tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN July 20, 2017 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
civil. that's a major, major difference. so, yes, you can toggle between it and that's why we're fighting over money, it's a different standard of proof than when we're fighting over liberty. >> the lead detective -- if the lead detective is proven to be a racist, that means something. and it should mean a whole lot, and it did mean a whole lot, and johnny cochran exposing that was his brilliance and the state didn't prove its case. case over. they don't prove their case. you should be acquitted. >> i was with you for the first half of what you said. johnny cochran did a brilliant job and mark furman was a racist and mark furman lied about use of the "n" word and o.j. was still guilty. and there was ample evidence, in my opinion, for the jury to find that he was guilty. i mean, that's all i'm saying. >> jeff, remember -- >> that's a disagreement we're going to have until the end of time. >> remember the supreme court -- jeff, remember the old saying.
beyond a reasonable doubt is that we have a standard in this country where we will let nine people who are guilty go free so that we do not convict one innocent. that's what the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt is. >> and jeffrey, you accept the jury virkts in other cases. why is this case different? why are people having such a difficult time with o.j. simpson when the jury has an opportunity to review the evidence, you had skilled prosecutors presenting the case, they made a decision. how come people can't accept that decision where we accept jury decisions in thousands of cases every day in this country. >> here's something -- >> no, i accept the jury's verdict. i recognize that was the jury's verdict. but i don't have to agree with it. i disagree with jury verdicts all the time. that doesn't mean that the jury verdicts are wrong. that's just my opinion about them. certainly it is -- that was the verdict in the case.
i don't certainly -- i certainly accept it in that sense but do i agree with it? absolutely not and i think every citizen who follows this case, you know, has a right to an opinion. but -- and my opinion was that the jury got it wrong but i certainly accept the jury's verdict. it's official and it counts and it's over. but doesn't mean it's right. >> it's not over. >> so what about a discussion of, you know, moving forward. i mean, the man is, you know, granted parole. he will walk out of this lovelock correctional facility at some point as early as october. what will -- jeffrey toobin, what will his life be like? it's my understanding he'll continue to enjoy a healthy nfl money and screen actors guild from his life on the big screen. >> well, i think his life will be a lot like what it was like from 1995 to 2007 which was basically a pariah from his old life as an actor, as a sports
caster, as a pitchman, but you know, the last i heard, his pension was something like $300,000 a year, which is plenty comfortable to live on. he'll live in florida, which has bankruptcy laws that will allow him to protect virtually all of his money from the goldmans and the browns from their civil judgment. that's a principal reason, as i understand it, why he moved from california to florida. and you know, his life will be very much more seedy and less glamorous than it used to be and he will be surrounded by these leeches, these memorabilia dealers, these creeps he was involved with that got -- that, you know, were in that las vegas hotel. that's going to be his life. selling memorabilia, selling his signature, doing interviews for money. it's a far cry from the old, you know, life in brentwood, but it's a hell of a lot better than being in lovelock prison.
>> well, brooke, i hope his life is more reflective of what we heard from his daughter. she talked about the support from his family, she talked about the support from his friends. i've read a report that he plans to live with his younger daughter who's graduated from boston university, and i hope he has learned his lessons about being around those people that jeffrey just referenced and that he does take to heart the, you know, the desire to spend time with family and friends who really care about him and not allow those lecherous people to be a part of his life. >> to prey. >> this is a second chance. i hope he takes advantage of it to live a peaceful life under the radar would be the best advice i think anyone could give him. >> thank you. danny, i haven't heard from you yet. watching all this and thinking of his future, who say you. >> where do i begin. how do i bat clean-up in this situation? i have so many things to talk about. first of all, i don't think this was as much of a slam dunk as
mark and jeffrey suggested. i think under nevada's guidelines, yes, his risk factors were low, but this was the highest level of severity of a crime, and because of that, that's why they had to look at all these sort of surrounding factors. now, once you do that and you evaluate o.j.'s performance, which they're allowed to do, in talking about what he did, how would any of us grade that? is anyone here on this panel going to give him above a "c" in how he represented himself today, a "c" plus maybe. >> why did he keep talking. every time he spoke about not going to aa, you were like -- >> stop talking. and it's so frustrating, paul, mark, when we talk to clients, you tell them how to behave yourself in front of a judge or a parole board and they nod their head and then they go and say, i'm going to do it my way and that's exactly what o.j. did. he figured he could explain himself and you see this a lot. this was not the time to testify on the liability phase of the
trial that happened nine years ago. this was the time for contrition, for remorse, and i don't think he did a particularly good job of showing it. you know, one of the classic, classic things you tell your client not to say, don't say you're remorseful because you don't get to see your daughter graduate or you don't get to go to a wedding. that's not remorse. that's self-interest. >> except for one thing, danny. it worked. >> it did but my point is, paul, i think this was a much closer call. it was never a slam dunk. i think it did stand in doubt, and even the game system that the nevada parole board has needs four people unanimous. if any of them disagree, it went to the full board and then he could have lost. >> but whether you thought -- when i watched the whole thing and i remember exactly where i was when i was watching this whole trial play out that you were covering. >> you were a child. >> i was in high school but i remember very clearly, and whether you thought the glove fit or not, watching him today and watching, i forget, one of you referenced some of the softballs from the
commissioners, you know, did you get the sense that any of them were almost star struck by him and does that affect -- >> we know that one was a kansas chiefs fan. >> i still have to -- >> as he pointed out. >> the guy -- the parole board member who was wearing the black shirt had a kansas city chiefs tie on. now, it is true that o.j. was a star for the buffalo bills. >> you're not a chiefs fan. you keep bringing this up. >> it would have been even more significant had it been a buffalo bills tie or he played at the end of his career or usc where he was a star or at san francisco 49ers where he ended his career, but it was weird to have like, you know, out of all the ties he could have worn, to wear an nfl tie. >> moving past the tie. >> i'm a little obsessed with the tie. what was the question? >> were they star struck. >> oh -- >> the fact that this is o.j. simpson that they are questioning. >> yeah, i mean, i think they seemed nervous. >> was that a factor in the decision making.
