Christine Prody OJ Simpson NEWS

A Florida jury has found O.J. Simpson not guilty of battery and auto burglary charges, saving the notorious criminal defendant a potential sixteen years in prison.

The former football running back, who was acquitted in another criminal trial six years ago—for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman — closed his eyes and bowed his head, mouthing ‘thank you’ to the jury, after the foreman read each count of not guilty.

The multi-ethnic, six-person jury, consisting of two blacks, two Hispanics, one Asian, and one white, took less than two hours to reject the prosecution’s contention that an enraged Simpson reached into neighbor Jeffrey Pattinson’s car and grabbed his glasses off his face during a traffic dispute last December.

There were no witnesses to the Dec. 4, 2000, altercation, in which Pattinson, the neighbor, alleged that Simpson had angrily confronted him at a Florida intersection, grabbed his eyeglasses, leaving a scratch on his temple. Authorities say Simpson ran a stop sign — with his two children, Sydney and Justin, in the car — then pulled over in anger when Pattinson honked at him.

Simpson faced a maximum of 16 years in jail if convicted of both charges. Most observers did not expect Simpson to receive much jail time, if any, if convicted. He rejected a plea deal before the trial that would have spared him from serving time but required him to attend anger management classes.

The trial boiled down to a ‘he said, she said’ affair, with Pattinson’s word held up against Simpson’s. Pattinson was the prosecution’s star witness, testifying that Simpson acted like a “madman.” He said that Simpson ran a stop sign, almost caused an accident, and then got out of his car and assaulted him when honked at.

“The guy got behind me and he started beeping his horn and he sat on his horn,” Simpson responded during his turn on the stand. “It was just one constant blare of the horn. “I got out of my car. I said, ‘You can’t do this. I got a couple kids in this car. You can’t do it.’ At that he blew up. He puffed up like a bull frog and went off.”

Little evidence was presented to corroborate either story, other than a thumb print of the defendant’s on the other man’s glasses. Neither the prosecution nor the defense opted to call Simpson’s two children, Sydney and Justin, a point that clearly made an impression on the jury.

“Is it legal for the state or the defense to call the minors in Mr Simpson’s vehicle at the time of the incident to the stand?” the panel asked in a written note to Judge Murphy. After consulting with attorneys for both sides, the judge merely answered “Yes.”

Fifteen minutes later the jurors announced that they had reached a verdict.

The jury’s decision clearly pleased defense attorney Yale Galanter, whose contentious relationship with prosecutor Abbe Rifkin reached a head on the last day of the trial.

Trying to attack Simpson’s credibility, Rifkin alleged during her closing argument that Simpson had changed his story after talking to lawyers and then continued to refine his story afterwards.

“He met with his lawyer. Now its important that the victim’s out of his car. Because now it’s a burglary. The story changes. The victim’s out of the car. The victim doesn’t have his eyeglasses on,” she says.

Galanter viewed this as an allegation that he had committed perjury by intentionally putting a lying client on the stand.

“There is no evidence that it was an evolving story, there is no evidence of a contradiction, and there was certainly no evidence that anybody from my office aided in this evolving story,” he told the jury. “And I am offended because that is not the way to convict somebody and brand them a criminal.”

After the verdict, Galanter took a reconcilatory tone. “I have the utmost respect for (the prosecutors) and I can tell you that I thought (Rifkin’s) closing arguments were superb,” he said.

Simpson did not make any statements to the media after verdict.

The ex-NFL star acquired a dubious notoriety after standing trial for the murders of his ex-wife, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted of the crimes, but lost a civil suit brought by the victims’ families.

Testimony wrapped up Tuesday in O.J. Simpson’s road rage trial with a prosecutor using some bizarre tactics to paint the notorious criminal defendant as a liar.

“When you were a football player, did you have to run with the ball and strategize how to get through?” asked prosecutor Abbe Rifkin, eliciting a confused look from Simpson and an objection from defense attorney Yale Galanter.

Rifkin then moved on to Simpson’s less celebrated career on the silver screen, asking questions about his acting career and whether he was proficient at convincing others he was someone else.

“That’s debatable … I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being an actor,” responded a chuckling Simpson, 54, best known for his role as Officer Nordberg in the slapstick Naked Gun trilogy.

