O.J. Seeks New Trial After Conviction

O.J. Simpson's lawyers cited judicial errors and insufficient evidence Friday in seeking a new trial after the former football star was convicted of kidnapping and robbing two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a casino hotel room.

"Simpson should be granted a new trial," Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso wrote in a motion faulting Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass's decisions during jury selection, her limitations on cross-examination of witnesses during trial and her instructions to jurors before deliberations.

In a separate filing, a lawyer for co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart alleged misconduct by the jury foreman, and said Stewart suffered from being tried with Simpson.

If the foreman, Paul Connelly, "believes that Mr. Simpson is a murderer, and that Mr. Stewart is associated with Mr. Simpson," Stewart lawyer Brent Bryson wrote, "that bias would spill over and affect Mr. Connelly's ability to be fair and impartial toward Mr. Stewart."

In documents filed with Glass, Grasso and Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter also protested that Glass refused to grant enough time to fully review transcripts and videotapes of the trial that led to guilty verdicts against Simpson and Stewart late Oct. 3.

"She didn't give us the time we need to do a full-fledged motion," said Galanter, who lost a bid to extend the seven-day deadline.

Galanter said he would file a more detailed appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court if Glass denies a new trial. The state high court is Nevada's only appellate court.

Prosecutors were expected to submit written opposition to the defense motions before an Oct. 30 hearing, according to court documents.

Simpson, 61, and Stewart, 54, are due for sentencing Dec. 5. The jury found them guilty of all 12 charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, in the Sept. 13, 2007, hotel room confrontation.

Both men are jailed in Las Vegas, pending sentencing. Each could each face five years to life in prison on each of their two kidnapping convictions, and a mandatory sentence of at least two years or up to 30 years on each of the two armed robbery convictions.

Simpson's motion for a new trial alleges Glass improperly allowed prosecutors to use preemptory challenges to remove two prospective black jurors before the final jury was seated.

Both Simpson and Stewart are black. The final jury of nine women and three men included one woman who identified herself as Hispanic, but no blacks.

"The removal of these panelists significantly impacted the racial diversity of the eventual jury," Simpson lawyer Gabriel Grasso wrote. He cited Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, and alleged that Simpson's 14th Amendment rights to due process were violated.

Simpson's lawyers asserted there was insufficient evidence to support first-degree kidnapping convictions, and faulted questions used to cull the jury from a pool of 500 prospects.

Grasso alleged that Glass blocked them from instructing jurors that they could consider lesser charges of larceny or second-degree kidnapping against Simpson, or that Simpson believed when he confronted memorabilia dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley that he was retrieving items that belonged to him.

Grasso also claimed Glass allowed biased jurors to be seated after they were questioned about Simpson's acquittal in the 1994 slayings in Los Angeles of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

"Five of the final 12 jurors stated that they disagreed with the (Los Angeles) acquittal verdict," Grasso wrote. "However, defense counsel was prohibited from inquiring as to how they reached this opinion."

Glass sought during trial to limit references to Simpson's 1995 acquittal. But there were references to the California case, and to a 1997 civil court judgment holding Simpson liable for the slayings and ordering him to pay $33.5 million.

Stewart lawyers lost several requests to sever Stewart's trial from Simpson's. Bryson's documents referred to those decisions, but focused on alleged misconduct by the jury foreman.

Bryson pointed to answers on Connelly's jury questionnaire and to comments he said Connelly made during a post-verdict news conference.

"We all have opinions, some people think he (Simpson) should have been given life 13 years ago," Bryson quoted Connelly as saying. "That was my opinion, but I think that's reserved for the court to decide."

Connelly has said he was asked two different questions at the news conference and his answers were consistent with his responses on his jury questionnaire - that the courts had acquitted Simpson of murder and he agreed with that verdict.

Another lawyer for Stewart, Robert Lucherini, filed documents this week seeking to withdraw from the case, citing a "breakdown of attorney and client relationship."

Lucherini, who was being paid by the state to represent Stewart, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. An Oct. 21 hearing was scheduled on his request.

Bryson said he and lawyer Charles D. Jones of Monroe, La., would handle the remainder of Stewart's case.