>> they all seemed to be reading their questions and none of them responded to what he actually said. >> listening. >> he was, you know, listening. i mean, the thing i keep fixating on that he said that his claim that he had led a conflict-free life, you know, you don't have to be extremely attentive to this case or to this story to realize that is not a very accurate characterization of, you know, his life. i mean, you know, most people in life do not have convictions for domestic violence. most people don't have an ex-wife with multiple 911 calls saying it's ohi.j. simpson, youe been here before, he's going crazy again. those are not obscure facts, especially since they were alleged allegedly supposedly steeped in this trial. >> is his lawyer walking over to the microphone. he is. >> hello, how are you. here's my intention. my intention is to come out and answer maybe a couple of questions for a few minutes and
then i'm going to go back and spend time with psimpson's famiy and mr. simpson and then i'll come back out again so this is going to be very brief. if you're going to say something, you probably should identify your full name, your news organization and the parent company of the news organization before you ask, okay? is that fine? is that a fair deal? all right. how can i help you. >> how important do you think bruce fromong's testimony was in the ultimate decision? >> i think it was pretty -- it certainly didn't hurt and i think it was actually very influential that he came in and he did what he said he was going to do to me what i talked to him on the phone over the course of a couple of weeks, which he was going to testify favorably for simpson. so, i think it was very, very good, and obviously if he had testified negatively, it kind of was going to be contradicted by what he had been telling me. that's kind of why i felt it was important to bring up that conversation with him to say what he's been telling me all along. but right now, mr. fromong is there with mr. simpson's family. they're all talking right now.
he actually would -- mr. simpson actuallimented actuallime actually wanted to see mr. fromong. it's not being permitted at this time for various respected reasons for the nevada department of corrections and so -- but they're friends. they were friends. this was a big mishap. so i think it was actually very, very positive. >> what, in there? i don't think he said anything to me. you know, i mean, the mikes were right there. you would have caught it but i don't think he said anything. he was just very happy. he was very emotional if you were looking at the cameras. he was very emotional. so next question. >> is he worried about how he's going to be received by the public? >> not at all. no. he's been in the media spotlight since he was 19. if he didn't explain it -- if he didn't explain it on camera, he certainly splexplained it, you know, in private so he's also used to dealing with media
attention. that's never been a problem for him at all. listen, do you know that jeffery felix is a complete fraud and everything that you said -- i was watching you earlier this morning when you were giving your testimony -- can't you tell that that guy is the biggest fraud on the planet? >> did we lose it? okay. so we lost it. again, he said this is the attorney of o.j. simpson, he was going to be brief but he'll walk back out to the cameras. let's take a pivot from the panel, go to paul outside of lovelock, nevada, outside this correctional center where o.j. simpson has been for eight and a half or so years now. and here's my question. tell me about his life so far. we talk a lot about how he's been this model prisoner and it's my understanding he sort of counseled, you know, multitude of prisoners -- forgive me. we're going back to the lawyer. >> you have gone on and perpetrated a fraud for this jeff felix who's supposedly gar
guarding the juice guy, you embarrass the make a mockery of the corrections officers over here who are actually doing a really good job and mr. simpson has very positive things to say about the department of corrections. the wardens have treated him great. they actually treated him terrific. this jeff felix is -- i mean, you see that mullet and how his hair's dyed, right? you don't buy credibility from people who look like that and you should have at least tried to vet the story. for the last year, you could have vetted the story. i'm a little bit agitated when i see you -- maybe i'm taking it personally because you were the one on the news repeating everything that jeff felix said, every bit of which is false, every bit of which is unverifiable and untrue but you were doing it this morning. so jeff felix is a fraud. i don't want to take any questions about jeff felix. i don't know what he -- i'll tell you exactly what jeff felix is. he was here. he worked in the canteen, and mr. simpson, like every other inmate, when they go to canteen once a week would see this guy
and he was like a minstrel. he would sit there and tell jokes, he wanted to impress mr. simpson and that's the end of it. he couldn't identify mr. simpson's cell, okay? maybe he knows the unit because someone told him but he couldn't identify the cell and i've already got it in -- this has agitated me so much that i have it in progress to strip this guy of his pension benefits. what goes on in this prison here between the nevada department of corrections and its personnel is confidential and i violate that had by publishing that silly, ridiculous book that he did, so i'm starting the process right now of getting his pension stripped and if it isn't clear with the nevada department of corrections or whoever has the benefits now, the rules definitely need to be changed or clarify that had when a corrections officer like mr. felix discloses confidential information -- of course it's false, but even when he does so, based on someone's celebrity, you just get your pension benefits stripped. so let's see how he likes that when he sees the consequences of his actions right now. i'm just going to yank all his pension benefits.
