Oh, my seldom-used signature is quite appropriate for this thread:)
Telling people (at gunpoint) to not leave the room, is kidnapping? Wow, that seems a broad interpretation.
As I stated before, things are much different from state to state. Nevada is tough on this one. He should have done it elsewhere. For instance in New Jersey it would be Criminal Restraint:
*2C:13-2. Criminal restraint
A person commits a crime of the third degree if he knowingly:
a. Restrains another unlawfully in circumstances exposing the other to risk of serious bodily injury; or
b. Holds another in a condition of involuntary servitude.
The creation by the actor of circumstances resulting in a belief by another that he must remain in a particular location shall for purposes of this section be deemed to be a holding in a condition of involuntary servitude.
In any prosecution under subsection b., it is an affirmative defense that the person held was a child less than 18 years old and the actor was a relative or legal guardian of such child and his sole purpose was to assume control of such child. *
Kidnapping is:
*KIDNAPPING (N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1a)
A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from the place where he is found or if he unlawfully confines another with the purpose of holding that person for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.*
or
(*N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1b(1) to (3))
A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another
from his place of residence or business, or a substantial distance from
the vicinity where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another
for a substantial period, with any of the following purposes:
- to facilitate commission of any crime or flight thereafter;
- to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another; or
- to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political
function.*
Criminal Restraint is a third degree crime can be punished up to 5 years. Aggravated Robbery is second degree and can get you 5 to 10. Kidnapping is a first degree crime.
The Nevada statute is this:
-
- A person who willfully
seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,
abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a
person by any means whatsoever with the intent
to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the
person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or
robbery upon or from the person, or for the
purpose of killing the person or inflicting
substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact
from relatives, friends, or any other person any
money or valuable thing for the return or
disposition of the kidnaped person, and
a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries
away or detains any minor with the intent to
keep, imprison, or confine him from his
parents, guardians, or any other person having
lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or
perpetrate upon the person of the minor any
unlawful act is guilty of kidnaping in the first
degree which is a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and withoutauthority of law seizes, inveigles, takes,
carries away or kidnaps another person with the
intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned
within the state, or for the purpose of
conveying the person out of the state without
authority of law, or in any manner held to
service or detained against his will, is guilty
of kidnaping in the second degree which is a
category B felony. *
He was found guilty of holding a person against their will for the purpose of robbery therefore it is kidnapping under the Nevada statute. Is there precedent? I don’t know. Never been to Nevada. In New Jersey for it to be kidnapping he would have to “remove another from his place of residence or business, or a substantial distance from the vicinity where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period” in order to “facilitate commission of any crime or flight thereafter”. The second part happened (the robbery) the first part did not.
There is no perfect solution to the problem of how to deal with all the publicity that surrounds Simpson’s earlier trial and that surrounds Simpson generally. The problem with ignoring it completely is that jurors may be confused about whether or not they should take it into account. Now, you might say, well, but if the judge tells them not to, they’re just going to nod their heads but then do so anyway. I think that is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, my sense is that jurors actually do take their roles seriously. So if the judge tells them not to consider a factor, they will do their best not to consider it. Now, of course they do not have complete conscious control over this, but on the other hand, it’s not as if they have NO conscious control. Some jurors might have come into the trial with the erroneous belief that under the law, they are SUPPOSED to consider the earlier trial. The judge’s admonition is a corrective to that. The second reason the admonition may be helpful is in guiding the jury deliberations. In deliberations, the jurors will cite reasons for their beliefs, and these reasons may (or may not) sway other jurors. If one juror brings up something from the earlier trial, the other jurors will be on guard against it “Hey, the judge told us not to consider that, though.” Therefore these other jurors are less likely to be swayed by a legally improper citation of evidence from the prior trial (or more precisely from an improper citation to an impression of what happened at the prior trial)
Whether there is common-law precedcent for charging some-on who used force to detain another with kidnapping or no such precedent exists is immaterial. The Nevada legislature has defined through statues that those actions are kidnapping. End of story.
To those who think kidnapping is a harsh charge for such actions, I sugggest the following hypothetical:
You are sitting in your house watching TV with your family. Two armed men burst in and tie you up lying on the floor. Why should it be one charge if they leave you in the living room and a different (lighter) charge if they take you to the next-door neighbor’s garden shed?
The distinction seems artificial. Some states, NV included, have said that there is no difference in the two types of using physical force or threats of violence to restrain and coerce another. Whether OJ thought that his plan required kidnapping or criminal restraint, he should have known that he was going to do something illegal.
I thought it was 15, and he could be out in as little as 9?
alterego, if he couldn’t get a fair trial-what do you propose should have been done, then?
Anonymize the details of the case - straight up John Doe. I would be satisfied with a standard trial with all the hype and bias, and a control jury that never saw the accused, had no idea who the accused was etc… If the two juries are in agreement, no big deal. In other words: science.
Minimum 9 ,max 33. He could die in prison. Then when 9 years comes up, I doubt if he will get parole.