LAS VEGAS, Nevada – A routine status conference for the O.J. Simpson robbery trial was a real eye opener for me on Friday afternoon.

Judge Jackie Glass told prosecutors and attorneys for O.J. Simpson that she has never seen such a lengthy juror questionnaire with so many questions. She put the attorneys on notice that they have a choice…stick with the questionnaire and stick with her requirement that “jury selection will not go on for a significant amount of time.”

Judge Glass concluded by warning “if you don’t want this, we can throw the jury questionnaire out the window”…and thus have more voir dire time face-to-face with jurors. Jury selection could be the most critical aspect to this case, so attorneys are going to have to think about Judge Glass’s words carefully.

The other point from this status check that caught my attention: in denying one of Simpson’s co-defendant’s renewed motion for severance Judge Glass told attorneys “the only way they (co-defendants) won’t go to trial together is if you pick up the phone” and work out a deal.

Hmmm. Could plea deals still be worked out? The big question all defendants need to consider here…will they be willing to serve time? Sources tell me any plea deal for Simpson and his two co-defendants would include jail time along with pleading to felonies. The defense, at least for O.J. Simpson, says no formal offers have been made, but jail time is not an option.

Jury selection for this case begins here on September 8th and at this point all jurors will begin the process by filling out the lengthy questionnaire.

Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

LAS VEGAS, Nevada–It’s time again for the monthly status check hearing here in Las Vegas for the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case.

I find these hearings extremely interesting because you often learn where both sides may be going once the trial begins.

First up today is a renewed motion for severance by co-defendant Charles Ehrlich. He is asking the court once again to separate his trial from Simpson’s. Co-defendant C.J. Stewart is joining in this motion.

I can tell from speaking with Ehrlich’s attorney Robert Lucherini that he is extremely concerned that negative jury reaction toward Simpson may spill over to the other co-defendants. But this is a conspiracy case and they are never severed here in Clark County; I have been told by the media judge for the District Court there has never been a severance in a conspiracy case.

Another issue on tap for today: as both sides continue to put together the long jury questionnaire that will kick off jury selection in September, prosecutors are at odds with the defense on some of the proposed questions.

Simpson’s defense team wants a question to be included on whether jurors believe Simpson has a right to earn a living, and an obligation to support his children. The prosecution says this is not appropriate for the questionnaire and is actually part of the defense theory that Simpson was retrieving the memorabilia for the financial benefit of his family.

We’ll see it all as it is argued in court.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – The recent arrest of Alfred Beardsley may make it harder to convict O.J. Simpson at his armed robbery trial in Las Vegas this fall, even though it has nothing to do with Simpson’s guilt or innocence.

Cat-boiling is among Alfred Beardsley’s alleged threats.

Beardsley is an alleged victim in the Las Vegas caper. Another witness in the case, Thomas Riccio, filed a complaint against Beardsley this week in Los Angeles. Read more

For those who need a scorecard: Riccio is the memorabilia dealer who arranged for Simpson to meet Beardsley and Bruce Fromong, another memorabilia dealer, at the Las Vegas hotel room,

Riccio is now accusing Beardsley of threatening to hurt his family and “boil the family cat.” Beardsley denies making any such threats.

He says Riccio is trying to draw attention to himself and the armed robbery case because Riccio’s book, Busted: The Inside Story of the World of Sports Memorabilia, O.J. Simpson, and the Vegas Arrests, is about to hit store shelves. The book starts and ends with Riccio’s explanation of Simpson’s Las Vegas deal gone bad.

In late February, Beardsley filed a civil suit against Riccio in Orange County, California claiming fraud, invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting assault and battery, and infliction of emotional distress. The action stems from the Las Vegas armed robbery. Riccio’s lawyer, Stanley Lieber, recently announced that Riccio plans to countersue for fraud in a 2004 encounter with Beardsley which, coincidentally, also involved O.J. Simpson and an autograph-signing event in Los Angeles.

The sparring between two of the state’s key witnesses in Simpson’s armed robbery case is likely to come out at trial. Jurors assess the credibility of witnesses in a number of ways including their demeanor, ability to recall, opportunity to observe, motive, bias, and criminal history, if any. In this case, both Beardsley and Riccio have a criminal past. Riccio has spent time in federal prison for dealing in stolen property, escape and arson. Beardsley was imprisoned in California for a stalking conviction and is currently on parole for that crime.

None of this has any direct relationship to what unfolded in the Palace Station Hotel room when two men allegedly brandished guns at Simpson’s request. But it’s no help to the state’s case that the defense has all this mud to sling around the courtroom about two critical witnesses for the state.

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

Let’s talk about O.J. Simpson and the court of public opinion.

Because if you think celebrities have an advantage, think about this. In the public eye celebrities are guilty, until proven innocent. And maybe even after proven innocent. O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson all prove that. Each was presumed guilty, each was acquitted, but the public dialogue was about the accused as legally innocent but factually guilty. Not guilty but not innocent either.

Now comes O.J. Simpson again. And this time with a couple of co-defendants. All presumed guilty. And the trial hasn’t even started yet. Folks will tell you, I’m not on the jury. I don’t have to presume anyone innocent.

But that’s wrong. Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself.

And that is the Last Word.

–Jami Floyd, InSession anchor 

NEW YORK – O.J. Simpson’s lawyers go back to court on Friday, arguing pre-trial motions before the start of his kidnapping and robbery case, scheduled for trial on April 7 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

O.J. Simpson’s robbery trial begins April 7.

Most of the motions are no real surprise — seeking dismissal of the charges, separate trials for the defendants — and, according to most legal experts, are not likely to be granted.

