O.J. Simpson will head to a Las Vegas courtroom Monday in a bid to have his conviction on armed robbery and kidnapping charges thrown out on the grounds that he did not receive proper legal representation at his 2008 trial.

Simpson, serving 9 to 33 years in prison for his role in a bizarre hotel room robbery in which the former actor and football star argued he was trying to reclaim memorabilia that had been stolen form him, has filed what lawyers call a "Hail Mary motion" seeking freedom.  Simpson argues his conviction should be set aside and a new trial ordered because of "ineffective counsel and conflict of interest."

Most defendants lose these writ of habeas corpus motions, but in this case nobody is taking bets on the outcome.

"Nothing is the same when O.J. is involved," said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, who observed Simpson's Los Angeles trial. "An O.J. case is never like any other case."

Simpson was famously acquitted on murder charges related to the death of his ex-wife and her friend in a 1995 trial that captivated the nation. When he was sentenced in 2008, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass, referencing the murder trial, said that her penalty was not intended as "retribution or any payback for anything else."

She made no mention of the two Las Vegas police detectives overheard in a taped conversation saying that if California authorities couldn't "get" Simpson, those in Nevada would. The tape was played at the trial.

Simpson has filed 19 claims of ineffective counsel and attorney conflict of interest in the 2008 case. Simpson contends his trial attorney never told him about a plea bargain that had been offered by prosecutors. He also said in a sworn statement that the same attorney knew about the memorabilia sting before it happened, and "he advised me that I was within my legal rights."

Simpson is expected to testify sometime during the week-long hearing.

Now 65 years old, Simpson has already spent the last four years in prison and must serve at least nine years of his maximum 33-year sentence before he is even eligible for parole. He would be 70 by then. If Simpson doesn't win a new trial, he could conceivably spend the rest of his life locked up.

Sam Mircovich / AFP - Getty Images file

Double murder defendant O.J. Simpson puts on one of the bloody gloves as a Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputy looks on during the O.J. Simpson murder trial on June, 15, 1995.

Simpson, according to trial testimony, organized a posse of five friends and acquaintances to accompany him to a hotel where he was told some men were trying to sell his mementos, including family pictures. It was to be a sting of sorts, in which the memorabilia dealers would think an anonymous buyer was coming.

When Simpson walked into the Las Vegas hotel room, he realized he knew the sellers from previous dealings and he accused them of stealing from him. He shouted that no one was to leave the room - an action that would be judged to fit the legal definition of kidnapping. As Simpson's guys began bagging up the memorabilia, one of them pulled a gun, according to trial testimony.

No one was injured, but the sellers called the police - and another Simpson case for another century was launched.

It turned out that Tom Riccio, another memorabilia dealer who played middleman between Simpson and the sellers, had planted a tape recorder in the hotel room and the tape, played for jurors, was powerful evidence.

Simpson's cohorts testified against him, including the man who said he brought a gun. They were an odd assortment of down-on-their luck Vegas characters who received plea deals and were set free on probation.

Simpson's co-defendant at his trial, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, served more than two years in prison before the Nevada Supreme Court overturned his conviction. The justices ruled Simpson's fame tainted the proceedings and that Stewart should have been tried separately. Stewart took a plea deal to avoid a retrial and was released.

Those who try to explain Simpson's fall from grace it come back to one word - hubris, the literary allusion to excessive self-confidence, pride and arrogance. Simpson refused to accept that people didn't idolize him anymore. He boasted about his continuing celebrity status. He was delighted that people still wanted his autograph and wanted to hang out with him at the pool of The Palms hotel in Las Vegas. And that was where the disastrous plan was born.

He had come to Las Vegas that September of 2007 for a happy event. His old friend, Tom Scotto, was getting married and invited Simpson to be his best man. Scotto still sounds anguished when he recalls the weekend.

"If it wasn't for me," Scotto said in an interview, "he wouldn't have been there."

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation's broadest school voucher program, which gives poor and middle-class families public funds to help pay private school tuition.

Opponents, including the state teachers' union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn criticism across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and subsidize overtly religious education. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents - and not the state - decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

"Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration," Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. The program is constitutional, he wrote, because the public funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."

