O.J. Gets an All-White Jury: Teacher's Husband Acquitted of Murdering Wife's Teen Lover

Judge Jackie Glass gives her best "hear no evil, see no evil, know no evil" facial expression after ruling that the Prosecution did not remove a black juror peremptorily because of her race.

Okay, these two articles are so good that I thought I would just combine them. Orenthal James Simpson got a little taste of karma today that couldn't have been scripted better if it were a Hollywood movie. The ex-football great will receive his day in court no doubt...compliments of an ALL-WHITE JURY!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Do you remember the statistics that show the breakdown between white and black Americans' views on Simpson's 1995 murder acquittal? Well, those statistics are about to play out in front of us on CourtTV starting bright and early Monday morning. We shall all have to wait with bated breath to see whether those numbers actually do come into play. Of course, no one on that jury will actually admit to any biases. That would be unethical and unconstitutional, right?

Now don't think that O.J.'s defense attorney, Yale Galanter didn't give it his all to stop this all-white jury from being formed. There had been one black juror, but the Prosecution struck her down during the peremptory challenge stage of voir dire. Galanter's defense was that the juror was being targeted because she was black, but Judge Jackie Glass didn't buy it, ergo constituting the gallows humor in this whole thing. Get it? Gallows! HAHAHAHA!

I am pretty sure, though, that O.J. Simpson is not laughing. He is, after all, the one looking at life in prison and I think this jury is starting to remind him of one of those racist rabbles looking to lynch the first black man in sight. Poor O.J. Poor, poor O.J. I would probably feel sorry for the man if it weren't so God-damn funny and so God-damn fitting. Don't worry, Juice, I think you have grounds for a great appeal should you be convicted.

Eric McLean, left, was married to Erin McLean, right, for 11 years before he suspected she was having an affair. Her paramour turned out to be her own student. I guess she's now teaching sex education. Hmmmm...Debra LaFave? Erin McLean? Where were these teachers when I was in school?

All right, now moving on to the teacher's husband who killed his wife's teen lover. That jury, today, found the jilted cuckold, Eric McLean, now 33, NOT GUILTY of murder one, NOT GUILTY of murder two, NOT GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter, but GUILTY of reckless homicide. He could receive probation for this crime.

His wife, Erin McLean, then 29, was having an affair with her 18-year-old former student, Sean Powell. Eric McLean confronted the teenage boy after he found the boy in his own house with his wife. He allegedly got a shotgun out to scare him, there was a struggle, and the gun went off killing the teen.

Meanwhile, Erin McLean has disappeared off the face of the Earth. She took her two kids and booked and no one can find her. I guess she was too embarrassed to testify in court. Eric McLean is free on bond until his sentencing in November and he is asking that his wife return their two kids to him.

Hmmmm...daddy shoots mommy's naughty teen boyfriend, mommy flees out of embarrassment, daddy might get probation, and now daddy wants his kids back. I think something is definitely wrong with this picture, although I must say that I did feel sorry for the man and I, too, would have acquitted him on all of those charges. His wife should have divorced him for her teen lover instead of staying married and flaunting her affaire de coeur at her husband. That's enough to make anyone snap, wouldn't you say?

So what do you think, people? Write to me about these two stories so that I know what you think.

Twin Tragedy: September 11, 2001

United Airlines Flight 175, right, barrels towards the South Tower of the World Trade Center while the North Tower smoulders after being struck by American Airlines Flight 11. These two monoliths came tumbling down to the streets of Manhattan hours after the impacts.

It has been seven years since two hijacked jetliners streaked across the New York sky inevitably changing the Manhattan skyline and the course of history forever. It has been seven years since that day of horror, in essence, a culmination of man's iniquity, wherein we saw men, women, and children run screaming and crying for their lives as the World Trade Center towers, the hub of the free economic world, came tumbling down.

Where were you on that fateful morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 when American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the North Tower?

I shall never forget that day nor shall I forget where I was when those planes collided with the North and South Towers: I was in my 10th grade French class. The period was just ending when the principal broadcasted the austere message to the school. At that moment, panic irrupted everywhere. I remember that I walked out of that class and into my U.S. History class just as the second tower started its descent to the streets of Manhattan. That day in History class, we weren't learning about American history...we were witnessing it.

