I Know, I Know . . . The OJ Bail Hearing Again

In the first round of OJ, we all learned, quite clearly that justice is not blind. While justice was put on the back-burner, it was traded for a circus side-show in LA. While many saw this trial as a racial issue of white versus black, I viewed it as rich vs. poor. The trial itself did not focus on the money, however, the access that OJ had to the defense arguments was ONLY a product of his money. OJ proved that you can buy your own version of justice; not a payoff to the judge or the jury, rather payment to attorneys, lots of them.

In his most recent circus, OJ is now requesting that he be allowed to exit prison while awaiting his appeal. He wants out on bail pending appeal. Who ever gets that? In short, OJ is still paying to get what he wants. Judge Jackie Glass didn't put up with that. It is still yet to be seen whether the Nevada Supreme Court will submit.

Clearly, though, in short order OJ reveals that he has access to rights (rather arguments) that a general population inmate would never be given, especially if represented by a Public Defender. Can you even get a Public Defender for appeals?? No matter, it simply would not happen.

What is relevant is that OJ has access that the rest of us would not get. Not because the Court is giving him rights that they refuse to others (well maybe they are with the granting of oral arguments), but rather because money $$ gets OJ the attorneys to come up with creative arguments that others might otherwise not get, whether innocent or guilty.

OJ's attorney argued at the hearing that the trial was "riddled" with errors and that he was not a flight risk because he is the most notable person is the world. WOW, while vain, that may just be true. But I would put a few others in front of him.

While somewhat of a weak argument, District Attorney David Roger retorted that OJ 'could' leave the country from a boat in Florida, if allowed to leave prison.

This is the first time in 30 years that the Nevada Supreme Court has allowed 'oral arguments' on a bail hearing prior to an appeal. WHY? Are they saying that in 30 years no one else should have been let out of prison pending appeal OR are they saying that this is the first time in 30 years that someone has had enough money to pay attorneys that could make competent arguments that warrant oral arguments? Either way, it is unfair.

Probably the most notable errors being claimed by the Defense are: the seating of jurors that acknowledged they thought OJ should have been convicted in 1994 for murder and the Judge's alleged public berating of attorneys & witnesses in the presence of the jury. OH so what?!?