next question. >> did you expect o.j. simpson to take such a defiant stance, especially in his early testimony, essentially relitigating the whole case. >> what do you mean? how was he defiant? >> he continued to insist that it wasn't his responsibility, that he had been bamboozled into the crime. >> i disagree with your characterization of that. it was an explanation for what was going on. you know, i mean, i don't think he -- he's taken plenty of responsibility. any time something like this happens, you obviously wish you could do better. the biggest thing here, what made this case more so than what it was were the guns. okay? and so that took this case from being kind of a, you know, somewhat of a laughing stock of a case to serious when guns are involved. >> it was his right, essentially to, go back there and get his stuff back. one would think that would be -- >> i don't think he said it was his right. i think he said he wanted it and the stuff was his. he didn't feel entitled -- he felt entitled to the property.
he now knows that obviously you can't go, even under nevada law and most laws of the united states, you can't go and take property even though it's 100% -- even though it's 100% not in dispute that the property belongs to you. you can't go back and take it by force. if for some reason you stole this from me right now and i come and i see that you have it, i can't go and beat you up and hit you with anything to take it back for myself. i can't do it. and so that's it. so that's it. i'm not sure where you said he can't take responsibility. he's taken responsibility. he was just offering an explanation. next question. all right, well, thank you very much. the answer is no. the parole and probation, the nevada department of parole and probation, which is known as p and p, that's a question you can refer to them but the date they stated is the date they stated.
>> did anything inside there surprise you? >> i'm trying to think. no. i mean, there's -- there was a lot of preparation. you know, normally, these hearings, i think, to actually do a perfect hearing, a parole revocation hearing like this, you probably could have prepared -- a lawyer probably could have prepared for less than an hour. you see my file here, how much i have. i don't have books of reams of things. the whole file is in here. and this one obviously was dealing with the onslaught of the media requests, dealing with various things, and dealing with the nevada department of corrections through their liaisons and dealing with the department of parole and probation through their liaisons. my intention right now is to go spend more time with mr. simpson and his family. i don't think there was anything that was surprising because we controlled -- were able to control a lot of things so well, so much, and especially the hearing, the biggest part of the hearing obviously for me was making sure that certain information was kept -- obviously there's a 10,000-pound
elephant in that room and i think we were successful in making sure that that elephant was sleeping and that it was washed and very clean and that it -- and that it never started, you know, rearing its head or knocking things around. so that was, for me, that's 100% success when that was excluded and kept out. thank you. >> in the letter that you read -- web cast, webisodes. >> that was just a letter he had communicated to assemblyman fumo and that was just in the letter. that was the content of the letter. i just read it. >> but you -- but his words were maybe he'll do -- >> that was a letter from him to assemblyman fumo and he's just saying a letter because he had just taken a computer course and obviously one of the things he learned in computer courses is if you're doing any modern day computer stuff, web pages, blogging, all that stuff so he said that. it's not something i would ever
advise. what's your name and your organization? no, no, i wasn't referring to that at all. come on. you know exactly what i was referring to. come on. >> did you ever doubt that he would get paroled? >> well, the answer is yes, yes and no. yes, because mr. simpson is obviously a very polarizing figure. he's very, very well loved. he's -- but also he's held into contempt by a lot of people and he also wanted to thank the media for, you know -- not thank the media, excuse me, thank his fans who have communicated through the media -- you won't publish the positive things that are said about him but fans have sent in mail saying they've sent information to the media and i've never seen any of it published, maybe one article or something like that. he wants to thank them.
he wants to thank the ndoc, thank the p and p, all these organizations, so he's just so polarizing, going back to your question. he's just so polarizing that it's -- it was hard to really know the certainty of this. i'll tell you one thing that made me very optimistic, and i'll be very frank with you here. the one that i think that made me very optimistic is that the -- and this is something i don't think was published -- is that the parole commissioners here that you saw, the four individuals and then there's two others that are still active, it's a commission that's seven total, those commissioners are actually appointed. they're not elected officials, okay? so they're actually appointed by the governor and more importantly, and this is what's important, this is why i started feeling very, very good about this, they can only be removed for impeachment. almost like a federal judge. their terms expire, but they can only be removed for impeachment, so they can make decisions regardless of the outcry and the heat on them, okay?
