Court TV Host: We're going to be talking about the OJ trial. Yup! Sounds familiar? OJ is on trial once again, but this time, it's for a road rage incident in Florida. We're going to be talking to prosecutor Doug Gansler, State's Attorney from Montgomery County in Maryland. He was the prosecutor in Mike Tyson's road rage trial.

Court TV Host: Hello everyone...Doug Gansler is here. Welcome, Mr. Gansler.

Doug Gansler: Hello.

ctv_warhorse46: What are the similarities & differences between the Tyson & Simpson cases?

Doug Gansler: The similarities would be that both Tyson and Simpson were not held fully accountable in their more severe criminal cases. In the Simpson case, OJ Simpson was acquitted of the double homicide, but was convicted in the civil context. In the Tyson case, he was convicted of rape but only served a three-year sentence. And clearly, those men didn't learn to control their anger as the result of prior severe cases. The other similarity would be the attention that the subsequent cases received. Tyson received a significant amount of attention for a case where nobody was severely injured and the same would hold true for this case.

Court TV Host: Court TV's broadcasting this trial, but I don't see that much attention elsewhere. Are people that interested in O.J.?

Doug Gansler: I think that people are interested in the sense that they are interested in the private lives of celebrities, be they famous or infamous. This particular case would be receiving even more attention, rightly or wrongly, but for the international events going on right now.

massviewer: What are the biggest problems with prosecuting celebrities?

Doug Gansler: The initial hurdle in prosecuting celebrities, from the prosecutor's point of view, is to ensure oneself that they are not treating the celebrity any differently than they would any other person committing the same crime in similar circumstances. In presenting the crime to the jury, one has to be mindful that the jury might be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic, to the celebrity because of who they are, and the prosecutor has to address that in their opening and/or closing statements.

Court TV Host: How about differences during the trial, for example, in questioning witnesses?

Doug Gansler: There would be no difference.

juasin11415: Do you think there is sufficient evidence against O.J. this time?

ctv_warhorse46: From what you have seen, does the prosecution in the OJ case have a strong case?

Doug Gansler: There's more than sufficient evidence for the prosecution in this case. In fact there's dispositive scientific evidence to establish that O.J. Simpson committed the crime for which he is charged. There is only one person in the world who has O.J. Simpson's fingerprints and that's O.J. Simpson. No reasonable juror would or could believe that somehow O.J. Simpson's fingerprint was planted on the lens of the sunglasses. Moreover, in addition to the scientific certainty that he committed the crime, the prosecution also has strong circumstantial evidence to support a guilty finding, which comes from Mr. Simpson's own admission that he was at the scene of the crime and had a heated exchange with the victim. Then again, in his last trial, there was also dispositive scientific evidence, DNA, and he was acquitted. So, anything can happen when you put a case in front of a jury.

massviewer: Has he been overcharged, because of his anger history?

massviewer: Would O.J. have been charged with a felony if he wasn't famous? I don't think so.

bikerbear50: Do you think they went a little overboard here on the charge of burglary?

Doug Gansler: Clearly, the prosecution believes, and the evidence supports, the technical violation of the felony here. And the question is not, it seems to me, whether he would have been charged with that crime because he was a celebrity but more because of his violent past. Remember, there was a jury that found that O.J. Simpson more likely than not murdered in cold blood two other human beings. In this case, he was charged with the felony, but he had the opportunity to plead to a lesser crime, but he decided that he would go to trial instead. He has the right to go to trial, but he has a right to accept his responsibility as well. Had he done so, and accepted the plea, the prosecution would have most likely reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. But clearly the prosecution feels that Mr. Simpson should be held accountable for what he did here, but they also have the obligation to consider possible future violent conduct, and the need to protect the public from Mr. Simpson's future violent conduct.

etmom6: What is your opinion of O.J.'s lawyers coming on so strong against the police....again.

Doug Gansler: I think that's a curious strategy. A defense lawyer should pick his or her best argument, and challenge that argument in order to make their point. So the idea of coming down hard on every witness, including irrelevant police witnesses, may and should backfire on them. In my view, what the defense lawyers should be focused on is to achieve a not guilty on the felony-burglary of a car charge, which carries a maximum 15-year sentence and instead focus on their argument that they made in opening statements, that any dispute between the two men occurred outside of the car, which would only leave the misdemeanor battery charge, which only carries a one-year charge, for the jury to consider. It seems to me that the defense lawyers should be wary of over-trying the case.

eurciolo45: Does it matter whether O.J. injured the other man or not?

Doug Gansler: In every case we consider the consequences of the criminal conduct in considering what is a criminal sentence. So it matters in terms of determining the nature of the heated exchange, but in this case the injury is not alleged to have been so severe that it will matter whether or not he is convicted and what would be an appropriate sentence in the event of a conviction.

etmom6: What is your opinion about how the judge is conducting the case? After Ito I would like for him to keep control.

Doug Gansler: I haven't seen that much of the trial, but I do agree that a judge should have the courage to control the trial and the lawyers without jeopardizing the rights of either party.

trissycat1: It seems O.J. will be convicted to keep him off the street, as Al Capone

ctv_warhorse46: Do you think a 16-year prison sentence would send a message to other potential road rage people to calm their behavior?

Doug Gansler: I think a 16-year sentence in this particular case, for these events, would be draconian. But I do believe that given the conduct in this case, including the road rage in this case, coupled with his past, all of which can be considered by the judge in his or her sentence, would suggest that some period of incarceration would be appropriate.

ctv_warhorse46: Do you know if the jury could find him guilty of lesser crimes than what is charged?

Doug Gansler: Yes. Including they could find him guilty of the battery, and not the burglary. And that would be a good result for Mr. Simpson -- possibly the best result that he could hope for. He's going to have an incredibly difficult time overcoming the fact that his fingerprint is on the victim's glasses. But his best possible result is that the prosecution is unable to prove that the assault occurred inside of the car, so that his maximum exposure would be a one-year misdemeanor.

Court TV Host: Could O.J. Simpson still plead out?

Doug Gansler: Yes, at any point before the jury returns its verdict, he could plead out. Now, the longer the trial goes on, the less likely the prosecution would be to make any concessions to Simpson, because their incentives are greatly reduced.

Court TV Host: We're almost out of time. Any closing thoughts?

Doug Gansler: While this case is certainly of far less severity in terms of magnitude of the crime than Mr. Simpson's previous activities, there may be an opportunity here for Mr. Simpson to be held accountable for his violent conduct. But of course, that decision rests with the jury and ultimately with the judge.