Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

1 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

2
3
Electronically Filed
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, Nov 16 2010 12:38 p.m.
C A S EN o .5 3 0 8 0
4 Tracie K. Lindeman
Appellant/Petitioner,
5
6 VS.

7 THE STATEOF NEVADA,


8
Respondent.
I
10
11
12
13
14
APPELLANT S PETITION F'ORREHEARING
15
16
17
1 8 Yale L. Galanter,P.A. Malcolm P. LaVergne,Esq.
Yale L. Galanter,Esquire The LaVergne Law Group
19 3730N.E. 199Terrace l2l2 SouthCasinoCenterBoulevard
20 Aventura,Florida 33 I 80 Las Vegas'Nevada89104
Ph. (305)s76-0244 Ph. (702)448-7981
21 Adrnitted Pro Hac Vice NevadaBar No. l0l2l
\'tralr:*Irri'.1ri'
Iitvcrgnclale'.crxlr
22
2 3 Attorneys for Appellant/Petitioner
24
25
26
27
28 -1-

Docket 53080 Document 2010-29934


1 Petitioner/Appellant
Orenthal
JamesSimpson( Appellant
) filesthisPetition
for
2
R e h e a r i npgu r s u a nt o
t N . R . A . P . 4o0f t h eC o u r t sO c t o b e2r 2 , 2 0 1 0p a n edl e c i s i o n
3
a judgmentof conviction
affirming upona jurytrialagainstAppellant.On appeal
4
Simpsonraiseda variety
of legalissuesthatresufted
in a fundamental
and
5
6 constitutionally judgment.The Courtfoundeachandeveryoneof Appellant
flararcd

7 Simpsons arguments
withoutmerit.Appellant
Simpsonrespectfully
disagrees
wlththe
B Courts Orderof Affirmance.ThisPetition
exemplifies
somematerial
factsand material
I
questions
of lawovedooked by ffreCourtpursuant
or misapprehended to N.R.A.P.
10
40(c).
11
12 T H EC O U R TM I S A P P R E H E N DTEHDE
LAW IN REGARDTO RESTRICTION ON VOIRDIRE
13
The Courtaffirmedthe trialcourts restrictions
on voir dire,ostensibly,because
14
the scope of voir dire restswithinthe sounddiscretionof the DistrictCourtand will be
15
1 6 givengreatdeference. The Courtin its opiniondeterminedthat the scopeof voir dire
1 7 shouldbe limited.See, October22,2010 Simpsonv. SfafePanelDecision,pgs. 5S.
18 The law generallystates generallyrests
that the scopeof voirdireexamination
19
withinthe discretionof the trial court. Overlooked,however,in the Courts October22,
20
2010 opinionis the SupremeCourtof the UnitedState s McDonoughcase,which
21
jurorwillrarelybe admittedby the juror himself.
22 explicitlystates, That biasof a
2 3 McDonoughv. Greenwood,464U.S. 548 (1983). The McDonoughcase standsfor the
24 propositionthat a trial murt can commitconstitutional
error by not permittingprobing
2 5 questions potentialjurors
of when there is a need to ask them. As furtherdiscussedin
26
that many potentialjurors includingthe ones
this Petition,the Courtfultyunderstands
27
2B -2-
1 sittingin judgmentof Appellant perceive
thatO.J.Simpson
s nameis synonymous
for
2 gettingawaywithmurder.
3
The Courts October22, 2010paneldecision
statedthat a thoroughanalysisof
4
eachjurors thoughtsandfeelingsaboutthe California
verdictswouldnotprovide
5
6 additionalsecuritiesthatthe prospectivejurorcould applythe lawfairlyand impartially.

