O.J. Simpson's Lawyers ask Judges to Reconsider Appeal

A panel of three judges in Nevada are considering a request from the attorneys of O.J. Simpson to reconsider their appeal after it was denied. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas after a confrontation with memorabilia dealers whom he believed stole his personal items.

Yale Galanter, one of Simpson's lawyer, is attempting to argue that when rejecting their appeal, the justices did not consider the fact that Simpson didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime, and that the last two black prospective jurors were removed without appropriate cause. They also argue that juror bias played a role in Simpson's conviction.

"This court fully understands Simpson's name is shorthand for murder," Galanter stated in his request for reconsideration. A Simpson co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, has already been granted a new trial.

When the trial took place in 2008, there were 500 potential jurors who filled out a 26-page questionnaire. They were asked about the 1995 murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, and half the jury pool was eliminated after expressing strong feelings about the case.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger said that the appeals by Simpson are not likely to succeed.

"I am sure O.J. Simpson will be like every other convicted criminal and will file numerous repetitious, frivolous appeals," he said.

The story of O.J. Simpson is so sad that you could write it in a Greek tragedy. He was once the golden boy of corporate America, receiving endorsement deals and opportunities in Hollywood that most black athletes only dream about. The nightmare of his murder trial killed all of that, because it's hard to be a bankable movie star when a large percentage of Americans think you murdered two people.

The trial also brought along numerous racial implications in a country that is not accustomed to seeing a black man get away with allegedly killing a white woman. Nicole Brown Simpson was presented to the world as the blond-haired angel, and O.J. was portrayed as the dark-skinned demon. It didn't matter that one of the lead investigators, Mark Furman, was a racist and perjurer. It didn't matter that the "bloody glove" didn't fit. It didn't matter that there were nothing more than microscopic droplets of blood in Simpson's truck. All that mattered was that, as the jealous ex-husband, Simpson was the most likely suspect.

I don't know if O.J. Simpson committed those murders back in 1995. I wouldn't bet for or against him. But I do know that if you believe in the American justice system, where reasonable doubt implies that you must find the defendant not guilty, then you had to let O.J. go. That's the bottom line, so the jury did make the right decision. As I've mentioned with respect to the trial of R. Kelly, being found not guilty is far from being found to be innocent.

What's most interesting about the Simpson trial in 1995 was that there are murders of people of color all across America every single day, and never once have I seen the bulk of our nation become as outraged as they did when O.J. was accused of killing a white woman. This same lynch mob anger has shown itself throughout history when black men were accused of crimes and dragged out of the jail to be burned in the middle of the night. The same lynch mobs have shown themselves to vilify the first black president as he tries to run the nation. Racism has always threatened to destroy our country, and if we are not careful, it may possibly do so.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition and a Scholarship in Action resident of the Institute for Black Public Policy. To have Dr. Boyce's commentary delivered to your e-mail, please click here.