OJ Simpson Sentenced

Posted on: December 9, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.

OJ Simpson, the former football great who has made headlines the last fifteen years for various criminal charges, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the kidnapping and robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers. The sentencing took place in Las Vegas where the crime took place. Simpson would be eligible for parole in nine years under the sentence handed down.

Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon.

Kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute.

Both crimes carry serious consequences, and when criminal activity is compounded (as was the case with OJ Simpson) sentencing can be quite serious. The punishment for a robbery conviction in California is up to five years state prison. The penalty for robbery may be much more severe if weapons were used, or if someone was injured during the course of the robbery.

A theft crime is a criminal act of taking another individual

Tagged as: california criminal laws, counterfeit goods pc 350

Comments:

Phillip Huynh on December 12, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. wrote:

I believed that O.J. got what he deserve because he should have called police if he believed that the items were stolen from him instead of taking matters into his own hands. If he would have got away with this, then other people would think its okay to use deadly force in trying to retrieve something that belongs to them. Many cases follow the guidelines of previous similar cases and society does not want people to think that it is okay to act in this manner. However, I think the victims should be investigated about where they got the items from because they should not be getting away with obtaining things that are not theirs. I am really curious to find out if the judge will allow O.J. back on the streets after his parole hearing. In addition, I think that the judge did a great job in letting everyone know that the sentence that she gave him was not based on any other case other than the one at hand because many people want revenge for the Nicole Simpson murder.

tatiana vardanyan on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 a.m. wrote:

'Bruins drink apple juice because OJ kills' The above humorous quote sums up how the majority of students at UCLA feel about the infamous OJ

tatiana vardanyan on December 12, 2008 at 2:55 a.m. wrote:

Sarah Silverman on OJ's sentence: 'It's kinda like Al Pachino winning an Oscar for 'Scent of a Women'... it may not have been the greatest movie in the world but he deserved it for something else he did' Pretty funny

Tania Shakoori on December 12, 2008 at 2:15 a.m. wrote:

What I was shocked by when watching the trial was the presence of Ron Goldman's family in the courtroom. (As you may recall, Simpson was charged with the murder of Ron Goldman but not convicted). I know the judge explicitly said that she was ruling solely on the case before her, but I felt as though the family's presence sent the wrong message. I'm not sure what court rules are regarding the people who are allowed inside a courtroom, but I feel as though anyone watching the trial from home would be suspicious of the sentencing verdict because the Goldman family's presence made it seem as though the sentencing verdict was making up for what many people believed was a wrong not-guilty verdict in the murder trials. Ron Goldman's father even made a comment after the trial that justice had finally been served. This made me uneasy because I hope that the previous trial and previous charges that Simpson faced did not come into consideration at all for the sentencing. I feel as though situations such as this undermine society's trust in the system even when the trial only appears unfair and isn't unfair in reality. In order for our trial system to work, people need to have confidence in it and believe that is a fair and legitimate mechanism through which people can seek justice.

Keri Wittmeyer Comm 174 on December 11, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. wrote:

If OJ wasn't the OJ Simpson we all know and...less than love, I still think he would've been found guilty of these latest crimes and handed a similar sentence. He had accomplices who weren't very smart, couldn't keep quiet even to save themselves, and a mountain of evidence, including audio tape against him. I suppose it can be argued that the state wouldn't have been as aggressive in going after OJ, in finding the evidence, in getting *him* convicted, if it hadn't been for the past. I just happen to not see anything wrong with that. No one fabricated evidence, and if anything he benefitted from every step by the prosecution being so highly publicized and therefore open to scrutiny. Obviously, most people would've tried to stay below the radar if they had the type of public disdain that OJ does, but clearly the man makes poor choices, and now he has to pay the price. Bias could've been an issue in terms of the jury etc., but the evidence was strong enough that I haven't heard anyone saying OJ was found guilty because no one likes him and they wanted to nail him for something. He got nailed for something he did, it's as simple as that.