that's unlike the process that mr. simpson has been exposed to for the last nine years where he's dealing with an elected judges, elected judges, elected judges, and listen, who wants to be the judge who has to run for office that says, i did something favorable to let o.j. simpson go. i mean, we put on -- when i say we, attorneys tom pataro and ozzie fumo and trish palm, all phenomenal lawyers, they actually helped prepare for this hearing today. they put on one of the strongest habeas cases you'll ever find, okay, after the conviction. and it was an uphill battle and it was expected that it was an uphill battle but if you sit in those judge's seats and you like your judge position and you know that it's elected, if you do anything negatively against -- if you do anything favorably for simpson, you got to be thinking, hey, someone's going to -- i'm going draw an opponent and the first thing is opponent's going to say is, this is the judge
that let o.j. simpson go, okay? so, that's it. all right. i'm going to go back and spend some more time. i'm going to go back and spend time with mr. simpson and his family a little bit. i'll be back after it's finished. it's kind of hot out here and hopefully it's hot enough for you to all be gone by then but if you're not, i'll answer some more questions. okay. take care. >> that was o.j. simpson's lawyer. if you're just tuning in, this is essentially o.j. simpson day and what you have missed -- what you have missed is the fact that these four nevada -- carson city, nevada, these four parole board commissioners questioned o.j. simpson, he's been in prison for eight years and some change, because of this armed robbery in this las vegas hotel room. he's been in this promise in lovelock correctional facility since december of '08 and so they've questioned him, they met for, i want to say, no more than five to ten minutes and all came back and all four of them unanimously said that they would grant him parole and so o.j. simpson will be walking a free
man as early as october. that was his attorney, and he was mentioning a name that many of us may not be familiar with. jeff felix, who apparently wrote this book "goordiuarding the ju" he's been giving color on what o.j. simpson has been like. paul, let's talk about that life behind bars and how, you know, according to this former, what, correctional officer and others, you know, and part of the reason that he was granted this parole was despite anything you may think of, you know, o.j. simpson prior to december of '08, you know, he's been this model inmate. >> and that's what the prison system here in nevada has said, flatly, that o.j. simpson has had no disciplinary troubles, that he's been off their radar. they say that's not the case with other inmates. and that was echoed by a former may not, two former guards and also o.j.'s good friends who
visit him here have also shed light on this. tom for one, who's behind me with o.j. simpson in lovelock, he said that whenever he visited with the simpsons, the guards would jokingly call him the name from the "naked gun" movies. they called him bobble head. he thinks that o.j. and others consistently played fantasy football and played it so well that felix said he cheated off o.j.'s fantasy football sheets and made some money. they also said that he not only ran the softball league and coached it and one inmate said that he was a great coach and led the championship, so he continued to sort of tangentially keep his life linked on sports and as you pointed o pointed out, brooke, several sources, including the commission here in nevada say he kept his nose clean and obviously a big factor in him getting parole. i'd like to at one more thing, brooke. so often when we cover these parole hearings, there's this
moment where a tearful victim goes before the board and begs for the inmate to be kept in prison. of course fromong flipped that switch today and that moment and there was that moment when o.j. got emotional after fromong said that he would clearly pick up juice, as he still calls him to this day, he was freed this day so that was a real twist in the saga of o.j. simpson which always seems to have its twists and turns. >> let's play the moment not with the other testimony but the moment where o.j. simpson learned he would be a free man. >> if i cast my vote to grant and it concludes the hearing, our expectation would be that you not violate even the simplest condition of parole. having said that, i am prepared to cast a vote. i am prepared to ask the commissioners to set conditions if that happens. we will produce an order
sometime in the next 15 to 20 minutes that will be faxed to you or presented to you at the institution and it will become a public record. so, based on all of that, mr. simpson, i do vote to grant parole when eligible. and that will conclude this hearing. >> thank you. thank you. >> paul, i wanted to come back to you for one quick question, but just to tell all of you, we will hear from these four different parole board commissioners in just a couple of minutes so we'll all stand by for that. but just finally, do we know what happens? just to clarify for everyone, just because he's granted parole today, doesn't mean he walks out of the front doors of lovelock correctional facility. he has to wait at least until october. but between now and then, is he still treated just like as he has been since december of '08 in that prison? >> reporter: according to prison
officials, it's status quo but at one point, you don't leave lovelock, and i believe he goes south to a prison in the las vegas area and that's where his ultimate release will come and after that, by the way, his good friend, tom, remember, his wedding that he was attending in las vegas when this incident happened, scado things he wants to be close to his kids. he said he could live with him and he even jokes that he expects that somewhere there in florida, o.j. could even golf. >> okay. all right. paul, thank you. we wait to hear from these different correctional commissioners on this parole board. we were talking a little bit about life behind bars. i know i read, i think, he had a 13-inch flat screen tv. >> this is where jeff toobin is going to argue with me. >> i certainly am. >> we both, i know, have covered
this for two decades. there are a lot of people that hate o.j. >> yes, there are. >> there are a lot of people that are angry with o.j. and i don't think he's just going to get out in october and be waving his hands and get a, you know, ticker parade down new york avenue and everybody's going to be excited that he's a free man. i think life is going to be difficult and i think that he's going to have security concerns and i'm putting money on it now. i think he's going to find himself in trouble somehow. i don't know what it's going to be but i think something will happen. i don't think he's joust going to fly under the radar. >> you think life is better where he is now versus life in florida? >> let me tell you, he gets enough food. he's playing his fantasy football. he's counseling guys, apparently, he's coaching the softball team. he's disinfecting the gym equipment. i mean -- >> let me let areva weigh in. >> she's my biggest enemy right now. >> i don't know if kyra is
suggesting that o.j. simpson would lead a better life in prison than out with his family. that's a little bit incomprehensible to me. he's been away from his family for nine years. he's 70 years old. he deserves an opportunity to reunite with his family and to be given a second chance. that's what this country is all about. that's what the parole system is all about is giving second chances to those prisoners that demonstrate that they are ready for a second chance. >> let me say something about his family, because i interviewed denise brown and i had the opportunity to talk about o.j.'s kids, and you know, they deserve a lot of credit for how well those kids are doing. i mean, i saw pictures and text messages and conversations about how involved they've been in those kids' lives to make sure they graduated from college and they stayed out of the tabloids and were to somewhat have a normal life. so let's not, you know, think that this is going to be some amazing, loving, embracing situation where everything's going to be great for o.j. and his family. i think this -- this could be an
interesting -- >> no one has suggested that, kyra. the man's daughter just testified that she loves her father. he heard her make that testimony. >> the other thing to remember is that o.j. simpson was out and a free man from 1995 to 2007. and it was fine. i mean, he did not, you know, he did not have trouble with people on the street. he played a lot of golf. he lived his life in florida. >> he wrote a book, "if i did it." he cut a rap song that was pretty -- >> all of which suggests that being out is a he can ck of a l better than being in prison. and prison is terrible. prison is awful in this country. i don't care what you call it, a country club or whatever, prison is a terrible place to be, especially for a 70-year-old man, and i don't think he's going to have any problem. >> so if life was so good, why did he feel like he had to go hi jack his memorabilia? >> he wanted more money.
