8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

1/14

12345678I

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9202 122232425262728

IN THE SUPREMECOURTOF THE STATEOF NEVADA

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,Appellant/Petitioner,

V S .

THESTATEOFNEVADA,Respondent.

CASENo.53080

APPELLANT S PETITION F'ORREHEARING

Yale L. Galanter,P.A.Yale L. Galanter,Esquire3730N.E. 199TerraceAventura,Florida33I 80Ph.(305)s76-0244AdrnittedPro Hac Vice

Attorneysfor Appellant/Petitioner

Malcolm P. LaVergne,Esq.The LaVergne Law Groupl2l2 SouthCasinoCenterBoulevardLas Vegas'Nevada89104Ph. (702)448-7981NevadaBar No. l0l2l\'tralr:*Irri'.1ri'Iit vcrgnclale'.crxlr

-1-

Electronically Filed

Nov 16 2010 12:38 p.mTracie K. Lindeman

Docket 53080 Document 2010-29934

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

2/14

1234567BI

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9202 12223242526272B

Peti t ioner/Appel lantOrenthalJamesSimpson( Appel lant) f i lesthisPeti t ionforRehear ingpursuantto N.R.A.P.40oftheCourtsOctober22,2010paneldecisionaff i rminga judgmentof convict ionupona jurytr ialagainstAppel lant.OnappealSimpsonraiseda varietyof legalissuesthatresuftedina fundamentalandconstitutionallyflararcdjudgment.TheCourtfoundeachandeveryoneofAppellantSimpsons argumentswithoutmerit.AppellantSimpsonrespectfullydisagreeswlththeCourts Orderof Affirmance.ThisPetitionexemplif iessomematerialfactsandmaterialquest ionsof lawovedookedor misapprehendedbyffreCourtpursuantto N.R.A.P.40(c).

THECOURTMISAPPREHENDEDTHELAWIN REGARDTO RESTRICTIONONVOIRDIREThe Courtaff irmedthe trialcourts restrictionson voirdire,ostensibly,because

the scopeof voir dire restswithinthe sounddiscretionof the DistrictCourtandwil l begivengreatdeference. The Courtin itsopiniondeterminedthatthe scopeof voirdireshouldbe l imited.See,October22,2010 Simpsonv. SfafePanelDecis ion,pgs.5S.

The lawgeneral lystatesthatthe scopeof voirdireexaminat iongeneral lyrestswithinthe discretionof the trialcourt. Overlooked,however,inthe Courts October22,2010opinionis the SupremeCourtof the UnitedStates McDonoughcase,whichexpl ic i t lystates,Thatbiasof a jurorwi l lrarelybe admit tedbythejurorhimself .McDonoughv. Greenwood,464U.S.548 (1983).The McDonoughcase standsfor theproposit ionthata tr ialmurt can commitconstitutionalerrorby not permitt ingprobingquestionsof potentialjurorswhenthereis a needto ask them. As furtherdiscussedinthisPet i t ion,the Courtful tyunderstandsthatmanypotent ialjurors includingthe ones

-2-

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

3/14

1234567BI

1 01 11 2'131 41 51 61 71 B1 9202 12223242526272B

sit t inginjudgmentof Appel lantperceivethatO.J.Simpsons nameissynonymousforgettingawaywithmurder.

