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

Legal News

: Lawbeat

O.J. prison bids open at six, climb to 33

By Mark Obbie

Today's sentencing of O.J. Simpson in his Las Vegas robbery case produced utter confusion over his sentence and parole eligibility. With multiple counts, consecutive and concurrent terms, deadly-weapon enhancements, and parole factors, reporters were all over the place in trying to pin it down.The AP's Ken Ritter, whose report will get among the heaviest distribution worldwide, complained in his story that there was "such a complex series of consecutive and concurrent sentences that even many attorneys watching the case were confused as to how much time Simpson got." Ritter put it in his lede at "as many as 33 years in prison" and only later in the story, published by the Washington Post at 3:23 p.m. (all times Eastern), explained that Judge Jackie Glass' clerk explained that Simpson is eligible for parole in as few as nine years.Elsewhere on the Post's site, "NFL Crime Watch" blogger Emil Steiner wrote at 1:51 p.m. that the sentence is at least 15 years, and then confusingly added: "Simpson will be eligible for parole in five on the kidnapping count, but with addition concurrent sentences it is unlikely he will serve fewer than 10 years."The two local papers -- the Review-Journal's Carri Geer Thevenot and Sun's Melissa Arseniuk -- agreed on 33 total and parole-eligible after nine. Those numbers also appeared in Scott Michels' ABC News report. People's Stephen Silverman at 1:35 p.m. didn't quite know what to make of it, writing ambiguously: "O.J. Simpson has been sentenced to 15 years in prison, with consecutive terms that could extend his time behind bars 2½ years or more."Bloomberg's Erik Larson and Lindsay Fortado, in a third take, at 2:19 p.m., put it at 16 years, eligible for parole in six. CNN's Paul Vercammen and Kara Finnstrom couldn't quite decide on the minimum, writing that it is "at least 15 years," but parole could come in nine.Steve Friess, on the New York Times site at 3:50 p.m., called it at "a minimum of nine years in prison" with no mention of a maximum. This is embarrassing. It's not clear yet whose fault it is, or who's right. I'm guessing that the judge did little to explain the sentencing realities in English, and reporters rushing to distill the details made a mash of them. Let's hope the reports clarify in the coming hours and days.

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