Bizyme wrote on October 12, 2008 04:43 AM: Just the fact the jury foreman lied on his questionaire is enough for retrial. What an absolute dunce. All this time and expense to all concerned down the drain. Stewart should be severed from OJ's trial, too, in my opinion. If not, he should take the plea, if not too late. It is not worth going to jail for a long time for OJ or anyone.

the playa wrote on October 11, 2008 07:45 PM: Umm-well said Abe S.?

abe s. wrote on October 11, 2008 07:42 PM: I wonder what animal in that jail will be the first to blow a load inside OJ's pooper?

townsend wrote on October 11, 2008 04:57 PM: urnuts,keep your racist bigoted white trash opinions to yourself.the lawyers are doing their job well within the means of the law,they have the right to request a new trial by any means affordable to them.(they can argue whatever the hell they want)and remember he has the right to an appeal

townsend wrote on October 11, 2008 04:52 PM: attorney was right about the limited questions on cross examination by the defense attorney,that will be (should be anyway,but you never know in this state)enough to get a new trial.the defense attorney has the right to question any witness about his/her credibility.Riccio is a CONVICTED FELON,OJ's attorney had a constitutional right to be able to question his credibility.rodgers has that surpressed because he knew his star witness had no credibility to begain with

urnuts wrote on October 11, 2008 04:49 PM: It is a no win situation for us. If he was found "innocent", the lawyers would not be gripping. However, since the jury convicted him, the lawyers are once again playing the race card. What is it with this race card issue? If OJ was found innocent, you wouldn't have seen white people rioting in the streets. I guess only blacks like to riot so that they can do like they normally do - rob and steal.

townsend wrote on October 11, 2008 04:42 PM: the jury foreman was a plant.in legal terms it means he lied to get on the jury,knowing well in advance that he already had made up his mind about the accused innocence or guilt before the trial started.if this is true that he did lie on the questionaire,because he sure did say that he should have been locked up thirteen years ago,then they should have no choice but to grant him a new trial,regardless what any of you think of o.j ask yourself this,what if it were me that had just got convicted,and a juror lied on his questionaire,knowing well in advance that he had his mind set on convicting me all along.AND THIS IS NOT A BLACK OR WHITE ISSUE.just a fair one

Dursa wrote on October 11, 2008 10:59 AM: I have to agree with DRizzle. I get tired of reading comments from people who think they know things, but they really don't. An you can respond by saying you are in some inner circle, but your just bitter and like to hear yourself speak.

DRizzle wrote on October 11, 2008 10:57 AM: attorneyreview, unless you were on the jury, or work with david roger, or work with judge glass, you knowledge is just as limited.

Its fun to think that you in the know, but we all know your just plain opiniated.

attorneyreview wrote on October 11, 2008 09:30 AM: Todd; you are misguided in your knowledge of the law.. Those who are informed are well aware.

Read All Comments