I remember that I had scheduled an appointment the day before with my counselor to switch out of my Foods class. There was a big sticker in my school agenda that said, "9-11-01, 12:00PM, Mr. Dye, counselor." I went down there to see him that day, but as I approached the attendance office, I saw a line of hundreds of students billowing out of it. My appointment was cancelled that day and was never rescheduled, but my memory still remains---the memory of people confused, sobbing, and scared. It was truly a dark day in American history.

Of course, as time moves on, the wounds start to heal, and memories slowly start to fade. Seven years ago seems, by its sheer number, to be so recent, yet that day seems to have occurred eons ago as if it were lost somewhere in a rift in space and time. I noticed that the coverage today was far weaker than it had been during the first anniversay's and each year it seems to be less and less.

Perhaps one day the coverage about this dark day will cease to exist, just as those two towers, once the bastions of the free world, have since surceased---perhaps the day will come when the term 9/11 is as esoteric and moribund to us as the day the British burned down Washington in 1812...

Perhaps...but as long as we never forget that day...forget the lives lost that day...forget the heroes who, in turn, risked and gave their lives to protect us that day and who are still giving their lives to protect us today---as long as we never forget that, then the lives lost because of those horrific events that crisp September day will not have been in vain.

Autrefois Acquit: When Double Jeopardy Is and Is Not a Defense

Phil Spector, left, walks out of court a "free man" after his murder trial ended in a deadlock. Phil's 26-year-old wife, Rachelle Spector, right, escorts him out of the courthouse. Should Spector finally be acquitted, maybe he and his wife will throw a soiree at their castle this time instead of dancing outside of it as they did after the deadlock.

"How does the Defendant plead: Guilty or Not Guilty?" bellows a gruff judge. "Autrefois Acquit, Your Honor," replies the Defendant. "Autre...fois...what?" stammers a surprised and exasperated judge. "Autrefois Acquit, Your Honor," the Defendant answers once again with a coy smile.

Someone (like his lawyers) should have told Phil Spector when this rare plea by a defendant actually works, and when it's just a lot of hot air and a big waste of the Court's time.

Listen, Phil, such a plea only works when a judge commutes a charge to one less severe. It doesn't work as an acquittal when a defendant doesn't want lesser charges to be included. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, my friend. You and your lawyers are behind the times (and I think they're just trying to waste more of your hard-earned money).

Now, if the judge were to have ruled that you did not murder Lana Clarkson, but had accidentally shot her, thus being an involuntary manslaughter charge, then your double jeopardy plea would work in this case. It does not work, no way, no how the way you want to make it work and you are only disgracing this wonderful and sacred American right with your vapid argument.

That's my dithyramb for the day about music magnate, Phil Spector and his otiose Motion for Stay on Double Jeopardy Grounds. With the above now stated, my question to all of you is simple:

What is the plea of autrefois acquit and why do we have it?

Let's begin, shall we?

Autrefois acquit is a peremptory plea or a plea made before a trial begins that may estop the government from carrying on with a trial against the defendant on the grounds of double jeopardy. Its etymology is derived from Anglo-French meaning "formerly acquitted." In the United States, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense because to do so is proscribed in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified into law by the First United States Congress on December 15, 1791.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This means that once jeopardy detaches (when a defendant is found NOT GUILTY or a charge is Dismissed with Prejudice), the case is over and can never be reopened against the defendant no matter what new and compelling inculpatory evidence might later be found.

The legal maxim of double jeopardy is one of the oldest in Western civilization. In 355 B.C., Athenian statesman Demosthenes averred, "The law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." The Romans later codified this principle in the Digest of Justinian in A.D. 533. The principle also survived the Dark Ages (A.D. 400-1066), notwithstanding the deterioration of other Greco-Roman legal traditions, through CANON LAW and the teachings of early Christian writers.

A real world example of this is O.J. Simpson who was found NOT GUILTY of the murders of his wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2007, O.J. Simpson published a book, "If I Did It," which exposited in very macabre detail basically how he had killed his wife and Ronald Goldman. Since O.J. Simpson was acquitted, he can never be retried for the offenses so he, in essence, gets away with double murder. One could also look at it from the perspective that it became O.J. Simpson's legal right to commit the murders once he was acquitted because of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In a nutshell, it's a legal technicality meant to protect a person against an overzealous government and it has been a precept embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law predating the eleventh century. It has also been found in Greek and Roman laws, notably the dicasteries, since circa 1,000 B.C., meaning it's been a fundamental human right well before Pontius Pilate crucified Christ.

