Judge Will Not Dismiss Charges Against O.J. Simpson

Nov. 14, 2007— -- After hearing four days of sometimes dramatic testimony, a Las Vegas judge Wednesday ruled that there was enough evidence to send O.J. Simpson to trial for the alleged armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers.

Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure found that prosecutors had presented enough evidence during a preliminary hearing for Simpson and two co-defendants to stand trial on all the charges against them. The former football star and co-defendants Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich have been charged with 11 felonies, including armed robbery and kidnapping. If convicted, the kidnapping charges alone carry a sentence of up to life in prison.

Simpson is scheduled to be arraigned Nov. 28, when he is expected to plead not guilty. He is not expected to go to trial until next year.

Bonaventure's decision caps four days of testimony in which Simpson's associates and one-time friends described a botched plot to confront memorabilia dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong inside their room at the Palace Station Hotel and Casino. Simpson has said he was only trying to recover personal mementos that he said were stolen from him, including the suit that he wore the day he was acquitted of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Though the decision to send the case to trial was expected, Simpson's lawyers had argued earlier Wednesday that the kidnapping and robbery charges should be dismissed, and they attacked the credibility of the witnesses against Simpson. "This is clearly overcharging," said Gabriel Grasso, one of Simpson's attorneys.

Bonaventure disagreed, saying that most of the issues raised by Simpson's attorneys, such as the credibility of the witnesses, were for the jury to decide. In the preliminary hearing, prosecutors only had to show enough evidence to persuade the judge of "probable cause" -- sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Simpson and his two co-defendants committed the crimes with which they have been charged.

After the hearing, Simpson's attorneys expressed confidence in the ultimate outcome of the case. "My only regret…is that we didn't have a jury seated now," said Yale Galanter, one of Simpson's lawyers. If there was jury, he said, "my client would be on his way home and this would all be over."

The hearing offered a preview of the prosecution's case, which will probably rely on a cast of colorful witnesses, some of whom have less than pristine pasts and have not always fared well under cross examination by Simpson's attorneys. Three of Simpson's co-defendants have agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and testify against him.

Two of those witnesses, Michael McClinton and Walter Alexander, testified that Simpson asked them to bring guns to the meeting in the hotel room. McClinton testified Tuesday that Simpson told him to brandish his gun to intimidate Beardsley and Fromong.

"He said, 'Show them your weapon and look menacing,'" McClinton testified.

Simpson, who did not testify at the hearing, has said he did not ask anyone to bring guns to the meeting and was not aware that any guns were drawn.

Alexander testified that Simpson told him and McClinton to bring "heat" to the meeting and told McClinton to brandish the gun just before the men entered the hotel room.

Alexander said the planned confrontation quickly spiraled out of control and said that he and the other men took other items that had nothing to do with Simpson, such as Joe Montana lithographs, from Beardsley and Fromong.

"Going into the hotel, I thought I was just going to get Mr. Simpson's things that belonged to him, but after what happened, I'm realizing that a robbery took place and I'm feeling, 'Man you're in some trouble,' " said Alexander, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, a felony.

Under cross-examination, though, McClinton admitted that he never told police in his lengthy Oct. 15 voluntary statement that Simpson asked him to bring guns to the encounter.

Alexander admitted that he had previously said he might be willing to slant his court testimony if he did not receive favorable treatment from Las Vegas District Attorney David Roger. He has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, a felony that carries up to six years in prison. Roger has said that he would recommend a suspended sentence.

Beardsley, who testified Wednesday, reported the alleged heist almost immediately, and over the next five days, Las Vegas police arrested Simpson and the alleged accomplices -- Charles Cashmore, Alexander, McClinton, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich.

Roger and his colleagues will try to make their case through witnesses such as Beardsley and Cashmore, who have criminal backgrounds and whose credibility may be called into question at trial.

Thomas Riccio, a California auctioneer who allegedly set up the meeting, admitted Friday that he made an audio recording of the confrontation and then arranged to sell the tape to a celebrity news Web site before telling the police about the recording.

Thursday, Riccio's lawyer told ABC News that Riccio had signed a deal with Phoenix Books to write a book about the incident, tentatively titled "Why I Did It" -- a play off the name of Simpson's book, released earlier this year, "If I Did It."

Beardsley is currently in custody for a probation violation stemming from an earlier domestic violence charge. He admitted Wednesday that after the incident, he and Fromong discussed how much money they could make by selling the story to the tabloids.

Cashmore has a 1996 guilty plea for theft on his record.

Whether the witnesses prove vulnerable on the stand "depends on how well they perform, how sincere they come across," Louis Palazzo, a criminal defense lawyer in Las Vegas, told ABC News at the start of the hearing. "I think it can go either way whether [the judge] will embrace their testimony or hold it against the prosecutor."

About three weeks before the alleged hotel room heist, Riccio told the FBI in Los Angeles about his plan to confront a man who had Simpson's memorabilia and to film the confrontation. The agents advised Riccio to consult a lawyer about the plan's legality. It's unclear how this revelation may affect the case, but Palazzo and other defense lawyers believe that it may support Simpson's defense.

"I think it speaks to what [Simpson's] intent was," said Palazzo, who added that it gives "some degree of credence and veracity to his claim that he was trying to take goods that were taken from him unlawfully."

Riccio, who has been granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation, and may be an important witness for the prosecution, also has a criminal past. According to public records, he has been convicted of at least three felonies, including arson, felony grand theft and receipt of stolen property.

He also planted a recording device in the hotel room where the alleged heist occurred, and then sold the recordings to media outlets. Several hours of the recordings were turned over to the police, and prosecutors may play a portion of them during the preliminary hearing.

After the arraignment, defense lawyers will probably file a writ of habeas corpus -- a last-ditch attempt to argue that the defendants should be released because prosecutors failed to show probable cause. The writ is unlikely to be granted.

If the defendants plead not guilty, the judge will set a trial date. The defense will probably waive its right to go to trial within 60 days, because it will want more time to prepare its case.

With reporting by Reynolds Holding, Lauren Pearle, Brian Cohen and the ABC News Law & Justice Unit.