Finally, Rifkin just cut to the chase. “Do you think you’re a good liar?” she asked.

“I could be pretty convincing if I wanted to be,” replied Simpson after some thought.

“Especially if your life depended on it?”

“Well, I’ve never been in that position.”

The prosecutor attacked Simpson’s credibility following the football legend’s very different explanation of a traffic dispute with Jeffrey Pattinson last December 4, 2000, in which Pattison claimed Simpson assaulted him.

Simpson is charged with auto burglary and battery in connection with the incident and faces up to 16 years in jail. Authorities say the former running back blew a stop sign, stopped in anger when honked at, walked over to Pattinson’s car, reached into the vehicle, and forcefully grabbed the man’s glasses off his face.

The football player told a much different story on the stand Monday. He said he pulled to the side of the road to let Pattinson pass after the man inexplicably and repeatedly kept honking at him. Simpson says he then left his car to speak with Pattinson and was greeted by a nonsensical verbal assault that eventually caused him to depart in frustration.

Galanter rested his case after Simpson’s testimony, opting not to call either of the ex-running back’s children, who were in the car at the time of incident and reportedly support their father’s version of events.

Rifkin did call one rebuttal witness, Detective Carlos Menendez, who recounted speaking with Simpson in the days after the incident. The defendant had already given his recollections of their conversations, and the prosecutor jumped at the opportunity to show some discontinuities between Simpson’s story and Menendez’s version.

The former running back told the jury that Menendez and other officers were apologetic about having to ask him questions about the road rage incident and were more interested in talking about football.

But Menendez said sports were never discussed, nobody ever apologized to Simpson, and that he and other cops considered the investigation a serious matter.

Galanter also took advantage of Menendez’s time on the stand, however, as the officer recalled under cross-examination many details given by Simpson after the incident that matched up with the defendant’s story on the stand.

Closing arguments begin Wednesday morning at 9:30 a.m.

Accusations, innuendo, and sharp words flew during several heated exchanges between O.J. Simpson and a prosecutor as the ex-running back took the stand in his Florida road rage trial.

With Simpson’s story contradicting the testimony of a motorist who has accused him of assault in the incident last December, prosecutor Abbe Rifkin went after the celebrity defendant with an aggressive manner. Her sharp tongue provoked chuckles and a little discomfort from Simpson, numerous objections from defense attorney Yale Galanter, and even a few looks of incredulity from Judge Dennis Murphy.

Rifkin seemed to get more riled than Simpson, repeatedly raising her voice and yelling, “Come on”, as she attempted to disprove the version of events that he had recounted on direct examination.

“The guy got behind me and he started beeping his horn and he sat on his horn,” Simpson testified on direct examination of the Dec. 4, 2000, altercation. “It was just one constant blare of the horn. “I got out of my car. I said, ‘You can’t do this. I got a couple kids in this car. You can’t do it.’ At that he blew up. He puffed up like a bull frog and went off.”

Simpson, 54, is charged with auto theft and battery in connection with his confrontation with neighbor Jeffrey Pattinson, in which authorities say the Heisman Trophy winner swore at the man and reached into his car to forcefully grab his glasses off his face. Prosecutors plan to ask for a prison sentence if the onetime, infamous double-murder defendant is convicted in this trial. He could face up to 16 years in prison.

Pattinson, a soft spoken 55-year-old, testified Thursday that Simpson had screamed, “So I ran the damn stop sign. What are you going to do, kill me and my kids?”

On the stand, even during cross-examination, Simpson never came across as the “madman” that Pattinson described him to be. He appeared easy-going and made lighthearted jokes.

The former running back stressed the importance of his relationship with his children, describing fatherhood as his “one job” and recalling how he had talked with his daughter after the incident with Pattinson about how she could avoid such confrontations.

But mainly Simpson described Pattinson’s culpability in the incident, chuckling every once in a while to himself as he painted the picture of a livid Jamaican man screaming at him in phrases he mostly did not understand.

“I heard him say O.J. Simpson,” the running back boomed, holding each syllable in his nickname for a second. “I couldn’t understand him. He was speaking rather quickly. He said ‘You did. You did. You cut me off.’”

According to Pattinson, the incident started when Simpson blew through a stop sign, almost causing an accident. The man says he honked once or twice at Simpson’s car to voice his displeasure, and that this caused Simpson to exit his vehicle and confront him. Pattinson says he stayed in his car, afraid, as Simpson, not he, yelled at him and finally snatched his glasses.