>> brooke, can i comment on something. >> please do, yes. >> one of the things impacted to comment on is what the lawyer said, o.j.'s attorney said, which i completely agree with. he said o.j. is a polarizing figure and it's not just polarizing along racial lines, black and white. he's polarizing in the african-american community. o. j. at one point said he didn't even identify as african-american, he was o.j., that he was somehow above race and that he didn't have to live by the same standards as other african-americans did, and many in the african-american community have rejected him and have not stood by him. but i think, for me, what's so important about what happened in 1994 and that trial, we have to remember the backdrop. this was right after four white cops had been acquitted for the beating of rodney king that was captured on videotape. so this trial is taking place with that behind us, with african-americans feeling the weight of the criminal justice system and feeling as if african-americans are treated differently. and then you have this racist
cop, mark furman, in the o.j. trial, this really just outrageous comments using the "n" word, caught on tape. so, again, for me, we have to talk about race. we have to talk about class. and culture when we talk about o.j. simpson and it's not just black and white. it's the impact that he has on the african-american community as well. >> listening to all of you, and i want to continue this great conversation, just want to point the viewer, a, to this -- this is the carson city, nevada, room where we're about to hear from these four different commissioners on the decision to grant this parole, so stand by. that's going to happen in a couple of minutes. but in case you missed some of this testimony from earlier when o.j. simpson was questioned by these four different members and we'll cut to this as soon as we see it go live. let me play back some of o.j. simpson defending himself. >> at one point, a couple of guys came to me and they said, o.j., understand you're a baptist. we're baptist and we have no
baptist service here. can you help us get a baptist service here. i worked with them. we now have an ongoing baptist service that's well attended, i attended religiously, and pun is intended, and i realized in my nine years here that i was a good guy on the street. i'm sure when bruce gets here, he'll tell you i was always a good guy but i could have been a better christian and my commitment to change was to be a better christian. >> areva, we were taulking earlier and you were making the point of all the different times he said he was sorry today when he was questioned by these commissioners and in his full testimony. what else really struck you when you listened to him. >> well, i wish he had made more conciliatory statements too, but i do think, as i listened to the testimony, he said, repeatedly, that he was sorry. he said repeatedly that he made a bad decision, that it was poor judgment. and i was struck by how he tried to help other prisoners. when we think about the prison system, we always hear these
horrible stories of gangs and violence, and o.j. said what he tried to do, using his celebrity status, was not to get favors, not to be treated differently, but to help other guys in prison so that they could serve their time and hopefully be paroled in the same way and i think he has to be given credit for that because he could have gone in there with this big ego, i'm squloech o.j. simpson, you know, make this vacation for me, but rather than do that, he used his skills and his celebrity status to try to improve the lives of other prisoners, and i think that's something to take note of and hopefully some of those men that he had the opportunity to interact with will take advantage of the advice he gave them and will lead better lives. >> let's all stand by. let's listen to these commissioners. >> are we good? all right. good afternoon. my name is david smith and i'm speaking today on behalf of the nevada board of parole commissioners, with my today are
catherine, nevada's interstate compact commissioner and an employee of the parole and probation division and the warden. the captain and the warden are available to answer questions really to relative to their operational jurisdiction. before i read my statement and answer questions, i would like to take the time to thank the nevada capital police, the carson city sheriff's office with their help with security and crowd control today. i'd also like to take the time today to thank the nevada system of higher education and the video conference support for this hearing. lastly, i want though thank and recognize the administrative staff of the nevada parole board who have done a tremendous job of working together to facilitate our activities related to the public and media interests in this case. at 11:55 a.m. this morning, the nevada board of parole officers granted to grant parole to mr. orenthal simpson, effective
when eligible. mr. simpson's eligibility date is october 1, 2017, and he may be release from the prison on or after that date once any proposed a proposed replease plans have been approved. the board stated the reasons for granting parole included mr. simpson had no prior conviction or criminal history, he had participated in programs specific to addressing behavior that led to his incarceration, he has stable release plans and community and family support, and the victim in the case testified in support of mr. simpson's release. this case will now be turned over to the division of parole and probation to gather and investigate mr. simpson's proposed release plans. captain arudi and warden bacca indicated they don't have specific statements to make so at this time, i can open it up to questions. >> interestingly that, you know, you've already provided us the contact information for florida. so, you were talking about earlier, captain, about the process of, in florida, so have
you already talked and discussed this with all of them in anticipation of this since he had made his desire to move to florida clear. did you already know about this and are they aware and ready for this. >> to answer your question, we did not know what the parole board's plans were, if they were going to approve it or not because they make that determination at the hearing. what we did do was advance planning in anticipation that if he were to be granted parole, that part of his plan that we were aware of was that he had family in florida that would serve as that support system for him, and with the understanding that he may be interested in doing an interstate exact. i have reached out to my counterparts in florida. they are aware, and they're waiting for -- they'll be waiting for our packet for their investigation to make the determination on whether or not they're willing to accept his case for supervision.