7 Absolutelyno rationalebasisexistsfor makingsuch a statementgiventhe


B circumstancesof this case. To the contrary,the reasonthat federalcourtsinsiston
I
allowingquestionsto exposethese typesof biasesis becausethey are rarelyadmitted
10
by a prospectivejuror. Here,the trial courtclearlyabusedib discretionin lightof the
11
1 2 existingcase lawand the factsand circumstances of thiscase. For example,in an
' 1 3 opiniondecidedthe same date as the Orderof AffirmanceagainstAppellant,the Court

1 4 delvedinto a lengthydiscussionin Stewartv. Nevada(datedOctober22, 2010)about


15
how Simpsonis one of the most notoriouspublicfiguresin the country. ln particular,
16
the Courtfurtheropines in the Stewartdecisionthat there is a significantindicationthat
17
the generalpublicviewsthe formerfootballgreatas a criminal. Extensiveprobing
1B
1 9 questionswere necess€lry
and requiredin this case underthe law. The Courts rational

2 0 that more questioningralrculd


not have provided additionalsecuritiesmisapprehends
2 1 the law. AccordingV,a rehearingis rnarrantedon the issueof restricting
jury selection.
22
THE COURT MISAPPREHENDED
THE LAW AS IS RELATESTO BATSON.
23
Likewise,the Courtdeniedany reliefto Appellanton the Batsonclaim,stating
24
as with most issuesin the Courts opinion that greatdeferenceis givento the District
25
2 6 Courts findings. The Court did not addressand or,erlooked
the materialfact that ffre

27
2B -3-
1 twoAfrican-American
panelists
whowerestruckwerethe onlytrnoAfricanAmericans
on
2
the entirepanel.ThisCourtalsodid notaddressthefactthatbothAfrican-American
3
panelists
saidtheycouldfollowthe law(ascitedin Appellant
s briefs).In discussing
voir
4
direselection
on pagesixof the Courts October
22,2010paneldecision,
theCourt
5
6 statedthatjurorswereunderoathandobligated
by lawto tellthe truthand,thus,by

7 analogyoncethetwoAfrican-American
jurorssaidtheycouldfollowthe lawtheyshould
B not havebeenstruck.AccordingV,
a rehearing
is warranted
on thisissue.
I
THECOURTTOTALLYOVERLOOKED
THE
10 APPELLANT
S CHALLENGES
FORCAUSEARGUMENT.
11 As thisCourtstatedin Sferlvart
v. NevadaopiniondatedOctober22,2010,one
12
of the mostnotorious - Simpson.(Pg.4) Thereis a
publicfiguresin thiscountry
13
significant
indication
thatthe generalpublicviewstheformerfootballgreatas a criminal.
14
(Seeftn#2 p.4). A reference
to OJ Simpsonis a modern-day
shorthand
for suggesting
15
1 6 thatsomeonehasgottenawaywithmurder.
17 As the Courtnotedin its recentStewartopinion,
O.J.Simpsonsnamecreatesan
1 8 extraordinarily
negativestateof mindwiththe publicin generalthathe got awaywth
19
committinga majorfelony,whichany rationalpersonwouldconclude thatAppellant
20
shouldalreadyhavebeenin prisonpriorto havingchargesbrought againsthimin the
21
22 Stateof Nevada,Countyof Clark.As citedin Appellant s OpeningBrief,the trialcourt

2 3 wouldnot permitchallenges jurorswhothoughtSimpsonwas a


for causeof prospective
24 murderer,
whichof coursewouldmeanthatmanyjurorsbelievedSimpsonshould
25
alreadybe in prisonwl'rile judgment
passing on himin thisNevadacase.Overlooking
26
thesematerial
factsin lightof prevailing
caselawmakesthe Orderof Affirmance
27
2B -4-
1 fundamentallyflawedand, consequently,
the Courtshouldgranta rehearingto correct
2
theseerrorsof materialfact and misapplication
of law.
3
THE COURTOVERLOOKEDTHE CLEAR
4 RECORDOF WITNESSINl'IMIDATION
5
The Court,on pages nineand 10 of its paneldecision,statesthat Detective
6
Caldwellwas askedabout what his concernswereabout hearingthe callsbetween
7
Beardsleyand AppellantSimpson. The Courtfurtherstatedthat Caldwelltestifiedhe
8
I was worriedthat Simpsonwould be able to talkto co-defendantsand victimsbeforethe
1 0 policecontactedhim and that therewere no accusations
aboutintimidation.
11 Clearly,the C,ourthasoverlookedthis matenalfactas citedin AppellantsBriefs
12
and Appendix.(See, JAA 4412:20-22).
13
In the trial transcrip[the prosecutorintentionally
elicitedthe followingquestion:
14
O. All right,at the time you heardthese phone callsfrom the detentioncenter
15
16 you were alreadyconcernedwith effortsby Mr. Simpsonto dissuadeand