Rifkin’s cross was interrupted almost immediately after she raised the ire of Galanter. At the beginning of her cross, she asked, “You never gave me a statement, did you?”

The question prompted the defense lawyer to immediately object, and subsequently demand a mistrial on the grounds that Rifkin was directly implying to the jury that his client was uncooperative with authorities.

Judge Murphy ruled against the request for a mistrial after nearly two hours during which the two sides hastily researched case law and then presented arguments on the question.

It was the second dramatic call for a mistrial during the day. Earlier, Galanter had moved for a mistrial because of discussions jurors were having about the case during breaks. Judge Murphy ruled that the subject matter wasn’t prejudicial enough to Simpson for a mistrial.

In an interview at the end of the day on Court TV, Galanter said he thought his client should be found not guilty.

“I think whenever you have a he said-she said situation that is not supported by evidence, you have grounds for reasonable doubt and Mr. Simpson should be acquitted,” he said.

Rifkin’s cross examination of Simpson will continue tomorrow at 9:30 A.M. Asked how long she thought her cross would take, Rifkin said: “If Mr. Simpson can answer my questions directly, without going into long explanations, then we should finish pretty quickly.”

A Florida judge denied O.J. Simpson’s request for a mistrial, ruling that the notorious criminal defendant had not been prejudiced by some questionable behavior by his jury last week.

At the end of day last Thursday, while lawyers were conferring with Judge Dennis Murphy at side bar, the jurors took the opportunity to talk among themselves about some testimony. Calling this behavior “a violation of fundamental due process,” Simpson defense attorney Yale Galanter argued Monday that only a new trial could remedy the damage.

“They are clearly discussing what they believe the testimony and evidence means to them as it is occurring, without hearing the end of the state’s case, the defense’s case, and summations. Once these conversations occur, we are prejudiced,” he said.

Prosecutor Paul Mendelson acknowledged that the jurors violated instructions by holding the conversation and called the decision by jurors to discuss the case “misguided.” But, quoting repeatedly from jurors’ description of the incident, he argued that “the discussions were only for the purpose of clearing up the confusion that jurors had about the testimony.”

Judge Murphy sided with the prosecution, echoing Mendelson’s sentiments that no prejudice had occurred.

The decision may actually have been a relief for Simpson, who, according to Galanter, was strongly opposed to a mistrial.

Simpson, 54, is charged with auto burglary and battery in connection with a road rage confrontation on December 4, 2000, with neighbor Jeffrey Pattinson.

Prosecutors say that Simpson sped through a stop sign and then confronted Pattinson when the man honked at him. The former running back allegedly swore at Pattinson for some time, then reached into the victim’s car and grabbed his glasses from his face.

Simpson says Pattinson was the aggressor in the confrontation and denies taking the man’s glasses.

Testimony resumed Monday around 10:15 a.m. ET with Pattinson’s wife Judith taking the stand describing how shaken her husband was after the incident.

Police officer Elsner Brown, a specialist in fingerprint identification, also took the stand and described analyzing a latent print lifted from Pattinson’s sunglasses.

Brown testified that the print from the sunglasses matched a sample of Simpson’s right thumb print. But on cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that none of Simpson’s prints were found on the door, window, or dashboard of Pattinson’s vehicle.

Prosecutor Abbe Rifkin rested her case after Brown left the stand. Galanter will call witnesses for the defense, possibly including Simpson and daughter Sydney, this afternoon.

Testimony resumes at 1:30 P.M.

O.J. Simpson was seething with rage during a traffic dispute in which he allegedly attacked another motorist, testified the alleged victim on the opening day of the ex-football legend’s trial.

“Are you a madman?” Jeffrey Pattinson, a soft spoken 55-year-old with a faint British accent, recalled asking of Simpson.

The portrayal of the notorious criminal defendant contrasted sharply with the Simpson in the Miami courtroom, who chatted amiably with his lawyer before court and then sat stoically, occasionally rolling his eyes, during the proceedings.

The Heisman trophy winner is charged with burglary and battery in connection with the confrontation on Dec. 4, 2000. The first charge carries a maximum of 15 years in prison. Prosecutors recently announced they would seek the maximum sentence for Simpson, a 54-year-old father of two.

