Life in Prison Might Not Be Likely for O.J.

Lester Munson, an attorney from Chicago who writes about legal issues in sports for ESPN.com, says O.J. Simpson may be more likely to be sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison than he is to receive a life sentence for his role in the robbery and kidnapping case that resulted in his conviction on 12 counts by a jury in Las Vegas Friday.

But, for a 61-year-old man, a 10- to 15-year sentence could mean imprisonment for life anyway. It might not be formally declared a life sentence, but, realistically, that's what it may turn out to be.

At the very least, as Munson acknowledges, "Simpson probably will be into his 70s before he returns to freedom."

Simpson's attorney has insisted the verdict will be appealed. But the legal system is set up a little differently in Nevada. Unlike most states, where there are two levels of appeal — an intermediate appellate court and the state's supreme court — only one level of appeal (the supreme court) exists in Nevada.

"So Simpson has only one chance to persuade a group of judges he should be freed," writes Munson.

Furthermore, the arguments that Simpson's lawyers probably will offer in their appeal don't seem likely to succeed, Munson says.

One such argument is that the racial composition of the jury was the "result of systematic elimination of African-Americans." But, as Munson points out, the judge ruled that the original panel of potential jurors was "an accurate reflection of the racial population" in Clark County, Nevada, and "it is unlikely the Supreme Court will second-guess her rulings."

It was impossible to ignore the racial element of the murder trial in the 1990s. The victims were both white, and the defendant was black. But, "[w]ith the possible exception of the selection of the jury, race was not a factor" this time, says Munson. The participants in this case were "remarkably diverse," he writes, making racism a much more difficult claim to make in an appeal.

The second argument likely will suggest that the judge made an error by allowing prosecutors to talk to the jury about the civil judgment against Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend, Ron Goldman.

The prosecution argued that it was Simpson's "enduring rage against the Goldmans that caused him to plan and execute the robbery" — in an effort to prevent them from acquiring his sports memorabilia and selling the items to obtain a portion of the $33.6 million judgment.

The judge in the case kept prosecutors from introducing witnesses on that issue, but she permitted audiotapes of Simpson "raging at the Goldmans and their efforts to collect from him."

Therefore, Munson writes, "It will be difficult for Simpson's lawyers to succeed on the issue when the justices of the Supreme Court hear the tapes of Simpson himself describing how the robbery would prevent the Goldmans from obtaining his things and selling them."

The anti-O.J. partisans might not feel as satisfied with a sentence of 10 to 15 years in prison as they might have with a life sentence.

But, in the end, it may be nothing more than a matter of semantics.