But here’s one that might surprise you: The O.J. defense team wants the judge to prohibit the prosecution from mentioning anything about the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman murder cases during this robbery trial.

Here’s the problem with that motion: Is there, really, any potential juror in Las Vegas who doesn’t know about that case? And won’t both sides, and the judge, be necessarily spending an extraordinary amount of time asking every possible juror what they know about the earlier case and what impact that knowledge might have on their ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in the new case? The answers are: “No” and “Yes.”

So, why then is the defense seeking to keep any mention of the murder case out of the trial? Well, the answer has to do with the proverbial “elephant in the room.” Everybody knows it’s there but nobody wants to talk about it.

In this instance, that “elephant’ is the slayings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The defense is worried that some juror, believing that O.J. Simpson got away with murder, may see this new case as a chance for a “pay back” verdict.

The prosecution, however, says the jurors need to hear at least about what they claim is O.J. Simpson’s continuing effort to frustrate any attempt to recover any of the $33 million judgment against him. This, says the prosecution, helps to explain O.J.’s actions and the armed robbery in the hotel room in Las Vegas.

So, will the “elephant” move to the front of the room when the trial starts? Stay tuned—we may know the answer to that question by Friday.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – Some commentators have made much of Judge Glass’ strong words to O.J. Simpson in court yesterday, but clearly only one thing mattered to O.J.: getting out of jail, which he did, after the brief tongue-lashing. He’s free again, as he will be until trial.

O.J. Simpson sits in court with attorney Yale Galanter.

How could the judge find he violated a condition of bail and yet spring him? Because he’s entitled to bail in this non-capital case. The judge did all that she could do: gave him a stern warning, raised the bail, required him to pay 15% of the new $250,000 amount.

O.J.’s friends – he’s always got entourage – came up with the money, and he’s home free, again.

As one of the few people who actually read O.J.’s 2007 book,” If I Did It,” I cannot help thinking of his vivid description of his long, tortured relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson, his explanation of he did it WHY he did it (hypothetically) — that skirt was too short for his taste on the last day of her life — and HOW he did it (hypothetically) — driving home via a different route than everyone thought.

In my view, the only interpretation of his book is that he is now a confessed double murderer, and yet no jail can hold him. He’s a master at playing the system.

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — Well, the cable news biz is all abuzz again about O.J. Simpson. And let’s face it – most of us (especially those of us who are lawyers on television) owe our careers to O.J.

More than a few have gained celebrity status as victims’ rights advocates on the bloody backs of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. They rage for the victims. They ooze compassion for their families. Watch the Last Word video

But, do we really honor the victims with our coverage? Of course not. Because real compassion would require the very thing we can’t bear in cable: silence.

So rather than refrain from the feeding frenzy that erupts anytime O.J. does anything, we instead jump at the slightest opportunity to revisit the awful events of June 12, 1994. We relive every minute of O.J.’s year-long odyssey through the criminal justice system.

We don’t honor Ron and Nicole by jumping into the fray every time O.J. feeds the frenzy. Let’s remember that.

And that’s the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – O.J. Simpson’s bail revocation hearing just ended. Judge Jackie Glass increased his bail to $250,000 and ordered that he will not be a free man until 15 percent — $37,500 — is paid in cash and his home is put up for collateral.  Full story

O.J. was a diferent person in that courtroom just minutes ago. He was so serious and concerned, no longer the joking jovial defendant we have seen.

He appeared to make no eye contact with his bail bondsman, Miguel Pereira (the one who took OJ’s voicemail to the D.A.). O.J. didn’t have any family in the courtroom. He was in shackles as well as his jailhouse blues.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – OJ Simpson is in a Las Vegas courtroom where both sides will address the issue at the heart of the prosecution’s motion: Did the former Heisman trophy winner violate the provisions of his bail?

The first witness: Bail bondsman Miguel Pereira.

As I arrived at the courthouse I observed a sea of satellite trucks. This is getting international coverage so everyone is here.

The defense filed its written response to all of this right before the courthouse closed last night. The team is going to fight hard to help OJ regain his freedom.

I just finished my first live shot. I wish I could tell you how cold it is here. My heater went out during the hour I was on air. There is so much electricity being used by all the networks that the demand tripped one of our breakers!

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK — Before you start throwing peanuts at your screen, let me tell you why I, for one, am NOT sick of O.J. Simpson.

Ashleigh Banfield

Sure, he makes for good ratings. Sure, there’s an element of Schadenfreude that’s associated with him. But every move he makes delivers one more ounce of justice to the people who have suffered the most by his actions.

For the last 13 years, the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson have lived with pictures of a carefree O.J. Simpson golfing his way around America, while hundreds of thousands of people applaud him, pay for autographs, and buy into his innocence.

Thanks to one of the worst examples of American jurisprudence in history, Simpson was found not guilty of murder. But with every miss-step caught by the press, with every chapter penned about How He Would Have Done It Had He Actually Done It, with every sordid character he befriends, and with every snub to the bail system, public support for OJ Simpson has been hemorrhaging.

Back in October of 1995, a survey reported in the NY Times showed just 12 percent of black people said they believed Simpson was guilty of murder.

Fast forward to this past September, post book deal and post arrest. The Washington Post conducted a poll showing that disdain for O.J, Simpson had ballooned within the black community A whopping 45 percent of black respondents now said they believe OJ was guilty of murder.

Is hindsight 20/20? Or has the spotlight on a reckless criminal revealed his lack of contrition, his propensity for violence, and his sordid lifestyle?

Thanks to relentless coverage of Simpson’s travails, a window has been provided into this man’s true soul. You might call it a little clarity for those who were once blinded by his Heisman.

– Ashleigh Banfield, In Session anchor