O.J. Simpson’s lawyer seeks mistrial

O.J. Simpson’s lawyer seeks mistrial
Attorney for Simpson’s co-accused moves for mistrial, motion to sever
By Melissa Arseniuk

Published Tue, Sep 23, 2008 (4:36 p.m.)

Updated 7 minutes ago
O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, Yale Galanter, has moved for a mistrial.

The motion came just after 4 p.m. Tuesday, following David Cook being admitted by District Judge Jackie Glass as the 12th witness in Simpson's high-profile robbery/kidnapping trial in Las Vegas.

Robert Lucherini, the attorney for Simpson's co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, also moved for a mistrial — and filed a motion to sever Stewart from Simpson's trial, as well.

The lawyers asked for the mistrial because Cook is the lawyer who represents the family of murder victim Robert Goldman. Goldman and Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, were murdered in 1994.

Simpson was charged with both murders but was acquitted in 1995 following a highly publicized criminal trial.

The Goldman family then filed a civil action against the former NFL star, which found him liable for the deaths. That court issued a $33.5 million judgment against Simpson and split the sum between the Goldmans and Nicole Brown Simpson’s estate, the two children she has with O.J. Simpson, and Sydney and Justin Simpson.

Simpson and Stewart, his former golfing buddy, currently face 12 robbery, kidnapping and weapons charges stemming from a raid of a Place Station hotel room last year.

“This testimony has no relevance to this case,” Galanter told the court after Cook took the stand. “It’s prejudicial.”

Galanter said “the reason they’re calling Mr. Cook is to remind the jurors” about Simpson’s previous legal troubles.

Prosecutors defended their witness.

“The fact of the matter is, is that Mr. Simpson talks about the (civil) judgment, the Goldmans on the audio tape. This was one of the motives for the robbery,” District Attorney David Roger said.

Thomas Riccio, the middleman who arranged the meeting between Simpson and the two memorabilia dealers who claim they were robbed, secretly recorded several conversations with Simpson and the plaintiffs. Those nine audio files are now key evidence in the trial.

Simpson refers to the Goldmans as "the gold-diggers" during one of the recordings.

The State believes Simpson wanted to recover items from the plaintiffs, memorabilia dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, in Nevada instead of California because of his ongoing efforts to skirt turnover orders filed by the Goldmans.

"(Simpson) said that it wasn't going to work in California because his lawyers said there could be a lot of problems because of the Goldmans ... would get the stuff," Riccio testified Monday.

Simpson lived in California at the time of the alleged robbery, but has since moved to Miami, Fla.

Simpson says the items he and his entourage allegedly stole on Sept. 13, 2007 - including several NFL game presentation footballs, his 1969 NFL All-Star plaque, and numerous personal and family photos - were stolen from him.

Prosecutors and state witnesses, meanwhile, have said Simpson's former agent, Mike Gilbert, helped move the items from Simpson's Brentwood, Calif., home and then stored them with associates of Simpson's and in storage lockers to hide the assets from collection officers.

Officials were later sent to seize valuables from Simpson's home that could be resold and applied against the outstanding debt to the Goldmans.

Lucherini, along with Stewart's other lawyers, E. Brent Bryson and Charles D. Jones, have made several attempts to have their client's trial severed from Simpson's. They allege Simpson's notoriety and previous legal troubles prohibit Stewart's right to a fair trial.

The Nevada Supreme Court rejected a motion to sever before Simpson and Stewart's joint trial began. Judge Jackie Glass, who is presiding over the criminal trial proceedings, has rejected several additional motions to sever.

After considering precedent, case law and her own former judgments for more than two hours, the judge dismissed the jury just after 5 p.m.

She had Cook take the stand in the absence of the jury so she could ask him some questions before lawyers asked some questions of their own.

Holding an evidentiary hearing in the absence of the jury prevented risking his account from tainting the jury or providing the defense a solid foundation from which to launch a motion for a mistrial.

Glass will decide whether or not Cook will take the stand on Wednesday morning.

Before dismissing for the day, Glass asked Cook to provide a very limited testimony if he is called to the stand tomorrow.

She said she "wants to avoid any non-responsive answers, any spontaneous declarations, anything, any personal opinions that might in some way prejudice my jury and cause there to be a mistrial."

"Any personal opinions or feelings you may have and you would like to express, I don't want them expressed them here. This is not an appropriate forum for any such remarks along those lines," Glass said.