Its fundamental purpose is to protect a person from the power and wealth of the government. Without a concept of double jeopardy, a defendant would be in interminable jeopardy:

Imagine that you were tried and acquitted of murder. Whether you had done it or not, you would still remain the government's prime suspect. The police would never move on or concentrate on a different person of interest. The government and, more so, the police would relentlessly harass you because of it. They would continually search your house and property because they would still have probable cause to get a warrant signed by a judge.

To harass you into confessing, the police would barge in late at night with a warrant to disturb your family's sleep. Your wife would leave you because she couldn't take it anymore and she would take your kids. You would never get enough sleep from all of this and they would harass you at work so you would, in turn, lose your job. You would not have enough money after all of the appeals by the government to contest the charge anymore thus making it easier for the government to get a GUILTY verdict or convincing you to willingly confess to something you did not do.

If you think about it, why wouldn't you confess? You've lost your wife, your family, your job, your house, and your entire way of life. The alternative of confessing to something you didn't do is far better than living the rest of your life in a state of interminable jeopardy.

Furthermore, without a concept of double jeopardy, a Prosecutor does not have to make a strong case against a defendant because, if he should fail, he can always do it again. This would lead to more innocent people's going to jail because they are being targeted with weak evidence. It could also lead to more guilty people's getting away with their crimes because investigators would concentrate on one suspect and never be dissuaded from that one.

The question must be posed that, "if your wife were murdered, everyone and his uncle know that YOU would be the prime suspect." They are never going to leave you alone because of this and, without protection against double jeopardy, you may be subjected to a pathetic prosecutorial case that leads to a conviction on some of the weakest evidence. You may also be acquitted, but who cares? They can wait and do it again should more evidence arise in the future. Are you getting scared now?

In England, the government has scrapped double jeopardy as of A.D. 2005. That means, although you may have been acquitted for a murder or rape you did not commit, you still have reason to worry because they're looking at you again and this time, you can forget the presumption of innocence because, if a case should be brought back to court, it means a judge thought there to be good reason and you have virtually no chance at beating it this time---innocent or not.

That's the problem with not having a concept of double jeopardy---a case is never closed; no finality exists. When a man is convicted of a crime and serves his time, he cannot be tried again and put into prison for the exact same offense. He is free from persecution, therefore it makes sense that a man who is acquitted should feel the same freedom from persecution and that is why we have a clause in our Constitution that protects us Americans from the power, wealth, and unlimited resources of the government.

Now there are some people who get upset when they hear murderers walk free and then tell their stories about how they got away with it, but, in my mind, that's just tough. The bigger concern for us as a society is those innocent people who are rotting away in prison or who have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. As former United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black once said:

" The underlying idea…is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity; as well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be found guilty.”

Amen to that, Justice Black.

Anyway, There are also two other peremptory pleas and they are autrefois convict and plea of pardon (Cough! Choke! Scooter Libby) . An example of a protection against double jeopardy for the guilty would be to suppose you were charged with first-degree murder, but a jury found you only GUILTY of manslaughter stating that there wasn't enough evidence to show that you meant to kill the victim.

Instead of getting life in prison or the death penalty, you receive 10-15 years and are out in 8 years. Two years after your release, new evidence is discovered that would sufficiently prove that you committed premeditated murder. There is nothing that can be done about this because you have already been convicted for this offense. You shouldn't have to be subjected to more punishment at a later date. It keeps the government from trying to get its way when it doesn't like the outcome of a case.

In England, the Crown was well-known for its abuse of defendants' rights especially when the Royal Family had a special interest in a particular case. In many cases in Britain during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, double jeopardy only existed in capital crimes or crimes punishable by death so the King would influence many verdicts. There were many trials in which the jury found a defendant NOT GUILTY, but the Crown ordered the court to issue a judgement non obstante veredicto, which is a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Even though the defendant was found NOT GUILTY, the court would change the verdict to GUILTY and sentence the defendant accordingly.