17 influence...
1B This clearattemptto insertthe implicationof witnessintimidationwas overlooked
19
by the Courtwhen the prosecutorused and infusedthe wordsdissuadeand influence,
20
therewas neverany profferof influenceor dissuadingin the record. A reviewof the
21
2 2 recordshows therewere discussionsof intimidationimproperlyinsertedinto the trial
2 3 proceedingsby the Stateand Clark CountyDistrictAttorneys Office.
24 The Courtfurtherstatedon page 10 of its Orderof Affirmancethat this raasnot to
2 5 provethat Simpson
was intimidating,
but onlyto shed lighton the relatonship.The
26
Courts rationaleis inconsistent
with plainlanguageof dissuadeand influencein the
27
28 -5-
1 trialtranscript
and,ttus, overlooks
and interprets
materialquestions
of factand law in its
2 Order
of Affirmance.AccordingV,
a rehearing
is requested
on thisissue.
3
THISCOURTOVERLOOKED THEAPPENDIX CITETHATCONTAINED THE
4 R E Q U E S T EJDU R YI N S T R U C T I O N
OSN L E S S E RI N C L U D EO
DF F E N S E S
5
TheCourts opiniondiscussing,
our lesserincluded
offenses
argument,
cited
6
correctly
thatan appellant
hasthe ultimateresponsibility
to providethisCourtwith
7
portionsof the recordessential
to its determination.
Page13 of the Courtsopinion
8
I statesthatthe recordcitesthatSimpsonprovided
\ /ereintentionally
omittedfromthe

1 0 Appendix,
but in facttheywerenot. (SeeattachedExhibitA). The proposed
jury
1 1 instructions
wereexactlywheretheywerecitedto in the brief (JAA SS43-SS4T).
A
12
scrivenerserrorstatedpages5530€621wereomittedbut in facttheywerenot. The
13
Courtoverlooked
thiscitationin itsopinion.Appellant
is entitledto reconsideration
of his
14
lesserincluded
offenses
argument
withthe citations
to theAppendix
and,accordingly,
a
15
1 6 rehearing
on thisissueshouldbe granted.

17 GENERALVERSUSSPECIFICINTENTCRIMES
18 This Courthas overlooked
AppellantSimpsons argumentthat the jurywas
19
confusedaboutspecificintentversusgeneralintentcrimes.The Courts opinionon
20
page 14 correctlystatesthat the co-conspirator
liabilityinstructionnumbersix as offered
21
22 by the Statewas for specificintentcrimes. The Court,however,has overlookedthe
2 3 argumentraisedin Appellants Briefat pagel;1 and page 41; 1-5thatjurorswere never
24 instructedthat in orderto be foundguiltyof the SpecificIntentCrimesof Burglaryand
25
Kidnapping,
Simpsonhad to havethe specificintentto committhosecrimes. The
26
Appendixis devoidof any proofthat Simpsonever had such specificintentto satisfythe
27
28 -6-
1 elementsof the aforementioned
crimes,andtre Courts conclusion
to the contrary
in its
2
Orderof Affirmance
is an errorthatoverlooks
material thejury
facts. By notinstructing
3
properlyon the intentissue,Appellant
s conviction
is fundamentally
flawedon those
4
counts.Accordingly,
a rehearing
is required.
5
6 CONCLUSION