The U.S. Supreme Court used similar reasoning in a 2002 ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland. Since then, voucher programs have been challenged in state, rather than federal, court. But opponents have found it an uphill climb.

Just last month, a state appeals court in Colorado upheld a voucher program that helped parents in one of the wealthiest U.S. counties pay private school tuition. The case is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Another closely-watched voucher case is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court; a ruling is expected soon.

The Indiana voucher program is considered the broadest in the United States because it is not limited to low-income students or those attending failing schools - and because it is available to children statewide. A family of four with a household income of $64,000 a year is eligible for vouchers worth up to $4,500 per child.

Though more than half a million students in Indiana are eligible for the vouchers, just 9,000 enrolled this school year. Most are from urban communities with struggling public schools, but a sizeable slice live in rural and suburban neighborhoods as well.

Republican Governor Mike Pence has pushed to expand the program by opening eligibility to special-needs students and children in military families if their household income is as high as $85,000 for a family of four.

The Indiana legislature is also considering a bill that would give vouchers to kindergarten students who meet the income guidelines. The program currently requires students to spend a full year in public schools before they are eligible for a voucher.

Nationwide, vouchers are used by more than 100,000 students in a dozen states, including Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Wisconsin. Several other states use tax credits or education savings accounts to help families pay private school tuition.

Public school advocates have complained that the vouchers subsidize parochial schools that use an explicitly faith-based curriculum.

"Just because the Indiana Supreme Court said it's OK by our constitution doesn't mean this is a good idea," said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association and a plaintiff in the case. "I don't believe it's a wise use of public money. It's still, at the end of the day, funding religious instruction" with tax dollars.

Supporters of the voucher program predicted that the ruling would clear the way for a rapid expansion of vouchers in Indiana and nationwide.

"Kids and parents won today," said Robert Enlow, president of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which supports voucher programs nationally. "Other states should look at this victory and see that the education establishment's ability to obstruct families' freedom to choose is waning."

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - DECEMBER 06: (L-R) Same sex couples and plaintiffs Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo look on at a news conference following a hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6, 2010 in San Francisco, California.

Two gay California couples who are leading the legal fight to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage said Thursday on the eve of their landmark Supreme Court hearing that they were relieved to have "the end in sight" and believe the justices will step in "to right these wrongs."

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, are the faces to the challenge to Proposition 8, a citizen's initiative denying gays and lesbians the right to wed that voters approved in a pitched multi-million dollar ballot battle in 2008. The court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday.

“The right thing for the justices to do is to lead the country on including all of us in this institution and finding a way to equity and fairness that brings the country together rather than dividing us based on a characteristic that we cannot change,” Perry said on a call to reporters. 

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Plaintiffs Kris Perry (L) kisses her partner Sandy Stier during a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in West Hollywood, California.

“There is an opportunity here for the court to send a message that who we love is important and we should be treated equally under the law," she added.

The couples will be in Washington, DC, for the historic hearing, which comes one day before the justices hear arguments contesting the constitutionality of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that bars recognition of same-sex marriage and thereby denies more than 1,100 benefits to gay and lesbian couples. 

"We both are very relieved and excited by the prospect of the final chapter in this case happening in the next few months,” Perry said, adding that they have "been waiting a very long time to be married and to celebrate that with our children and our parents. … I know that we are both very excited to have the end in sight."

The couples' journey began years earlier, when they decided to join the legal effort and testified before lower courts about the impact the ban has had on their lives. They further entered the public realm as advocates, doing interviews and television/online spots about their campaign.

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Lawyer Theodore Olson (L) and his clients Paul Katami (C) and his partner Jeff Zarrillo attend a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in West Hollywood, California. A federal judge overturned California's Proposition 8, a same-sex marriage ban, finding it unconstitutional.

“All four of us have regular lives and we have jobs that we need to pay our bills and so we have to be able to plug in and unplug when that happens,” said Zarrillo, of Burbank. “But being a part of this case, and being so closely associated with it, it reminds us of the daily harm and that discrimination even more every day.”