Later, when the laws were changed to try to halt the Crown from abusing its power, the King issued exorbitant jailers' fees to prevent an acquitted defendant from being released by his captors. The fees were meant to force defendants to pay their captors for their encarceration, but they were so usurious that many acquitted defendants were known to have died in prison for failure to come up with enough funds to meet their release.

In the United States, a judgment non obstante veredicto can only be issued upon the defendant's request to change a jury verdict from GUILTY to NOT GUILTY. A judge cannot throw out a NOT GUILTY verdict because of the defendant's Fifth Amendmet right to be protected against double jeopardy and his Sixth Amendment right to a "trial by jury."

Although, should a judge change a verdict to NOT GUILTY, the prosecution can file an immediate appeal because the original verdict was GUILTY. It's one of the few times the government can appeal a NOT GUILTY verdict in the United States, but it has to be an immediate appeal, which usually means the prosecution has somewhere within the vicinity of 24 hours to file the appeal or the verdict is upheld. This time allotment may differ from state to state.

If you have ever seen the movie "Fracture," and you know the plea of autrefois acquit, then you know that the producers screwed up in this movie. In the movie, Anthony Hopkins' character was found NOT GUILTY of the attempted murder of his wife. Later she was taken off life support and died from the injuries sustained from the gunshot wound to the head inflicted by her husband.

At the end of the movie, the Prosecutor has Anthony Hopkins' character rearrested for murder as he claims he now has the bullet from Hopkins' wife's head and the gun they couldn't find until Anthony's character told him where to look, which is all new evidence. He claims that double jeopardy doesn't apply in this case because Hopkins was charged with attempted murder, but since his wife has since died, it can now be upgraded to a murder charge, which is not the same offense. Anthony Hopkins' character is then put back on trial.

This is wrong because double jeopardy protects against BASICALLY the same offense, too. The double jeopardy defense, in this case, would be collateral estoppel. Since Anthony Hopkins' character was acquitted of the attempted murder of his wife and his wife died of complications from injuries sustained from that encounter, he cannot be retried under the charge of his wife's murder. The government would be arguing, in essence, the same thing---thus double jeopardy.

In real life, Anthony's lawyers would have had their client plead AUTREFOIS ACQUIT along with NOT GUILTY at his arraignment and this charge of murder, even though he did it, would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. In fact, it would have probably led to a lawsuit filed by the Defendant against the government for "malicious prosecution."

So remember, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense or something that is basically the same offense in the United States. Double jeopardy is up there with bills of attainder, lettres de cachet, writs of habeus corpus, and ex post facto laws: They are inalienable rights of all Americans---of all mankind.

Double Trouble: Spector's Retrial To Commence

Phil Spector buttons his blazer outside the courthouse during his first murder trial. The jury deadlocked at the end of that trial.

LOS ANGELES, California---The retrial of famed music producer extraordinaire, Harvey Phillip Spector has been set to begin some time in October. Spector, 67, is accused of fatally shooting actress, Lana Clarkson at his Pyrenees Castle home in Alhambra, California some time during the morning hours of February 3, 2003. He has pled NOT GUILTY to the charge and has maintained that the depressed, B-movie actress committed suicide.

Judge Larry Paul Fidler declared a mistrial in Spector's first trial on September 26, 2007 after each of the twelve jurors had told him that there was no way a unanimous verdict could be reached. The jury had voted, 10-2 to convict the embattled producer.

Spector's defense team has tried numerous tricks to delay the retrial including accusing the presiding judge of being biased against Spector. The defense team had asked Judge Fidler to recuse himself and had sought to have a neutral judge appointed to investigate the matter. Judge Fidler refused the recusation request and an appeals court denied the request by the Defense.

A California Appeals Court panel has also denied Spector's most recent argument, a Motion for Stay, wherein he claimed double jeopardy. Spector's lawyers were attempting to keep the Prosecution from seeking lesser charges against their client because the original judge had declared that these charges were unacceptable, thus, in their minds, automatically acquitting Spector. Prosecutors have not determined yet whether they will seek to have these charges introduced to the jury at the retrial.

Spector has also refiled a suit against his former attorney, Robert Shapiro for $1,000,000. Spector claims that Shapiro has refused to return his retainer after being fired. Shapiro is best known for successfully defending O.J. Simpson on double murder charges in 1995.