7 Forthe reasonsstatedthe Petition


for Rehearing
shouldbe granted,uponwhich
B the Courtshouldreviewthe
appealin lightof controlling
caselawandreversethe
I
Judgment
of Conviction
at the trialcourtlevel.
10
Datedthis 16thday of November,2010.
11
lol2l,
12
13
14 YALEL R. ESQUIRE
15
3730N.E.199Terrace
16 Aventura.
Florida331B0

17
1B
19
20 E R G N E .E S Q U I R E
21 The LaVefgneLawGroup
1212SouilrCasinoCenterBoulevard
22
Las Vegas,Nevada89104
23 Pn. Q02)448-7981

24 Attorneysfor Appellant/Petitioner
OrenthalJ. Simpson
25
26
27
28 -7-
1 CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
2
I herebycertifyandaffirmthaton the 16thdayof November,2010,
I electronically
3
fileda trueand correctcopyof the Petition
for Rehearing
withthe SupremeCourtof
4
Nevada.The SupremeCourtof Nevadashallelectronically
noticeandservethe
5
6 following
throughtheMasterServiceList:

7
Hon.Catherine
CortezMaestro
B NevadaAttorneyGeneral
9
ChrisOwens,Esq.
1 0 ClarkCountyDistrictAttorneys Office
1 1 Malcolm P. LaVergne,Esq
Attorneyfor AppellanVPetitioner
Simpson
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B -B-
HXT.{XffiXT
A
1!
lhrsr'$rucTl0N
N$.
L R.obberyis a carnbinaEion
of the crims of r&ssaultrvirhthat of Larceny.As a rcsuit
iarcenycan be a iesserisrcluded*ffbns* clf'thscrimer:f R*bbery. As such,if y*u decidethat
A
+ a e{:tevietr*er
the factsdo not $LlppCIrl r:f rabbery,you s?ayconsiderthe ctrrarge
cf larceny.
{ t

A STNev. 5S5.57V{ 1?50}.


State3'._Fo--u#retlc,
l {-.isLv_v. 82 Ne,'. i 83, i E 7( i 9 S 5 ) .
Sta..t_q.
I $tAte,tr{J8Nev. 9 5 3 , 9 5i41 9 9 2 ) .
Jgffer.so.li-v.-
C}

1/)
t 1-t

It
1Z

1 n

16
t.7
1 l

i8
tCI

LV

,} .|

.\n
LL

L3

t- ")

t,l)

an

ib

"f*int Appcll;;n{s'AppcnCix,
5543
u
II
n

l{
It
tl
ll
It
It

tl NO. *-
INS?RI.JCTT{}T{
1 fll i - g{riity of
t,arceny1$a specilic intent *risns" lar gr{ier fl*r ycu ic firrd a d*f'sndent
3 ll
prsve beyond a reasocrable dsubt that tli* defendantin{entioraally
: !l mr**ny, rhc ${atemust
' l t
gerltog.
tcok away,or caruiedaway propertyc:'vnedby another
, li stole,
'f
tl
ti
-il
5ll
fi
5 {l ---- IT
.t' l lll NRS2*5.224.
- ii -Statev. Poldan,l24P"3d191,?*tr${er''20{}5}"
o ll
{i
Y {l cteslborS $PIg,12r}iev' }44 t7**5}'
lI.- ",
grqghror,state'i gs Y"3&65?{Nev'zq}*g}'
tr} l1
11 tl
tl
ll
It
1 2i i
1t
it
a4 ll
t 1 l t
lt
II

14 liH
I
It
1 € ! l
1j
ll
il
16ll
It
It
\7 ll
1t
rslt
ti t,
1ell
l1
Zil fi
tl
?.\it
}N
22 li
tt
r.":,.
LJ lt
II
74 litl
1t
2s ll
,l