>> and you're also in a position to deny his request to go to florida. >> that's correct. so, with the interstate compact, first of all, there's a handout that i provided to everybody that breaks down what the interstate compact process is. and that's -- that's a handout that's provided by the interstate commission for adult offender supervision. their website is on there and is a public access website. anybody can go on there and it's a -- it's got everything you could ever possibly want to know about the interstate compact. so, you're welcome to go on to there. but with that being said, they do have -- when we've put the packet together with the plan and list what his support system is, what his plan for parole is, we submit that to florida. they have up to 45 days to do that investigation, and they provide a response. interstate compact is not a guaranteed thing. interstate compact is a privilege, but it's a privilege based on meeting certain
criteria. and florida, when they do their investigation, they'll make the determination of whether or not they're going to be willing to accept his case. >> captain, in your experience, how often does the receiving state say no, thank you? >> depending on what the support system is. in the case of either a returning resident or in the case of resident family, the acceptance rate, as long as there's a valid plan of supervision, is high. in the case of a discretionary case where a person doesn't have that support system, but they have other opportunities they're looking to pursue or they're looking for a change of scenery, in those discretionary cases, the rate of acceptance is lower. >> with two and a half months between now and the eligibility date, what would be the hitch that he would not get out on october 1? >> so, the one thing that nevada doesn't control, under the interstate compact, the -- the receiving state, which, in this case, if the plan is for him to
go to florida, the receiving state would have up to 45 days. if they were to exceed that 45 days, that could postpone. if there was a problem with their investigation that they couldn't complete it in that 45 days, that could postpone the release. but with the amount of lead time, we don't anticipate that there would be a problem with that. >> he would not have to spend any time in nevada at all? >> that's correct. >> what if florida said no? >> if florida said no, then the next step -- and this is where i would have to be aware of what the conditions of his release were, our pre-release unit would look to find him a suitable plan or work with him to develop a suitable plan for here in nevada. >> will the date and location of his release be given to the public and the media or can he just be let go without any of us knowing. >> that would be a conversation for the warden. parole and probation works with the caseworkers at ndoc to develop a release plan and a
release date but the actual physical release is up to ndoc. >> how would he be extradited. >> he wouldn't be extradited to that state. if he were accepted for supervision in another state, then either family members would assist with those plans, but generally speaking, most of them either go by bus or plane. travel arrangements are made upon their -- in anticipation of their release. >> so the calls you made to florida, previous to this, would you typically do that for another inmate knowing, hey, i want to spend the rest of my time in indiana or is this because we fast tracked everything with mr. simpson. >> it's not that it's fast tracked but because we know that it's such a high-profile case with a lot of interest, in the interest of the -- of the other state and preparing them for the phone calls and the e-mails that they may receive, it was a courtesy to let them know that. >> captain, in the event that the florida thing doesn't
happen, is he allowed to pick another state? we know he has a daughter in california. so could that -- is he allowed to pick a different place to go other than nevada? >> sure. as long as there's a valid plan of supervision and he has a support system, there's no -- he wouldn't be rerestrictstricted one state. >> what is his family support system in florida? what do you know about that? >> i'm not familiar with what his support system is, other than i know that he had family members testify today. >> but when he is released, let's say that florida accepts him and they do it in time for him to be released on the earliest possible release date, which is october 1, so he would then just walk out of prison or is there a possibility that he may go to another institution, like a stepdown facility or halfway house sometime between now and the time he's let out of incarceration. >> if the plan of transfer is to go to florida, there wouldn't be
a release to the street to go to florida in that way that you're talking about, like a transitional living or a halfway house. but again, as far as the release process, i'll turn that over to the warden to talk with you about. on my handout, i do have my contact information. you're welcome to give me a call. additionally, i also have my e-mail address. you're welcome to e-mail me. we will update our website at parole and probation to include the same information that you have. typically, the division does not speak specifically to one particular offender over another. what we will do is i'm more than willing to discuss with you what the general process is for the interstate compact or pre-release. >> one final one on this, on the transfer to florida, then. based on your experience, captain, in the matrix you provided to it, does it appear that simpson will go to florida? >> as long as he has a valid plan of supervision, along with
the support system, there would be a good opportunity for him to. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so what happens now? what's he -- for the next couple of months, what's he doing? just waiting? >> okay, so, right now, he'll -- he will stay at lovelock and they'll develop the release plan for him, for his release parole plan, and then we would go from there as far as for his release, prepare for his release. >> why -- is there any half -- i mean, say he stays in nevada. is there any halfway house situation or anything for somebody that committed a crime as he did? >> well, right now, his -- with his classification and all that, he would probably stay in lovelock and then release just prior to his release, he would move to one of the other institutions that does releases. if he's going to release in the north, that would be northern nevada correctional center. if it's in the south, more than likely high desert state prison. >> so he'd spend one or two weeks there a month. >> right. it would be a short period of time. and then he would transport out.
it's just easier to transport from those areas than it is from lovelock. >> this would be another prison that prepares, that does releases. >> all the release planning and all that would be done at lovelock and it would be the matter of moving him, basically, closer to a place that's easier to transport from. closer to an airport or such like that. >> okay. and one other question, i'm sorry, if -- one of the things that florida will be considering is whether they want to provide the same types of support and supervision that normally he would have otherwise received in, like, from nevada's probation commission, right? so, if florida does accept him, that means it's off your hands, nevada doesn't have any role, then, once he moves to florida, nevada probation and part doesn't have any role in supervising his release after that.
