if he is re-arrested and they see his criminal record for priors…

My question, as a non-lawyer, will that charge count as a prior “conviction”?

By: Mark in Jersey

Mark in Jersey — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:10:28 +0000

Hmmm… I read this to mean that the superseded indictment on the A-I (more serious) felony sticks; not the initial A-II indictment that defendant Boria was to plead to.

But the record doesn’t specify the exact charges…

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:58:37 +0000

Right, the court goes one step further and orders his release because permitting him to accept the offer would not serve any purpose.

The essence remains the same.