OJ co-defendant files separate appeal in Nevada

LAS VEGAS " A former O.J. Simpson golfing buddy has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn his conviction in an armed hotel room heist, alleging he suffered "spillover prejudice" from being tried alongside the former NFL football star and celebrity criminal defendant.

Clarence "C.J." Stewart argues in documents filed Thursday with the state's only appellate court that crucial audio recordings were improperly admitted as evidence and that the jury foreman committed misconduct by withholding his personal bias toward Simpson until after the pair were convicted and sentenced in Las Vegas.

"From the beginning of trial until its conclusion, the jury was improperly presented with 'prejudicial,' 'tainted' and 'unreliable' evidence," Stewart attorney Brent Bryson argues in the appeal. "The cumulative error that infected this trial warrants reversal of these convictions."

Simpson's appeal filed separately Tuesday did not raise questions about the audio recordings or the jury foreman.

But Stewart's appeal raises several of the same issues Simpson's lawyers cited, including insufficient evidence for conviction and improper exclusion of blacks from the jury.

Both defendants accuse Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass of judicial misconduct and bias against defense lawyers.

A clerk for Glass said the judge could not comment.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger said through a spokesman that he was confident the convictions would stand.

Nevada Supreme Court spokesman Bill Gang said appeals can take more than a year and he could not say when the state high court might rule.

Simpson, 61, was sentenced to nine to 33 years in state prison, and Stewart, 55, got 7 1/2 to 27 years after they were found guilty Oct. 3 of all 12 charges against them, including kidnapping, armed robbery, conspiracy and assault with a deadly weapon. Stewart is imprisoned at High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs, about 45 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Glass denied requests for a new trial, but threw out two coercion charges against both men before sentencing Dec. 5.

They along with four other men were accused of holding two sports collectibles peddlers at gunpoint in a hotel room in September 2007 and taking property that Simpson claimed had been stolen from him.

The four former co-defendants accepted plea deals, testified against Simpson and Stewart, and received probation.

Stewart's lawyers argued before, during and after trial that Simpson's notoriety and conflicts between the two men's defense theories required Stewart to be tried separately.

"Simpson's infamous history is a matter of public debate," Bryson said in the appeal. "To much of the world he is the exemplar of the wrongfully acquitted. Stewart was the victim of spillover prejudice."

Bryson referred to Simpson's acquittal in the 1994 slayings in Los Angeles of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson was found liable for the slayings in a 1997 civil court judgment and was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the Goldman and Nicole Simpson estates.

Bryson said the most significant issue in his appeal was the judge's decision to admit recordings of a poolside conversation of Simpson and others planning the Palace Station hotel room confrontation " along with another recording made in the room by the man who arranged the meeting.

Meeting go-between Thomas Riccio kept the recording of the confrontation for eight days and said he sold the recordings for $150,000 to a celebrity gossip Web site before turning them over to Las Vegas police.

Bryson argued the recordings could have been manipulated and that no witness ever authenticated them in court.

"But that appears to be what the jurors hung their hat on," Bryson said, "the recordings."

The jury foreman, Paul Connelly, told reporters after trial that it might have been unnecessary for prosecutors to exchange plea deals for testimony from Simpson's co-defendants, since the jury discounted those accounts and relied on the audio recordings.

Connelly did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Bryson also cited what he called bias and inconsistencies between Connelly's written comments on a pretrial juror questionnaire and comments during a post-verdict news conference.

"Some people think (Simpson) should have been given life 13 years ago," Bryson quoted Connelly as saying after the trial. "That was my opinion, but I think that's reserved for the court to decide."

Connelly later said he was answering two different questions at the news conference and his answers were consistent with his jury questionnaire response that the courts had acquitted Simpson of murder and he agreed with that verdict.

"""

On the Net:

Nevada Supreme Court: http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supremecourt.html