Should Spector be convicted this time around, he is looking at life in prison.

Too BIG for the Bench

Judge Elizabeth Halverson sits stoically on her bench, but is she too big for that seat?

It's not a mystery that Judge Elizabeth Halverson is an obese American. The 425-pound District Court judge suffers from a nimiety of health problems because of her extreme girth including diabetes and Crohn's Disease. Because of her debilitating health, Halverson is confined to an oxygen tank and a scooter so that she can both survive and move around.

Now in a society that frowns upon being fat, a person in Judge Halverson's position can be subjected to torrid abuse about her weight. This abuse can cause anyone to lose her temper, revile and belittle others around her, and be an all-around petulant person.

It is also not out of the realm of possibility that a person who is in this situation day after day may logically feel as though everyone were out to get her...and maybe...everyone is. Maybe it is just a little bit plausible that people actually do want a piece of the woman whom many have called, Jabba the Judge.

I mean, why wouldn't they? It's no mystery that there are people who hate other people just because those other people are different. We see such bigotries all of the time in our daily lives---racism, antisemitism, misogyny, misandry, xenophobia, sinophobia, and so on. Shall I continue?

Perhaps we should stop for just one second and put ourselves in Judge Halverson's shoes---the shoes of a nearly quarter-ton woman whose physiological looks do nothing for her except aid in the occasional snook from a passer-by. Now I want you to try living that life day in and day out. Do you think you could handle the stress that comes with that lifestyle? All you have to do is take a gander at the seemingly harmless pasquinade I have created about the grand judge and you will understand where I am coming from.

In the end, I am not trying to make excuses for the embattled judge because she is what she is...but it's what she isn't that is her BIGGEST obstacle. She is not the conventionally-sized person who goes about her day like you and me. She is something far larger, and that, suffice it to say, in this society, is a really BIG problem.

Judge Elizabeth Halverson Gets Fried

Judge Elizabeth Halverson listens to testimony during one of her few trials while an elected judge. Halverson was suspended in July 2007 for conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. The disciplinary review board is still deliberating whether she will be permanantly removed from the bench.

LAS VEGAS, Nevada---Suspended District Judge, The Honorable Elizabeth Halverson was the beneficiary of a judicial smackdown late Thursday night compliments of her husband, Edward Halverson. It is alleged that Edward Halverson, 49, beat his wife of ten years with a frying pan.

Elizabeth Halverson, 50, made an emergency 911 call to police at 10:50PM to report that her husband was bludgeoning her and had threatened to kill her, according to Metropolitan Police. The police arrived at the Halverson residence only to find Edward Halverson in his living room and his wife in a rear bedroom with severe injuries to her head, chest, and upper arms.

Police arrested the swingeing spouse on multiple felony charges including attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, and battery with substantial bodily harm. He will be arraigned Tuesday morning in Las Vegas.

Edward Halverson is no stranger to the law. The three-time convicted felon has served four years in prison for numerous non-violent offenses including cocaine possession and burglary.

His wife, The Honorable Elizabeth Halverson was rushed to Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas where she underwent emergency surgery. She is listed in critical condition in the intensive care unit of the hospital.

Elizabeth Halverson has been suspended from the bench since July 2007 when she was deemed "a threat to justice" by the same judicial review board that overheard her "Removal from the Bench" hearing in early August, which aired live on CourtTV. That review board is still deliberating what punishment, if any, she will receive for her nimiety of judicial transgressions, which include ex parte communications with jurors, sleeping on the bench, being verbally abusive to her staff, and making her bailiff massage her feet, cook her meals, tell her bedtime stories, and worship her from near and from far. It is also alleged that Elizabeth Halverson had asked her bailiff on a few occasions to kill 'Evil Ed', which is the nickname she had given her husband.

Halverson's attorney, Michael Schwartz, who represents her in her removal hearing, said he was stunned to hear what had happened between the 'corpulent' couple whom he had worked with extensively for nearly two weeks during Halverson's nationally televised trial:

"I am absolutely bewildered," he said. "I have no reason to believe anything like this would occur." Special prosecutor, Dorothy Nash Holmes, who pursued the alleged complaints against the disgraced judge, commented: “We all wish Judge Halverson the best.”

Both attorneys have said that this incident will not prorogue the closing arguments, which must be submitted in writing to the disciplinary review board by September 18th.