Kelsey Claire Com 173 on December 11, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. wrote:

The fact that OJ

Kelsey Claire Com 173 on December 11, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. wrote:

The fact that OJ's simpson is getting such a severe sentence scares me. Yes, I, like most of us, believe OJ Simpson was most likely guilty of killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, however, I do not think the court should find a way around double jeopardy by severely over sentencing Simpson for somewhat of a petty crime to get 'payback,' for him being acquitted of the murders. If it was anyother person, the DA would most likely of offered him a plea bargain for the crime. Instead, they offered all of his accomplices plea bargains to testify against OJ. Although in this case it may seem that 'justice' has finally been served, the more power you give to the courts to find loopholes around such laws in place for our protection, such as double jeopardy, the flimsier our system becomes.

unknown on December 11, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. wrote:

The fact that OJ's simpson is getting such a severe sentence scares me. Yes, I, like most of us, believe OJ Simpson was most likely guilty of killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, however, I do not think the court should find a way around double jeopardy by severely over sentencing Simpson for somewhat of a petty crime to get 'payback,' for him being acquitted of the murders. If it was anyother person, the DA would most likely of offered him a plea bargain for the crime. Instead, they offered all of his accomplices plea bargains to testify against OJ. Although in this case it may seem that 'justice' has finally been served, the more power you give to the courts to find loopholes around such laws in place for our protection, such as double jeopardy, the flimsier our system becomes.

Nahal Hamidi on December 10, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. wrote:

This case is a unique one in that many are saying that O.J. Simpson is 'finally getting what he deserved.' But I don't think that is the case. This is completely separate from the murder trial in 1995 and that's how it should have been addressed in order to prevent any biases in the verdict. I can imagine that is difficult to do though with such a high-profile case. It's also interesting how plea bargaining was used in this case for purposes of evidence. The other men with Simpson the night of the crime accepted plea bargains and testified for the prosecution. While Pizzi argues, that plea bargaining is undermining the trial system, I believe this a perfect example of how it is benefiting out trial system. In this case, it provided integral evidence that definitely influenced the verdict of the trial.

Shirin S on December 9, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. wrote:

I contemplate if OJ's sentence would be as severe if he didn't have the tainted history of being a murderer. He set himself up for this situation. He should have considered himself unrighteously lucky for getting off for the murders for Nicole and her friend. Once that 'not guilty' verdict came out, you would suppose he would live his life like a straight board. But instead he tainted the system and made fun of it by attempting to write his book explaining how he killed them and knowing he would and could not be tried again while protected under double jeopardy. I feel that in OJ's previous situation, it shows the flaws of our criminal system. Yes, double jeopardy can and has protected individuals before, but it seems as though, the more severe offenders are getting off the hook. If someone commits a crime so heinous such as murder, they should not have double jeopardy to protect them. Although it is not to function or purpose of the law, double jeopardy can have its way of working-someone who commits a crime and is lucky enough to get off will tend to test their luck and continue to break laws, in the future when they get caught, we can only hope their justice will be served.

Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses.

Los Angeles County, CA: Agoura, Altadena, Alhambra, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Century City, Chatsworth, Compton, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Downtown Criminal Court, El Segundo, East Los Angeles, Eastlake, Encino, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Los Angeles Lawyer, La Canada, LAX Court, Los Padrinos, Long Beach, Los Angeles Attorney, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Newhall, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica, South Gate, South Pasadena, Sylmar, Torrance, Universal City, Valencia, Van Nuys, West Covina, West Hollywood, Walnut, Westchester, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills, California. Orange County, CA: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine Attorney, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Lawyer, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, California. Ventura County, CA: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village. San Bernardino County, CA: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland.

Prior Criminal Law Posts

OJ Simpson Sentenced

Comments:

Add your comment!

Firm Fan Page & News

Our Criminal Defense Partners

Criminal Defense Resources

Prior Criminal Law Posts