The legal struggle, he added, also “made us closer as a couple and has made us want access to that language even more, because the word 'marriage' and the word 'husband' and the word 'wife,' they have meaning” to society, family and children. 

“It affirms the commitment that we have built and shared,” he said. “While some people say it's just a word, that word is so important. And if it wasn't so important, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Stier, of Alameda, said being a part of the case has impacted their lives in a “dramatic way.” Two of the couple's four boys were headed to college when they joined the fight, but another two were just starting high school, and so that “experience has been happening in parallel with this case.”

“For Kris and I, the focus of our lives has always has been and continues to be our family,” said Stier. “And that will continue to be the driving focus of our lives and it's really what helps us be inspired by the case – is that we want other families to have the greatest potential for success.”

When the couples first joined the legal fight, the objective was to repeal Prop. 8, and lower courts sided with them. The latest court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, said that since same-sex marriage was allowed in California for a few months in 2008 before the vote, it could not be taken away.

The Supreme Court justices could agree with that lower court decision — in a move that would limit their ruling to couples in California — or they could side with the backers of Prop. 8. Efforts to reach the backers, ProtectMarriage.com, for comment on Thursday were not immediately successful.

The court also could broaden out their ruling to recognize same-sex marriage in all states, as the couples' attorneys have argued, saying that the more than 30 statewide bans on gays and lesbians getting married violate the U.S. Constitution. Nine state, plus the District of Columbia, allow same-sex marriage.

“If we've learned anything through this journey, it's that when the minority rights are being oppressed by a majority the court is supposed to step in, and some times it's not always popular for them to do so,” Zarrillo said. “We would expect the court to step in and right these wrongs."

As their legal battle seemingly winds down, Stier said the couples know that the journey they embarked upon is not their's alone but will affect many others, noting she felt they – and thousands more couples – were “on the cusp” of being able to finally legally wed.
 
“We are ... struck by the importance not only of being married but of a shift happening in the country that will affect generations to come,” she said. “When we imagine the day, we're standing somewhere and taking our vows and deciding to be married, we will not only be committing to each other but will be overwhelmed, I'm sure, by the power of this decision, not only for ourselves but for the whole country.”

Meanwhile, the opposition is gearing up for the fight — and is expecting a win. As Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage said in a statement:

"We, too, are looking forward to the court hearing. It represents the opportunity to right the wrong that was imposed by federal judges in stripping over 7 million California voters of their right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the same definition that has guided civilization for thousands of years. We are confident of our position."

Related:

GOP sea change on gay rights?
Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples

Ed Andrieski / AP

Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, left, and Rep. Tony Exum, D-Colorado Springs, confer as the civil unions bill is debated in the House Chamber at the Capitol on Monday, March 11, 2013.

Colorado lawmakers on Tuesday approved legislation allowing same-sex couples to enter civil unions, two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether gays and lesbians can wed.

The state House of Representatives voted 39-26 to pass the “Colorado Civil Union Act,” about one month after the Senate approved the bill. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who said he will sign the legislation, tweeted: “#CivilUnions passes! Today, every Coloradan has equal rights.”

Some House Republicans said that the bill, which goes into effect May 1, will be challenged because it doesn’t offer religious exemptions. "We won't get to debate this again here, but we will debate this in a court of law," Republican Rep. Lori Saine told The Denver Post.

Five other states allow civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples, while nine other states, plus the District of Columbia, grant same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Colorado, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2006 defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The civil-unions legislation passed on its third try, according to Lambda Legal.

Though lawmakers and others applauded Tuesday’s vote, some said it did not go far enough.

"Of course civil unions and domestic partnerships, no matter how complete the package of protections, are not marriage,” Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal's law and policy project director, said in a statement. “True equality is the freedom to marry the one you love and be included under the same laws as your neighbors. It is time to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and Lambda Legal and many others will continue to fight for that goal."

The Supreme Court will hear two cases related to same-sex marriage at the end of March: The justices will hear arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, federal legislation barring recognition of same-sex marriage.

/

Actor and producer Clint Eastwood is seen in September 2012 in Westwood, Calif.