TheCourts October22,2010paneldecisionstatedthat a thoroughanalysisofeachjurors thoughtsandfeelingsabouttheCaliforniaverdictswouldnotprovideaddit ionalsecuritiesthatthe prospectivejurorcouldapplythe lawfairlyand impart ial ly.Absolutelyno rat ionalebasisexistsfor makingsucha statementgiventhecircumstancesof thiscase. To the contrary,the reasonthatfederalcourtsinsistonallowingquestionsto exposethesetypesof biasesis becausetheyarerarelyadmittedby a prospectivejuror. Here,the trialcourtclearlyabusedib discretionin l ightof theexist ingcaselawandthe factsand circumstancesof thiscase. Forexample,in anopiniondecidedthe samedateas the Orderof AffirmanceagainstAppellant,the Courtdelvedintoa lengthydiscussionin Stewartv. Nevada(datedOctober22, 2010)abouthow Simpsonis one of the mostnotoriouspublicf iguresin the country. ln part icular,the Courtfurtheropinesin the Stewartdecisionthat thereis a signif icantindicationthatthe generalpublicviewsthe formerfootballgreatas a criminal. Exte nsiveprobingquestionswere necesslryand requiredin thiscase underthe law. The Courts rationalthat morequestioningralrculdnot haveprovidedaddit ionalsecuritiesmisapprehendsthe law. AccordingV,a rehearingis rnarrantedon the issueof restrictingjuryselection.

THE COURTMISAPPREHENDEDTHE LAWAS IS RELATESTO BATSON.Likewise,the Courtdeniedany reliefto Appellanton the Batsonclaim,stating

as with mostissuesin the Courts opinion that greatdeferenceis givento the DistrictCourts f indings. The Courtdid not addressand or,erlookedthe materialfact thatffre

-3-

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

4/14

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

5/14

12345678I

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 B1 9202 122232425262728

fundamentallyflawedand,consequently,the Courtshouldgranta rehearingto correcttheseerrorsof materialfact and misapplicationof law.

THE COURTOVERLOOKEDTHE CLEARRECORDOF WITNESSINl' IMIDATIONThe Court,on pagesnineand 10of its paneldecision,statesthat Detective

Caldwellwas askedaboutwhat hisconcernswereabout hearingthe callsbetweenBeardsleyand AppellantSimpson.The CourtfurtherstatedthatCaldwelltestifiedhewas worriedthatSimpsonwouldbe ableto talkto co-defendantsand victimsbeforethepol icecontactedhimand thattherewereno accusat ionsaboutint imidat ion.

Clearly,the C,ourthasoverlookedthismatenalfactasci tedin Appel lantsBriefsand Appendix.(See,JAA 4412:20-22).

In the trialtranscrip[the prosecutorintentionallyelicitedthe fol lowingquestion:O. All r ight,at the timeyouheardthesephonecallsfromthe detentioncenter

you werealreadyconcernedwitheffortsby Mr. Simpsonto dissuadeandinf luence. . .

Thisclearattemptto insertthe implicationof witnessintimidationwas overlookedby the Courtwhen the prosecutorusedand infusedthe wordsdissuadeand influence,therewas neveranyprofferof inf luenceor dissuadinginthe record.A reviewof therecordshowstherewerediscussionsof intimidationimproperlyinsertedintothe trialproceedingsby the Stateand ClarkCountyDistrictAttorneys Office.

The Courtfurtherstatedon page 10of its Orderof Affirmancethat thisraasnot toprovethatSimpsonwasint imidat ing,butonlytoshed l ighton the relatonship.TheCourts rat ionaleis inconsistentwithplainlanguageof dissuadeand inf luencein the

-5-

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

6/14

12345678I

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9202 122232425262728

trialtranscriptand,ttus,overlooksandinterpretsmaterialquestionsof factandlawin itsOrderof Affirmance.AccordingV,a rehearingis requestedon thisissue.

THISCOURTOVERLOOKEDTHEAPPENDIXCITETHATCONTAINEDTHEREQUESTEDJURYINSTRUCTIONSONLESSERINCLUDEDOFFENSESTheCourts opiniondiscussing,ourlesserincludedoffensesargument,ci ted

correctlythatanappellanthastheultimateresponsibil i tyto providethisCourtwithportionsof therecordessentialto itsdetermination.Page13of theCourtsopinionstatesthattherecordcitesthatSimpsonprovided\ /ereintentionallyomittedfromtheAppendix,butinfacttheywerenot. (SeeattachedExhibitA). Theproposedjuryinstructionswereexactlywheretheywerecitedto in the brief (JAASS43-SS4T).Ascrivenerserrorstatedpages5530621wereomittedbutin facttheywerenot. TheCourtoverlookedthiscitationin itsopinion.Appellantisentit ledto reconsiderationof hislesserincludedoffensesargumentwiththecitat ionstotheAppendixand,accordingly,arehearingon thisissueshouldbegranted.