26il
'r-7
,!- t
tl
ll
tE
il

28 il t,
:t
i|
ti JU
Il
fi
fi

Jcint llppeilanls' Appendix


s544
i
!
t
INSTRUCTIONNO,

1
gui{ryqrfbcrkeFirst l}egreeKidnappingandan
In crder ibr 3rouro find the defbnqJant
3
j ofibnseof trtobbery,the Statesn*stsho\ryone *f the t"ollcwirtg:
associated

tc t-her*bbery;
{li That any rnoreixcn{of the victim Evasnot incidentai
t)
inereasedthe risk of harmto
cf th* vic*inrsubstantiatrXy
4
{Z) Thst any in*id&nte|ffi&vernost
I

presentin the robberylor


the victim over and atrovcttlat n*cessa$ilrrt
X

{,-t
(3) That the movcmegt,seiza:re, pulposear signiiicanc*
*r restrainthasarrinclependeilt
tn
that standsaSunefi'sm lbrecrirnecf Robbery'"
i L J

't?

a 4
tr}ege"e*
i3 the State{hi}stc x}rov*First DegneeKidnappi*g,you may eonsid*r$ecq}nd
I t

f .'r
Kidnapping.
1 a
i+

1u"!
.t -i
Kesgqza&g!4s, tr30P.3d 6, \i &tl"{ev-2fi{}6}'
16
1 1
t " t

$ o
lo

1CI

'7 1
Lj.

a1
L.L

"\ /I

26
f!'?

28
1 1
t t

JuintAi:peiiants'
Appcndix
554.5
Ni}-_--
xN$TR{JCT!O1'{

4
L
First l)egreeKidnappingtht: st*6emusl
In *relerfrir y*u to find a defencantga;iity*f

c*nfine, rnveiglc,entice,decoy,abduct,conccal,
4 showthat the detendantintendedto seize,
ftrr the
, by any ril€ans:with {he intenf €ohold *r detain
kidnap.or oilrry away a por$CIn,
t^}
pt}rp*sns*i c*rnrnitti*g R"*bb*ry"
I
intentto csmmlt Rabberywes
Furthermore,the state mustaLs*shravthat the
6

G kidnapping' trf'thedefendafttdi{i not intencllc


wit?rthe act rhatc*ns{.itr:t*s
conremporaneous
tt, thenthe ctefensant tktc
clidnq:tpossess
casimit l{obberyat the tims tkrernsven:entoccured,
1 i
gr:iltry'
llegree Kidnappinganrtryou mu$ttialdthsm not
1 t

lrl
requisitcinte*t f*,l Fia"st
\ L
co-s$nspirator
1 4
is chargedrvitli lrirst Depe* Kidnappingundef a
{f the defen<larnr
1 4 ta commitRubberyat thc time the
be shorvnthat the cc-conspiratarinten'ded
theory,it mr-est

movemeiitoecured.
Itl

' /.,
t l

! *
1t)
NRSAle3\.
2i]1 lTti*v'2S85i'
" tr74l''3d1?i'
ILJ
$tate",:.,
.Flo,Jdpn
LV

.!t
.'e

/-a

4.J

n n
L'l

L)

1C
LW

L f

,/)t

1t t u1

JointA**pellan{s'Appcnrtix
3)ct$
NO"_ -
XhISTE"{.]CT}T}N
II

v,iitha F}ca<llyWeapcnth*
guihy *f Kidsraprping
[arorder {br yor*t* find a rSefe{}daret

J
weaponwas *sedin the
Statemust provs b*y*nd a reaso*abledcu'bt*rat a <icaeily
+ the Statemusl alsoshcwbeycnda
commissioncf an assault.Iltire def*ndan{was i;fiarffted.,
doubtthat {9redefendantx'as awars*X'thearmed*ft'enderand exercisedcontr$l
reasanabie

6 over tb,etttearrn"
- t

a
{.) NR$ 708"4]l{tXa}
o NRS 'E3.165

1* 121Nev"744{2S05}.
eiars{i}rd-s-Stats,
T J Brooksv. $3*&-180P 3d65?iH*v.2**e).

{ ,.1
c !

1 A
tY.

.tJ

LtJ

1 i

1 e
!(}

n n
/-r,)

.>1
L L

22
.l
")
4JJ

A A
L4+
'7<
{-J

26

28

ti

-lointApp*l lantsuApp*ettlix
5547