Pattinson told jurors that he was at an intersection when Simpson’s black Lincoln Navigator roared through a stop sign, almost causing an accident. After taking a turn, Pattinson said he followed Simpson for a short time before honking his horn and flashing his lights to voice his displeasure.

According to the witness, Simpson then stopped abruptly exited his car, shouting, “So I ran the damn stop sign. What are you going to do, kill me and my kids?” He then walked over to Pattinson’s vehicle, continued to berate him, and then reached into the car and grabbed his sunglasses, Pattinson said.

The confrontation ended abruptly, he said, when Simpson’s daughter yelled from the vehicle, “No daddy. No daddy. No.”

“It was like somebody had turned off a lightswitch. The rage that had been there dissipated considerably. I repeated to give me back my glasses and he stuck his hand in the car. I took them,” said Pattinson. “He turned and strolled back to his car.”

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter recounted a very different version of the confrontation during his opening statement earlier in the day, saying that Simpson was the victim and Pattinson was the enraged aggressor.

“[Pattinson] continuously honked his horn — not once or twice — and continually flashed his high beams and followed Mr. Simpson’s vehicle with his kids. The black Navigator pulls over, waiting for the car to pass. What does Mr. Pattinson do? He doesn’t pass. He pulls right up behind Mr. Simpson’s vehicle and parks,” the lawyer said. “The evidence will show this person gets out of his vehicle and starts screaming, cursing, letting Mr. Simpson know how upset he is.”

Galanter told the jury that cops accepted Pattinson’s story without checking with Simpson because of a bias against his client. “What you must do is compare what the police did to corroborate Mr. Pattinson’s version of events to what they did to corroborate Mr. Simpson’s version of events,” he instructed the panel.

But during her opening, prosecutor Abbe Rifkin portrayed Pattinson as an innocent victim. “Mr. Pattinson had a right to privacy in his car. He never invited Mr. Simpson into his car. He never invited any kind of confrontation. He was just going home,” Rifkin said.

The prosecution called two other witnesses, both police officers, during the day. Miami-Dade Officer Ruth Dobson responded to Pattinson’s complaint and described his behavior.

“He said he became very frightened and that he did not know what was going to happen,” Dobson said of Pattinson’s response to her questioning. “He was visibly shaken. He was frightened and he was a little bit pale and nervous. He had a cut on his left temple.”

Detective Jose Gonzalez also took the stand and described finding a fingerprint — which authorities say belongs to Simpson — on Pattinson’s glasses. The fingerprint is expected to be a crucial piece of evidence in the trial.

At the end of the day, Galanter raised the specter of a mistrial request because jurors were discussing the case during a courtroom break. Judge Dennis Murphy quizzed jurors about the incident and seemed generally satisfied that one member had merely inquired about a witness statement he had not heard.

Despite his concerns, Galanter also affirmed the defense’s confidence in the jury. The two sides will further discuss the matter on Monday.

Court resumes at 9:00 a.m. ET Monday.

It may have been a car chase behind the wheel of a white Ford Bronco that touched off the Trial of the Century, but now another driving incident is putting O.J. Simpson on trial again.The former football star was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her companion in 1994, but a Miami jury being selected over a road rage incident could convict the infamous defendant of a felony for the first time.

Simpson, who now lives in a Miami suburb with his children, is accused of assaulting another driver during a traffic dispute last year.

He faces up to 16 years if convicted, but for one of the most unpopular men in America, Simpson sees the trial as an opportunity to “show people what kind of life I live.”

The Dispute

On December 4, 2000 at about 7 p.m., Jeffrey Pattinson, a 55-year-old export company owner, was at the wheel in his Jeep Cherokee.

Pattinson was about a mile away from his home in Kendall, a Miami suburb, traveling westbound on SW 106 Street and about to make a left on 92nd Ave., when he noticed a black Lincoln Navigator go through a stop sign.

Pattinson told police that he slammed on his brakes, honked his horn and flashed his headlights. He proceeded to make the left and continue on his way home, when the Navigator, now in front of him, stopped suddenly, forcing Pattinson to stop his car.

According to the police report, Pattinson saw a black man emerge from the SUV and approach his car shouting, “So I blew the stop sign! What are you going to do, kill me and my kids?”