GENERALVERSUSSPECIFICINTENTCRIMESThisCourthasoverlookedAppel lantSimpsons argumentthatthejurywas

confusedaboutspecif icintentversusgeneralintentcr imes.The Courts opiniononpage 14 correctlystatesthat the co-conspiratorl iabil i tyinstructionnumbersix as offeredby the Statewas for specificintentcrimes. The Court,however,hasoverlookedtheargumentraisedin Appel lants Briefat pagel;1and page 41; 1-5thatjurorswere neverinstructedthatin orderto be foundgui l tyof the Specif icIntentCrimesof BurglaryandKidnapping,Simpsonhadto havethe specif icintentto committhosecrimes.TheAppendixis devoidof any proofthatSimpsonever hadsuch specificintentto satisfythe

-6-

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

7/14

1234567BI

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 B1 9202 122232425262728

elementsof theaforementionedcrimes,andtre Courts conclusionto thecontraryin itsOrderof Affirmanceisanerrorthatoverlooksmaterialfacts.Bynotinstructingthejuryproperlyonthe intentissue,Appellants convictionis fundamentallyflawedon thosecounts.Accordingly,a rehearingis required.

CONCLUSIONForthereasonsstatedthePetitionforRehearingshouldbegranted,uponwhich

theCourtshouldreviewtheappealin l ightof control l ingcaselawandreversetheJudgmentof Convictionat thetrialcourtlevel.

Datedthis16thday of November,2010. l o l 2 l ,YALEL R. ESQUIRE3730N.E.199TerraceAventura.Flor ida331B0

LasVegas,Nevada89104Pn . Q02)448-7981Attorneysfor Appellant/PetitionerOrenthalJ. Simpson

-7-

ERGNE.ESQUIRETheLaVefgneLawGroup1212Soui l rCasinoCenterBoulevard

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

8/14

1234567B9

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 B1 9202 12223242526272B

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEI herebycertifyandaffirmthatonthe 16thdayof November,2010,I electronically

fi leda trueandcorrectcopyof the Petit ionforRehearingwiththeSupremeCourtofNevada.TheSupremeCourtof NevadashallelectronicallynoticeandservethefollowingthroughtheMasterServiceList:Hon.CatherineCortezMaestroNevadaAttorneyGeneralChrisOwens,Esq.ClarkCountyDistrictAttorneys OfficeMalcolmP.LaVergne,EsqAttorneyforAppellanVPetit ionerSimpson

-B-

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

9/14

HXT.{XffiXTA

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

10/14

1!

L

A+{tA

l

IC}

1 / )t 1-t

I t1 Z

1 n

1 6t . 71 l

i 8t C I

L V,}.|.\ nL LL3

t- ")

t,l)a n

i b

lhrsr'$rucTl0NN$.R.obberyis a carnbinaEionof thecrims of r&ssaultrvirhthatof Larceny.As a rcsuitiarcenycanbe a iesserisrcluded*ffbns* clf'thscrimer:f R*bbery. As such,if y*u decidethat

the factsdo not $LlppCIrla e{:tevietr*err:f rabbery,you s?ayconsiderthe ctrrargecf larceny.

State3'._Fo--u#retlc,STNev.{-.isLv_v.Sta..t_q.82 Ne,'. i 83,Jgffer.so.li-v.-$tAte,tr{J8Nev.