THE BIG PICTURE

"Where the hell are the breaks on this thing? God damn it, Ed! What the fuck did you do to this thing?"

I don't know about you, but isn't that wall behind Judge Halverson an allegory of her career?---Humpty Dumpty's Great Fall!!!! LOL!

I'm pretty sure that all of the king's horses and all of the king's men couldn't put Judge Halverson's career back together again.

"Me Judge Halverson! Feed me! Me get bigger and eat you!"

What do you think? If Ed and Liz had a kid, Would this be its school picture?

"Your Honor, my due process rights are being infringed upon at this...where'd my scooter go?"

Am I the only one here who thinks she's getting bigger by the second?

"But Your Honor, I can't find them. Where are they?"

Boy, I'm glad I'm not that guy.

Will the Glove Fit This Time Around?

O.J. Simpson tries on the pair of gloves allegedly used by the murderer of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman at his 1995 double murder trial. Simpson was later exonerated of the murders.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit," bellowed a hoarse defense attorney named Johnny Cochran during "The Trial of the Century" wherein Orenthal James Simpson was exculpated of the brutal slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

So where were you the morning of Tuesday, October 3, 1995, upon the reading of the verdict? "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson NOT GUILTY..." Were you at work? Were you in school? Were you getting your hair done?

I was in Mrs. DiSienna's fourth grade art class. I remember the principal broke into daily announcements so that the staff members and students could hear the reading of that verdict. While I was only 9-years-old, I still remember the mixed reactions from fellow classmates and teachers. There were the black kids huddled together acting as though Lincoln had just freed the slaves, there were white kids acting as though Kennedy had just been shot, and at her desk was Mrs. DiSienna---mulling about what a travesty of justice had just occurred. On the television, turned on seconds after the verdict, was an enormous crowd outside the courthouse in Los Angeles---chanting, jeering, almost in a near riot as if the Rodney King trial had been rewound.

I was upset, but at that time and at that age, I really didn't know what I was upset about. It may have been disappointment as I knew very well that my father and mother had so wanted Simpson to be found guilty. Everyone knows that parents rub off on children and, at that age, I was very impressionable. Later, I learned that even the lowest of scum deserve a fair trial, and regardless of what you may think, whether it be that he is guilty or not, Orenthal James Simpson received a fair trial. It is his right and he exerted it---you can blame the prosecution for its sloppy work, you can blame the jury for being star-struck, and you can blame the judge and media for turning The Trial of the Century into a circus, but the bottom line is he was acquitted and there is nothing that can be done to fix it.

You may hate him for what he might have done to his ex-wife and her friend and you may still hold a grudge against him for writing a book in which he basically confesses to the murders, but the law is the law: This man, whether he be a cold-blooded killer or not, is on trial for something entirely different. That trial has been over for 13 years, America. It's time to move on. This man should be held liable for the facts that are contained in the 12 charges listed in the indictment. He is to be adjudged on those charges and those charges only. He mustn't have to endure a feeling of dread as though he were being put in double jeopardy for those two murders oh so many years ago in what seems like another lifetime to some.

The question now is simple: Will the glove fit this time around or will O.J. Simpson once again slip through the cracks of the American system of jurisprudence?

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

With that said, we know that Simpson is free from being charged for those crimes ever again, but is he carrying a "scarlet letter" seemingly brocaded upon his forehead? Is there some diaphanous bounty out on O.J. Simpson's head? If so, is that something fair? Afterall, it's not his fault he was acquitted more than a decade ago, it's not his fault that the prosecution bungled its case, and its not his fault that the jury thought there to be reasonable doubt in the case.

This is our justice system and it's not perfect. We all know that guilty people walk free every day just as we know innocent people go to prison for the rest of their lives. But remember, it's all we've got. O.J. Simpson and his co-defendant, C.J. Stewart have a right to tell their stories, they have a right to a fair and impartial jury of their peers, and they have a right to a fair trial whether they be guilty as sin or not.

I ask that those prospective jurors set aside their ancient prejudices against the man many believe got away with murder and be more human because if we let hate consume us, we become no better than the man sitting in that Defendant's seat. At that point, we have become something less than human, and in this country, that my friends, guilty verdict or not, is never justice.