O.J. Simpson’s appeal denied

A Nevada Supreme Court panel on Friday denied O.J. Simpson’s appeal of his armed robbery and kidnapping convictions, finding his arguments that nearly every phase of the trial was flawed “without merit.”

Simpson’s legal team vowed to fight the decision.

“This is not the end of the game,” said attorney Malcolm LaVergne. “I’m not comfortable with the decision at all.”

Separately, the three-justice panel ordered a new trial for Simpson codefendant Clarence “C.J.” Stewart. The justices agreed Stewart couldn’t get a fair trial alongside the former NFL great who had previously been acquitted of double murder in California.

Because the public widely views Simpson “as a criminal … it is reasonable to conclude that any codefendant of Simpson’s would suffer from spillover prejudice,” the justices wrote.

Simpson was sentenced in 2008 to at least nine years in prison for leading a ragtag crew in the armed robbery of two memorabilia dealers. The former pitchman argued he was merely trying to get back stolen property.

In a 24-page decision, the justices batted down Simpson’s key argument that two potential jurors had been excluded because of their race. Prosecutors said they weren’t chosen because both had religious beliefs that emphasized forgiveness and relatives they believed had been wrongly accused of crimes.

“In both instances,” the justices wrote, “Simpson did no more than protest the fact that the challenged jurors were African American, offering no proof of discriminatory intent.”

The court also disagreed that Simpson’s attorneys couldn’t adequately question potential jurors about his acquittal in the 1994 slayings of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. A civil jury later found Simpson liable in their deaths.

The district court “did not want to relitigate those cases,” the justices said, and additional questions were unlikely to tease out potential bias.

Simpson also took issue with how Judge Jackie Glass admonished his attorneys, what questions she allowed witnesses to be asked and the jury instructions. His attorneys said there was insufficient evidence to convict him of kidnapping, an argument the court was particularly forceful in brushing off.

“Despite the apologetic nature of the victims,” the justices wrote, “both were moved and restrained because Simpson, by all accounts and evidence, was extremely angry.”

ashley.powers@latimes.com