5S5.57V{1?50}.iE7( i9S5).953,954i1992).

g

"f*int Appcll;;n{s'AppcnCix5543

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

11/14

uIInl{Itt lllItIttl1 f ill - lic intent *risns" lar gr{ier3 ll

t,arceny1$a speci: !l mr**ny, rhc ${atemust prsve beyonda reasocrable' l t, li stole,tcok away,or caruiedawaypropertyc:'vnedby'f tlti- i l5 l l

fi5 {l----IT.t ll NRS2*5.224.' l l- ii Statev. Poldan,l24P"3d191,?*tr${er''20{}5}"o ll -{i {l cteslborS

",$PIg,12r}iev' }44 t7**5}'Y l I . -tr} l1grqghror,state'i gsY"3&65?{Nev'zq}*g}'tl1 1 t ll lIt12i i1ti ta 4 l lt 1 l tltI I14 liHIIt1 ! l1 j l lil1 6 l l

ItIt\7 l l1trslttit,1elll1Zil fitl?.\it}N22 littr.":,.ltLJ II74 litl1t2s ll,l2 6 i ltl' r-7 ll,!- t tE

il28ilt,:ti|tiIlfifi

INS?RI.JCTT{}T{NO. *-fl*r ycu ic firrd a d*f'sndentg{riity ofdsubt that tli* defendantin{entioraally

anothergerltog.

J U

Jcintllppeilanls' Appendixs54

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

12/14

i!t

13j

t)4IX

{,-t

t ni L J' t ?

a 4I t

f .'r

1 ai +. t - i

1 61 1t " t$ ol o1 C I

'7 1L j .a 1L.L

"\ /I

26f ! '?

28

INSTRUCTIONNO,

In crderibr 3rouro find the defbnqJantgui{ryqrfbcrkeFirst l}egreeKidnappingandanassociatedofibnseof trtobbery,the Statesn*stsho\ryone *f the t"ollcwirtg:

{li Thatanyrnoreixcn{of thevictim Evasnot incidentaitc t-her*bbery;{Z)Thst anyin*id&nte|ffi&vernostcf th* vic*inrsubstantiatrXyinereasedtherisk of harmto

the victim overand atrovcttlat n*cessa$ilrr tpresentin the robberylor(3) Thatthe movcmegt,seiza:re,*r restrainthasarrinclependeiltpulposear signiiicanc*

thatstandsaSunefi'sm lbrecrirnecf Robbery'"

i3 the State{hi}stc x}rov*FirstDegneeKidnappi*g,you mayeonsid*r$ecq}ndtr}ege"e*Kidnapping.

Kesgqza&g!4s,tr30P.3d1u"!6, \i &tl"{ev-2fi{}6}'

1 1t t

JuintAi:peiiants'Appcndix554.

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

13/14

4L

4,t^}I

6G

t t ,1 i1 tl r l\ L1 4

1 4

I t l' /.,t l! *1 t )

I L J

L V. ! t. ' e

/- a

4. Jn nL'l

L )

xN$TR{JCT!O1'{Ni}-_--

In *relerfrir y*u to find a defencantga;iity*f First l)egreeKidnappingtht:st*6emusl

showthat the detendantintendedto seize,c*nfine, rnveiglc,entice,decoy,abduct,conccal,

kidnap.or oilrry awayapor$CIn,by anyrilans:with {he intenfohold *r detainftrr thept}rp*sns*i c*rnrnitti*g R"*bb*ry"

Furthermore,the statemustaLs*shravthatthe intentto csmmltRabberywes

conremporaneouswit?rthe act rhatc*ns{.itr:t*skidnapping'trf'thedefendafttdi{inot intencllc

casimit l{obberyat thetims tkrernsven:entoccured,thenthe ctefensantclidnq:tpossesstktc

requisitcinte*t f*,l Fia"stllegreeKidnappinganrtryou mu$ttialdthsmnotgr:iltry'

{f the defen

8/7/2019 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing, Simpson v. Nevada, No. 53080, Nev. Sup. Ct.

14/14

II

J

+

6-ta{.)o

1 *T J

{ ,.1c !

1 At Y .

. t J

LtJ1 i1 e! ( }

n n/-r,). > 1L L

22.l ")4J J

A AL4+'7