Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

O.J. sentencing math: SI wins

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

Coverage of the O.J. Simpson verdict in Las Vegas is largely guilty of breaking one of the most basic legal-reporting rules. Rather than explain what sentence Simpson realistically faces -- what discretion the judge has to impose minimums, and whether it's common to stack sentences in such a case with such a defendant -- we're told endlessly about his possible life sentence. Because, of course, it's easy to write that he "faces up to life in prison." Who took that easy way out? AP's O.J.-ologist Linda Deutsch, the LA Times' Ashley Powers, Washington Post's Karl Vick (who copped out with a "two years to life" range, failing to explain any nuances in that absurdly long span), and the NY Times' Steve Friess (whose folo today merely cites the auto-pilot "fact" that "guilty verdicts on robbery and kidnapping charges . . . may send him to prison for the rest of his life." At least Friess' verdict story on Saturday tackled some of the nuances:

Kidnapping is punishable by five years to life, and the armed robbery conviction requires a mandatory sentence of at least two years and up to 30 years. The presence of a weapon at the scene adds years to the minimum sentences for 9 of the 12 charges, which include conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, assault and coercion.

That's more detail, but without a filter. We still can't tell what really might happen because the reporter is reading from a rule book without a translator who knows how the system works. The local paper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, does not appear to have done a separate story on sentencing options since Simpson's indictment last year. Brian Haynes' verdict story avoided the easiest shorthand -- explaining that the convictions "include two counts each of robbery with a deadly weapon and first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon, the latter carrying a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison, with the possibility of parole after five years." But, again, that doesn't definitively state what all of the charges together might realistically yield. Leave it to a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated to lend more perspective than any other reports that I found. Here's the relevant part from Michael McCann's legal FAQ:

Even if she opts to impose the most lenient possible sentence under discretion, Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass will sentence Simpson to at least 15 years in prison. His conviction alone of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon carries a minimum sentence of 15 years, with the possibility of parole after five years, and a maximum sentence of life of prison with the chance of parole. Judge Glass could run the sentences for each of the 12 charges concurrently or consecutively, the latter of which would be disastrous for Simpson, as he would then serve time for each sentence, one-after-the-other.Working in Simpson's favor is that judges normally refrain from imposing the maximum possible sentence for first-time offenders and, despite the many controversies surrounding him over the last two decades, Simpson has not previously been convicted of a crime (though he did plead no contest in 1989 to a spousal abuse charge, meaning he neither contested the charge nor admitted guilt). Then again, at age 61, there is a strong probability that, absent a successful appeal and regardless of Judge Glass' leniency, Simpson will spend the remainder of his life in prison.

Sentencing isn't simple. Some reporters opt to ignore the complexities altogether, with the legal equivalent of a weather reporter telling us that life as we know it could end tomorrow because an asteroid could strike Earth. Readers deserve something closer to the truth than the bogus math of stacking sentences that might run concurrently, and citing maximums that might never be levied.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on October 05, 2008 (boomark / email).