Still sitting in his driver’s seat, Pattinson replied, “What the hell is the matter with you?” according to the report.

It was then that Pattinson recognized Simpson, who allegedly continued to shout at him.

Simpson then allegedly reached through the partially-opened window and grabbed Pattinson’s $300 sunglasses off his face, in the process scratching his temple.

At the same time, Pattinson says he heard a girl’s voice screaming, “No, Daddy, no Daddy, no!,” from the direction of the Navigator.

Pattinson says he grabbed his glasses back from Simpson, who then turned around, returned to his car and sped off. The victim then went home, picked up the telephone and called police to report the run-in.

Police didn’t immediately arrest Simpson, but did begin an investigation that included testing the sunglasses for fingerprints. The state attorney’s office charged Simpson with assault and burglary of a car, a felony, and battery, a misdemeanor. Simpson surrendered to authorities and was booked at Miami-Dade County jail, but was released on $9,000 bond.

I Want To Tell You

Simpson told police — and the press — another story. Following the incident, Simpson contacted a local FOX affiliate to tell his side of the story. Simpson said that when he saw the Jeep’s flashing headlights and heard the honking, he pulled over to let the car pass. When Pattinson didn’t pass him, he thought that perhaps the driver was “someone I knew, or maybe I had a flat, or something was wrong with the back of my car.”

Simpson claims that when he approached the Jeep, Pattinson yelled at him.

“I’ve got two kids in this car, guy. What are you doing?” Simpson said he told Pattinson, recounting his version of events for Miami’s WSVN-TV.

Simpson claims that Pattinson hurled insults at him, prompting him to tell him “where he could go with it” before simply walking away.

He denies ever touching Pattinson’s sunglasses.

Instead, Simpson said at a February press conference that he feels he is being targeted because of the publicity surrounding the murder allegations

“I think whatever took place doesn’t warrant this much attention,” Simpson said. “I thought it was a non-incident.”

But the man acquitted at the “Trial of the Century” has refused any plea offers, and is welcoming a jury trial.

“Because of this happening to me now, it gives me an opportunity to show the citizens of Miami and this country just how out of proportion these things have become,” he said at the press conference. “I want to test this to show people what kind of life I live.

No Gloves This Time Around

The key to the case may lie in the case’s physical evidence — the sunglasses — which prosecutors say bear a thumb print belonging to the Juice.

In a pretrial hearing held on Oct. 6, Simpson’s attorney, Yale Galanter, sought to have the sunglasses and the fingerprint thrown out of the trial. Galanter contended that the defense was never given the opportunity to have the sunglasses tested by their own experts. After the print was lifted by the police department’s crime scene unit, they were returned to Pattinson.

But prosecutor Paul Mendelson successfully argued returning the glasses was in line with procedure and that the defense had not proven that the State acted in bad faith, the only grounds in which such evidence could be excluded.

From L.A. to Miami

The public image of the Heisman Trophy winner and football Hall-of-Famer changed on June 12, 1994 when his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her companion, Ronald Goldman, were found brutally murdered at her home. Two days later, the nation watched as police chased Simpson driving his white Ford Bronco.

The sensational nine-month criminal trial that followed ended in an acquittal, but a civil jury later found Simpson liable for $33.5 million in a wrongful death suit filed by the victims’ families.

Simpson moved to Miami in 1999 with his two youngest children, Justin and Sydney, but legal problems seem to have followed him.

Since then, police responded four times to reported domestic disputes with his girlfriend, Christine Prody. Charges, however, were never filed in any of those incidents.

The Stakes

Prosecutors initially gave Simpson hope that even if he was convicted of both counts — burglary of a car, a felony which carries up to a 15-year sentence, and battery, a misdemeanor punishable by up to an additional year in jail — that he would probably not serve any time.

State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle announced early on in the case that rather than a prison sentence, prosecutors would seek “some sort of programming or sentence that would involve learning how to control oneself, whether it’s on the road or elsewhere,” according to published reports.

But just before jury selection, prosecutors changed their tune, announcing that they would indeed seek up to the maximum if Simpson’s convicted.

Though the trial before Judge Dennis Murphy is expected to last only a couple of days, jury selection, which begins Oct. 9, could take up to a month because of Simpson’s notoriety.