OJ continues to play by his own rules. He got a stern lecture and a few days in jail and once again he is out of custody.
Clark County Judge Jackie Glass told Simpson today that his bail would be doubled and that this was his "last chance" to abide by the conditions of bail.
This latest twist in the OJ saga brings up two interesting legal issues. One-How can his bail go up after he has already paid it? And two-Why is this case still going on when the alleged victim has asked for the case to be dropped?
First, let's look at the bail question. Under California law the standard for a change in bail is "change of circumstances". This means that in order for the Judge to take you into custody and require the posting of additional money, circumstances need to have changed since the time the original bail was set. In OJ's case it is clear that by violating the terms of his release, circumstances had changed. The lesson to be learned here is that when you are released on bail, the case is not over.
Posting bail may get you out of custody, but it does not make the case go away. You still must comply with the terms of the release and violate no law. Additionally, you still need to deal with the case itself. To make matters worse many jurisdictions, including California, have crime bail crime statutes which provide for additional penalties in situations where someone released on bail commits a new offense. For all these reasons, it is best to lay low and exercise extreme caution anytime you are released on bail.
So why hasn't this case been dropped? The alleged victim in the current OJ case has recently told the media he does not want OJ to be prosecuted and that he would like the case dropped and to just have this whole thing "go away". So if the victim doesn't want to press charges, the case goes away right? Not exactly.
The important thing to remember is that only the person filing the charges can move to dismiss them. If this were civil court and the alleged victim had been the one to file the charges against OJ, he would be free to drop them. The same rules apply in any civil proceeding such as divorce, restraining order applications, and civil suits for money damages. The party who files the suit, with very limited exceptions, has the authority to drop the suit.
But this is criminal court, and the charges are filed by the District Attorney, Attorney General, Local Prosecutor, etc. This means that even if the alleged victim or complaining witness wants the case to go away, the prosecution can continue. This seems counterintuitive to many clients but it is the law. The same rule applies, only the person who filed the charges can agree to drop them. Just because the victim or the complaining witness doesn't want to prosecute the case, it doesn't mean the prosecuting agency is willing to drop the case.
Even though OJ seems to play by his own rules, his ongoing legal saga does provide many opportunities to understanding our legal system. Only time will tell if the juice remains loose or if he will get squeezed again, but in the meantime you can count on one thing, all eyes will be watching.
THE JUICE gets squeezed AGAIN - 1/11/2008
Well, the saga continues. This time OJ is in trouble for an alleged violation of his conditions of bail. When OJ was released he was ordered to have no communication with his co-defendants. According to these new allegations he has now broken that rule. The case is set for hearing and as always with OJ, this promises to be an ongoing drama.
Spector Mistrial - 9/30/2007
A mistrial was declared in the Phil Spector trial last week. The closest the jury got was 10-2. There are two real impacts that this has. The first is that someone who most believe to be guilty is walking around town, buying Aqua Net at Walgreens. The other impact is that the State of California (i.e. the taxpayers) gets to fork over another giant pile of money to retry the case. Will this money be well spent? Time will tell, but I do not believe Spector will be so lucky the second time around.
The Juice is loose - again...will he ever go back behind bars? - 9/21/2007
The quick answer is no. I know, that makes many of you mad. Sorry, just an opinion. I am not a fan of O.J. but if the facts that have been bantered about in the media come out to the jury (not necessarily a lock that will happen) then O.J. will likely not spend another day in the 'gray bar motel'. If this displeases you just keep your fingers crossed that he screws up again (seems likely doesn't it?). For more go to www.tmz.com and/or www.thesmokinggun.com
If you would like to recommend a topic for future postings, go to the contact information page and let us know what you want to talk about.
Riverside Getting a Boost in Judges - 8/29/2007
For anyone attempting to go to trial in Riverside County you may have realized it is very slow going. Although there are several reasons, one of the problems is getting some attention. Since 1989 Riverside County has added approximately 2 million residents, but only 3 Judges. To aid in resolving that problem, a dozen retired Judges were asked back to action until the backlog of trials that have been getting put off comes back to a reasonable number. Although this is not the ideal solution, it is definitely an improvement upon what had been happening, which was simply telling litigants that they were not going to get a trial any time soon. We shall see how this helps and you can check back here for an update.
NEWSFEED