It is premature to speculate overmuch about the eventual disposition of O. J. Simpson's recent arrest and incarceration in Las Vegas. But, since I will not cover the case as a journalist, I suspect I'm free to muse a bit in public.
Surely Mr. Simpson would not want to put this in front of a jury, no matter how weak--or strong--the case against him might be. Although nothing about the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be allowed into evidence (unless his attorneys made some incredibly egregious mistake, and even then it would almost surely be 'reversible error' on the part of the judge that let it come in) can you imagine the inner pressure on that jury to convict? Regardless of the evidence? Regardless of what they might have said about objectivity during voir dire?
On second thought, this could be a fascinating phenomenon if it does go to trial; perhaps I shouldn't be so hasty to say I won't cover it. Jury nullification in reverse? Without a word of it being mouthed? In court, that is.
The 'public' process has already begun. The Clark County District Attorney David Roger is following the model then Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti set in quicksand in the early hours of Mr. Simpson's arrest in Los Angeles in 1994. While Mr. Garcetti's quick-draw mouth came back to haunt his vaunted prosecution team at trial, it was not his intent. And neither is it the intent of the premature but revealing words of the Las Vegas D.A., to wit, from the A.P.:
The district attorney, meanwhile, said he expected Simpson to ultimately be charged with seven felonies and one gross misdemeanor.
If convicted of the booking charges, Simpson would face up to 30 years in state prison on each robbery count alone.
"He is facing a lot of time," said Clark County District Attorney David Roger.
Rather subjective words coming from a district attorney before all of the facts are in and suspects questioned. But he has history working for him. Mr. Garcetti had it working against him.