>> under the interstate compact, when a state accepts a person for supervision, the sending state, he is still the responsibility of nevada and he will be the responsibility of nevada until he discharges from his parole. what florida's able to do is florida is able to add terms and conditions to him to supervise him in a similar manner to how they would supervise their own in like circumstances. so in this case, florida, if that's where he winds up doing his interstate compact to, florida would provide him with terms and conditions, and florida provides courtesy supervision for nevada, but the ultimate authority for that case is still nevada. >> so -- >> how long is his parole for, how many years? >> it's for whatever his discharge date would be. >> okay. >> warden baca, will the location and date of his release be released out to the public? >> he would be made aware of when his release date just prior and all that. we have what we call a lock-in date of when we know for sure
that that's the date that he's going to be going to, but as far as making any kind of announcement, that's not -- that's not something we normally do for any of the other inmates, so i don't believe we would be doing that. >> warden, you mentioned that at some point he may be transferred prior to his release, but until then, for the near future, does anything change in the terms of his confinement, privileges, the day-to-day at lovelock. >> none of that should change. tr it should just be really, what he should be working on right now is preparing his parole plan and making sure that gets in and pretty much continuing with what he's been doing. >> is there a deadline for getting in that particular to be ready for october 1. >> well, he wants to get that information in as soon as possible. >> he doesn't submit that plan to you prior to today. you know he has people, i want to go to florida, these are my support but an actual plan, you don't have that yet. >> what we have -- what happens prior is there's a parole report
that is done and his intentions of what he wants to do, should he make parole, is part of that parole report. >> to the extent that he has to check in or -- with a parole or probation supervisor from time to time after his release, would he be doing that in florida or would he have to come back to nevada for that. >> so, when he's under supervision by florida, as a courtesy supervision for nevada -- sure. sorry about that. yes, so, when he -- when florida's providing the courtesy supervision of mr. simpson's case, he would report to a florida probation officer. or parole officer in this case. >> if anything went wrong, you know, he did something -- he did something that potentially was a violation of the probation, ultimately he would end up answering for that back in nevada-corre nevada. >> correct. so if his actions were to lead to a violation and florida would submit that violation to us, ultimately, if he were to be returned for revocation, he
would be coming back to nevada to answer for that revocation before the parole board. >> i know he's gone nine years, no disciplinary action in prison but in the next two months, is there anything that could happen at lovelock or another facility that could jeopardize his parole being granted now. >> well, any inmate that's granted parole has to continue to follow all the rules and all that that they need to, and you know, should it -- any inmate that creates -- that has such a serious rule violation, there is the possibility of parole being revoked. >> is there a situation, though, warden, where -- can he ask for special protection or special, you know, circumstances because he doesn't want to be sort of, i guess, put himself in harm's way or put himself in a situation where others might want to wish him harm or get him in trouble. can he request any kind of special treatment or protection. >> he could make that request. however, he would need to provide some sort of evidence to base that request off of.
>> you know what i'm saying here. i mean, it's possible that, you know, and he talked about it in his hearing, that prisoners have a tendency to do things for stupid reasons. so if someone kind of had it out for him and wanted to jeopardize his parole -- >> they've had nine years to do that. >> that's a good point. you know, as warden, do you have any reservations about letting him walk out of there on october 1? >> you know, the parole board makes that decision, and our job is to keep him until they tell us to let him go so that's where our -- >> and you weren't in the deliberations, were you, >> thank you. i came in and out when we were deliberating just to make sure everything was okay. but i did not participate -- >> were there any sticking points? any points that came up that they were disagreeing on? >> by law, in nevada, deliberations for parol hearings -- >> you can tell us, we won't
tell. i understand. >> any paperwork released after this date? the score, the ranking of why they let him go? >> we just distributed -- >> i did see it? i didn't get it, i guess. >> the traditions of parol -- >> i didn't get it. >> was there anything unusual about the amount of time they spent deliberating? >> no. for this type of a hearing. generally deliberations with smaller panels are shorter because you have fewer people. four commissioners, that was not -- it wouldn't be uncommon. >> what about the time of the hearing? how long it took to get to deliberations? >> this hearing was a little bit longer because of the amount of conversation that took place. four commissioners, we knew it would last longer. we expected that we would have a little bit more leeway. we would allow more leeway to allow information to get on the record. and they did want to take time to talk about how things are done because of the interest in the case.
>> right. can you describe, mr. simpson, as a prisoner, what was he really like? his daily routine. was he a model prisoner? he said he was a model prisoner, but what does that mean? >> i'm sorry, he was never at nncc and i have very little dealings if at all with him when he first came in at high desert. so that would have been my only involvement with him. >> okay. do you know? >> no. >> all right. >> one thing, the parol board will not be doing any interviews. so this is your one shot to ask any question of the board. >> sorry, no. >> somebody at some point, david, be available to characterize simpson's incarceration? >> do you mean as far as like a pio or something? >> yeah. >> one piece is the pio for the department of corrections and she should be able to answer any
questions related to that. >> this is a little bit offtopic, and i forget when this happened exactly during the course of mr. simpson's incarceration, tlrt reports of a fight, i don't know if that was ever addressed then or you could dress that now. were there any conflicts that he did have? maybe not -- that were not maybe his fault, but involved in nevertheless? >> well, during the hearing, i didn't hear of any disciplinary rule infractions he had. he was disciplinary-free, so i would say no. >> can you reiterate why it is that we were able to get a decision today instead of waiting ten days, three weeks, as we would for joe blow? >> as you recall, the 2013 hearing, it was a panel of one commissioner and one case hearing representative. after that hearing, there wasn't a lot of interest at the time of the hearing. we had several reporters, and one photographer, i think and one camera. but the minute that hearing took place. we became inundated with
requests for information by the media. and so we got that order out as soon as we could. in february, there was the interest -- there were news articles that started coming out, and we began to get inundated for the press with questions about the parol hearing, when it would be. and we realized if we didn't start then to prepare for a potential, huge event like this turned out to be, that we would have a lot of problems. the board does hold hearings with four commissioners. it's not often because we hold about 9,000 hearings a year. so we have to spread the case load out between commissioners and hearing reps. in this case, because of the media interest, we opted to have a majority present so that we could provide a ruling on the same day and allow you wonderful folks to be able to go home and let us get back to work. >> mr. smith, in nevada, is expression of remorse and
insight not a required criteria or release on parol? >> it is not. now, there are -- the board does note, in some of it's factors when mitigating factor of remorse could be noted, but it's generally only applied, for example, if a person committed a crime and they immediately went and confessed or turned themselves in because of their remorse. but, and that's the only time that factors in. but the board does not require that an inmate state or indicate that they are remorseful. >> there was some talk that he wasn't really remorseful when he was answering some of the questions. you have been to other parol hearings, what are your thoughts on that? is it true that he wasn't really that remorseful? >> i think that you would have to look at the hearing and question and testimonies hearings stand on this record.
