O.J. Simpson leaves the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, Nevada Thursday Oct. 2, 2008. Simpson and co-defendant Clarence “C.J.” Stewart are facing 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery and conspiracy related to a 2007 confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel.
Published Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008 | 3 p.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008 | 7:44 p.m.
Sun coverage
Twitter updates
O.J. Simpson's fate and liberty now rests with nine women and three men from Clark County.
The 12-member jury will on Friday morning begin deliberating the 12 robbery, weapons and kidnapping charges faced by Simpson and his alleged co-conspirator, Clarence "C.J." Stewart.
"This case boils down to one word and that's accountability," district attorney David Roger said during his closing arguments this afternoon.
"We all must be held accountable for our own actions," Roger said. "The fault in this case lays with two people: Clarence Stewart and O.J. Simpson."
Simpson and Stewart are charged with robbing two memorabilia dealers at gunpoint last year. While neither defendants had a weapon during the altercation in the Palace Station hotel room, two of the five men that accompanied them that day did.
The other five men involved have been given plea agreements from the state and have testified against the accused.
Galanter and Stewart's lawyer, Brent E. Bryson, both argued that the state's witnesses were untrustworthy opportunists. The court heard from 22 witnesses since the trial began on Sept. 15.
"(The state) gave out so many probation get-out-of-jail-free cards and so many probation cards in this case, that they could've got these witnesses to say anything," Galanter said.
He called the plea bargains and promises of immunity were "a heck of an incentive" to provide slanted testimony.
"You can't trust those messengers," Bryson said. "And if you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message."
Simpson has said his reconnaissance mission was launched to retrieve items that belonged to him. The former NFL star has also said that no weapons were involved.
McClinton and Alexander said Simpson asked them to bring guns to the raid.
"The only thing that's not on tape in this entire case ... is that conversation that Michael McClinton says 'O.J. told me to bring a gun'," Galanter said, acknowledging that McClinton and Alexander secretly took audio recordings after the alleged robbery that were used as evidence against the accused.
Other audio recordings secretly taken by the middleman who arranged the meeting in his hotel room, Thomas Riccio, were used as highly disputed evidence in the case.
The transcripts of Riccio's controversial audio recordings, which Metro investigators produced, have also been hotly contested by both sides of the defense.
There is no audible mention of a gun during the six-minute hotel room altercation, though some witnesses claim Simpson acknowledged the weapon during the run-in and told McClinton to "put the gun down."
"When you listen to that tape, you don't hear anybody talk about a gun," Galanter said. "O.J. is yelling and screaming about his property and the two guys who have the stolen property are admitting to having it."
The defense maintained during their closing statements that both Simpson and Stewart didn't know any guns were in the room, and didn't notice when McClinton allegedly pulled his Ruger P345.
Bryson said because there were so many men - 10 in all - in the small hotel room that the firearm could have gone unnoticed during the commotion. The attorney demonstrated this by holding the gun close to his chest, as McClinton testified he did, to show how the black gun blended in with his dark suit.
Galanter alleged the case was about sending Simpson to jail because of who he is, not because of what he and the others did or didn't do on Sept. 13, 2007.
"This case ... has never been about a search for the true facts," Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said. "This case has taken on a life of its own because Mr. Simpson's involved. ... He has always been the target of this investigation and nothing else mattered."
"He has maintained his innocence throughout and says to you again that he is not guilty of these charges," Galanter said.
Roger called Simpson's claim that he did not know any guns were going to be, or were, used in the raid "flat nonsense."
"He brought the guns. He brought (the gunmen, Walter) Alexander and (Michael) McClinton. He knew there were guns," Roger said.
The prosecutor went through each of the 12 charges the defendants face and explained for the jury how each charge applies to the case.
If convicted, Simpson, 61, and Stewart, 54, could spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
The charges they face include 11 felonies (Conspiracy to commit kidnapping; conspiracy to commit burglary; burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon; and two counts each of first degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon; robbery with use of a deadly weapon; assault with a deadly weapon; and coercion with use of a deadly weapon. They also face one gross misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a crime.
The jury has the power to drop "use of a deadly weapon" from the nine weapons-related charges if they choose to do so.
The 12-member jury is predominantly white and predominately female: it includes one woman who considers herself Hispanic and another woman who identified herself as Asian, but no African Americans. There are two blacks in the six-person group of alternate jurors, one man and one woman.
No official estimates have been made concerning how long the jury will deliberate before returning their verdict.







On Sept 29 my husband and I decided to spend a day watching the OJ Simpson trial. We both are associated with the legal profession and were interested in viewing a bit of the trial. Unfortunately, the Las Vegas courthouse staff did not leave us with a positive impression of the Vegas court system. The founding fathers were adament about making sure our legal system was open to the public to insure fairness and justice. The court house staff openly lied to us in an effort to dissuade us, and others, from attending the trial. At most there were 10 spectators with about 20 or more empty seats. Yet we were continually told (at each break) that there were not enough seats. At the beginning we were told that those that were already there would get seats. They said there were 5 seats, 4 of which were filled. This was just untrue!!! When we were undetered, they let us in. There were at least 12 unfilled seats that were never occupied.
After lunch they then said that people who were seated in the morning would have to give up their seats for those who came in the afternoon. When it was apparent that there were only 2 or 3 "new people" they said they were limiting spectators because other court house staff was expected. Again we stood our ground quietly and with respect. They let us in and again no other spectators came in and at least 12 seats went unoccupied.
In another apparently deliberate ploy to keep people out was that the courtroom door was locked and the marshalls were on the inside. So when visitors approached they tried the locked door which, of course, made noise. Why wasn't one of the marshalls posted outside the door if they thought the courtroom required that it be locked? There were a very small handful of people interested in the trial (8 - 10).
So, I ask you - did the conduct of the staff further the cause of justice? In a place were truth should be the standard, the courthouse staff continually lied to us and to other spectators. This was not lost on other visitors, some of whom were vacationing attorneys.
This behavior was shameful - the staff should be instructed to treat visitors with honesty and respect. The constitution was written with this safeguard and courthouse staff should honor it.
I find the above post very interesting - I live out of state so am reduced to watching the limited coverage on TV and have to follow what the 'hosts' of the TV program states along with the many commercials during court testimony.
For the truth of each case a person has to watch the complete trial not just what the particular TV program wants to show you - I get so frustrated.
Both yesterday and today it was stated on this TV program that there were many folks interested in watching the trial in person so the alotted seats would be given out per their 'lottery' system.
As I've been watching this 'trial' since day one, along with the preliminary, I've seen the various 'vacant' seats behind the defense including yesterday (Wednesday) and today (Thursday).
My thoughts were "where are the spectators" or the folks who want to see this 'trial' in person?
From the testimony I've seen and the characters involved I say OJ is innocent. My husband who is very intelligent and wise regarding the court system, has said the same, that OJ is innocent.