Parole Board Didn’t Consider O.J. Simpson Spouse Abuse Case

O.J. Simpson

former NFL football star O.J. Simpson reacts after learning he was granted parole at Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nev. Nevada’s(Jason Bean/The Reno Gazette-Journal via AP, Pool, File)

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Nevada’s parole board didn’t consider O.J. Simpson’s 1989 conviction for misdemeanor spousal abuse when it granted him parole in July because the case wasn’t listed in the national clearinghouse of FBI crime data, an official said Tuesday.

David Smith, the board’s hearing officer, said the panel requested a second report from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center on July 31 to determine whether an error had been made.

“Even as of today, we have not been given any formal notice that the charges back in 1989 resulted in a conviction,” Smith said.

He said it was impossible to know whether the decision to grant parole to Simpson might have been different if the board had considered the abuse conviction.

The disclosure came as a Nevada lawmaker proposed legislation requiring the board to consider an inmate’s domestic violence history before granting parole.

Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner, a first-term Reno Republican with a law degree, said the measure “isn’t specifically tailored” toward Simpson, who has served nine years of a 33-year sentence for armed robbery and is eligible for parole Oct. 1.

“This won’t affect O.J. Simpson but it will affect future people who are trying to get out on parole,” Krasner said about the bill to be formally introduced when the bi-annual Legislature reconvenes in January 2019.

Simpson was previously acquitted of murder in the 1994 killings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

The parole board said it wouldn’t consider a subsequent $33 million civil judgment that found Simpson liable for the deaths.

Krasner’s bill would require the board to set specific standards in cases where an inmate seeking parole was held responsible for a wrongful death of another person and punitive damages were awarded.

Attorney Gloria Allred, who appeared at a news conference with Krasner, said the parole board could have questioned Simpson about the abuse incident because it was presented as evidence during the murder trial.

“If anybody would have Googled that … it would have been easily available,” Allred said. “It has never been a secret.”

Police reported they arrived at Simpson’s Los Angeles home on New Year’s Day 1989 to find his ex-wife screaming, “He’s going to kill me!” Officers said she had a cut lip, swollen and blackened left eye and cheek, and a handprint on her neck.

The measure also would require those seeking parole to sign a sworn statement that all information they provide to the board is true. If Simpson was required to testify under such conditions, he couldn’t have told the commissioners he had “spent a conflict-free life,” Allred said.

Liz Martinez, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles County Superior Court, confirmed Tuesday that the spousal abuse conviction was not expunged and remains unsealed in a court database. Under California law, pleading no contest is considered a conviction.

The FBI, which maintains the electronic clearinghouse, said submissions by local law enforcement “is primarily voluntary, not compulsory.”

Because laws differ among states about what information should be provided, “information can sometimes be missing from a person’s record maintained by the FBI,” said Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

Malcolm LaVergne, Simpson’s lawyer in Las Vegas, downplayed the abuse case as “more in the nature of a traffic ticket than a serious crime.” He noted that it was handled in municipal court, without Simpson present.

“The fact that Simpson was not present at the plea hearing is critical to understanding just how lightly this situation was treated, whatever your position is on Simpson or issues of domestic abuse,” LaVergne said in an email.

Still independent.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top