Published January 13, 2015
Prosecutors normally get a boost from suspects agreeing to testify against one another, but O.J. Simpson's attorneys may be able to use his co-defendants' past legal run-ins to undermine their credibility.
"It's a defense lawyer's dream to cross-examine these witnesses," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor. "You can put someone up before a firing squad and the squad members can start shooting at each other."
Two of Simpson's co-defendants, one a former friend, agreed to testify against him Monday in return for drastically reduced charges.
"It's always a prosecutor's strategy to go after the little fish to get to the big fish," said lawyer Edward Miley, who represents defendant Charles Cashmore. "In this, it seems to be that O.J. Simpson is the big fish."
A lawyer for Walter Alexander, a former golf buddy of Simpson's who plans to testify against him, said he hasn't been in trouble in a decade.
But he and Cashmore have legal trouble in their pasts.
Cashmore, 40, who said he will plead guilty to being an accessory to robbery, was charged with felony theft in a 1996 embezzlement case in Provo, Utah. He pleaded guilty and bargained the charge to a misdemeanor and probation.
Alexander, 46, said he will plead guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery. He was arrested in Los Angeles in 1987 for kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon, but the charges were dismissed because a witness refused to identify the culprit, court records show.
Simpson's attorneys will have to deal with his own past in presenting his defense.
His celebrity and the fact that many feel he was wrongly acquitted the 1994 murder of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, could weigh heavily against him and may emerge as the dominant theme in the case, especially considering that a civil court jury later found Simpson liable for the killings.
"All the others are getting a good deal and Simpson, the one without a conviction, doesn't? It's all about who he is," said Thomas Mesereau Jr., who represented acquitted defendants Michael Jackson and Robert Blake in cases that turned on witness credibility. "They probably wouldn't have brought charges if it wasn't for who he was."
Mesereau said the move by co-defendants to plead out and testify to save themselves shows the prosecution's motive is to get Simpson.
"This might feed into the idea of a setup," he said. "They set him up in the hotel room and tape recorded it and now they're setting him up in court."
Prosecutor David Roger has not outlined his strategy and declined comment on it outside court Monday.
Charges against Simpson and three others include kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, burglary and conspiracy in connection with the Sept. 13 confrontation in a Las Vegas hotel room. Simpson has said he went to the room to retrieve items that belonged to him from a group of memorabilia peddlers.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Nov. 8 and 9. Cashmore and Alexander waived their right to a preliminary hearing.
Simpson's Las Vegas attorney, Gabriel Grasso, said he wasn't surprised that some of Simpson's co-defendants are getting reduced charges to testify against the athlete-turned-actor.
"I never thought this would be anything but an O.J. case and only O.J.," he said.
Grasso said he expects the prosecution to argue that, "In a den of thieves, you have thieves as witnesses." But he stressed, "That does not include O.J."
Some of the other men in the room had felony convictions, including Tom Riccio, the man who set up the meeting and taped it but was granted immunity and not charged. He is expected to be a key witness.