i don't think i could address that here. yes, sir. >> you typically say that it takes, what days or sometimes weeks or even longer to make it for the board to render a determination. is it -- or is it usually just days? >> generally what happens in a regular parol hearing, the panel will make a recommendation to the board. and in nevada, the panel can make a recommendation and the board members can review and vote by file review and we record the hearings as well so they can review the hearing if they have any concerns or questions. and then, issue the order once there's a majority. so it doesn't have to be a public meeting to issue that. that can take because commissioners in las vegas are voting on carson city cases and vice versa, it can take about two weeks. and we don't generally release results until we know that the inmate has been notified. and so that adds a little bit more time. but in this case, because they had four commissioners who voted in a majority they were able to
give that answer today. >> maybe i missed it, did you answer the question whether you were going to tell us when and where he will be released? >> so, typically we don't give -- we don't give that information ahead of time. the inmate in general will know ahead of time when his release is, basically we give what's called like a locked in release date, but as far as announcing when and where he's going to be released, we normally don't do that. >> normally, this isn't a normal case. >> i would tell you, i don't believe we have any plans of doing that. >> but he'd be here up until the final two weeks or so or three weeks, would that be safe to say? >> that would be safe to say. he'll remain in lovelock just prior to his release. >> would you make an exception? >> again, i don't believe we have any plans on doing that. >> and transferred to one of just closer to airports and public transportation you're saying or to populated areas? >> yes.
>> like what would those be? >> we do release -- we primarily do releases out of nncc for the north, which is located near carson city, and then out of, in the south, out of high desert state prison. >> how will he get back to florida if that's where he goes? >> those arrangements will be made with his parol plan. >> so once the release plan is developed, part of the arrangements that prerelease works out with the caseworkers is the -- whether it's going to be by air, by train, and usually then they work with the family to make arrangements on the purchase of that ticket. >> thank you all very much for your cooperation. >> thank you. >> yeah, we appreciate you guys. you went through a great deal of trouble -- >> we're going to pull out of this, just housekeeping. some of the nevada department of correction folks, but while we
just have a couple of minutes left, eric guster has been seated and it graciously joining us here as well. haven't heard from you yet. to all of the above, the man is, you know, granted parol, could be walking out as early as october 1, what do you think of all of this? >> it was, it was due to be granted parol, but, he almost talked himself back into prison. he was very combative, which i was tweeting the entire thing, and what we call in criminal defense, you're going to walk yourself back into the cell. he had the key to his own cell, he was combative, he tried to explain away the robbery, which in our judicial system, once a verdict is rendered, that is a verdict, you can't say well, i really dent mean to rob anyone. you did it, say i'm sorry. he's fortunate they didn't hold that against him. i was a little nervous for him. >> randy, i have one minute until i'm up against the lead here. i mean, i understand, when the victim/friend testified and essentially said, you know, hey, i want to pick you up from prison, sort of case closed.
>> that was an unscripted, unrehearsed, such a moving moment, keeping in mind that no matter what o.j. simp don did today, we would be criticizing him. if he was perfectly scripted, said all the right things, we'd get up and say look how scripted he is. look how ridiculous he was human, he was real, he was him. he went to trial, he protested his innocence, and you know something, he checked off every box on the risk factors, it's all about security versus rehabilitation, it's time for him to go home. >> 20 seconds. >> i don't know where randy has been, but thank you and welcome to the program, randy. that's what i've been saying all morning. >> yeah. all right. >> seriously, though, brooke, remorse is not a factor. i'm glad they cleared that up. >> okay. okay. eric, quickly, anything else? >> he's lucky. i mean, he was -- he did check off the boxes, but these people are humans, and they have to vote. it's a human judgment that they have to give, and all of white
house practice criminal law know that sometimes judges and parol boards, things may be all right, things may check all the boxes, but they may vote against us. >> thank all of you so much. it has been a wild day here. watching what's happened there in lovelock correctional facility in nevada. thanks for being with me, the lead starts now. thanks, brooke. the other big news today, an unprecedented rhetorical attack on our nation's chief law enforcement officers by, the president of the united states. the lead starts right now. after being dissed by the same man who nominated him, attorney general jeff sessions today saying he's staying in the job as long as appropriate, but what is appropriate? in a world where the president says, he wouldn't have hired you if he'd known you'd do what most people agreed was the right and ethical thing. the juice