Clint Eastwood has joined about 130 self-described moderate and conservative Republicans in signing a brief to the Supreme Court arguing against California’s Proposition 8, which bans marriage for same-sex couples.

Former Bush administration officials, including Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense, and Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security, also were among those who signed the brief, which argued that the Constitution prohibits denying same-sex couples access to the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, according to a copy of the brief released Thursday by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Breitbart.com, which first reported that Eastwood had signed the brief, said he was a "long-time Republican with strong libertarian leanings," who had "become increasingly vocal politically." Eastwood's conversation with an empty chair representing President Barack Obama on the final day of the Republican convention briefly became a major topic on the campaign last fall.

The nation’s high court will hear arguments in the case on March 26. Thursday is the last day for briefs to be filed in the case, and officials told NBC's Pete Williams that the Justice Department will urge the court to approve gay marriage in California.

Six other former governors, including Jon Huntsman of Utah and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and ten former and two current members of Congress signed the brief, which was organized by AFER. Members of the George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain presidential campaigns also signed.

In the brief, the group said it was better for children to grow up with married parents, and that legalizing same-sex marriage would ease couples’ access to benefits and rights afforded to heterosexual couples but would pose “no credible threat to religious freedom or to the institution of religious marriage.”

They noted that many of those adding their names did not previously support same-sex marriage. But since a number of states have allowed gays and lesbians to wed, they, "like many Americans, have reexamined the evidence and their own positions and have concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples."

Rather, they “concluded that marriage is strengthened, not undermined, and its benefits and importance to society as well as the support and stability it gives to children and families promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples,” the brief continued.

Some on the list included who have had a change of heart on the issue include Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for California governor in 2010, and David Frum, a special assistant to Bush from 2001 to 2002.

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief

Numerous briefs have been filed in support of Prop. 8 by 20 states, religious groups, academics and legal scholars, as well as many against by businesses, labor unions, veterans, California plus thirteen states as well as the District of Columbia, and gay rights and religious groups.

National Football League players, Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Bredon Ayanbadejo, a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, also filed a separate brief in the case that was released Thursday afternoon. The pair has been outspoken supporters of gay rights.

The California Supreme Court said in 2008 that the state had to allow same-sex marriage, and for a short period, some 18,000 same-sex couples wed in the Golden State. But with the passage of Prop. 8 later that same year, gays and lesbians were later prohibited from marrying. Various lower courts said the law was unconstitutional, with the most recent one determining such a fundamental right like marriage, that gays and lesbians had once enjoyed, could not be taken away.

The Supreme Court will also hear arguments in late March on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The Obama administration has encouraged the justices to strike down Section 3. In its argument, the administration noted that Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states were evidence that anti-gay discrimination remained a major problem.

Related:

Widow to Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

LOS ANGELES -- An actress who said she was duped into appearing in an anti-Islam film that stoked violent protests against the United States across the Muslim world lost on Friday her second legal bid to force the video off YouTube.

Denying a request by actress Cindy Lee Garcia for a court order requiring the popular online video site to remove the crudely made 13-minute clip, a federal judge found she was unlikely to prevail on her claims of copyright infringement.

U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald of Santa Clara, California, also canceled a December 3 hearing he had previously set for oral arguments over Garcia's request.

Garcia's lawyer, Cris Armenta, told Reuters she planned to appeal the decision.

Actress sues, says she was fooled into acting in anti-Muslim movie

The lawsuit, filed in September, names YouTube and its parent company Google Inc as defendants, along with the film's producer.

A previous motion by Garcia for a temporary restraining order against YouTube's continued posting of the video was rejected by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.

Garcia's case was the first known civil litigation stemming from the video, billed as a film trailer, which depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a fool and a sexual deviant. The clip sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest in Egypt, Libya and dozens of other Muslim countries.

The outbreak of violence coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in September that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.

Google has refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others to take it down, though the company has blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and other Muslim countries.

Copyright claim
Garcia has accused the purported filmmaker of fraud, libel and unfair business practices.

But her federal lawsuit also asserts a copyright claim to her performance in the video, titled "The Innocence of Muslims," and accuses Google of infringing on that copyright by distributing the video without her approval via YouTube.

US-based anti-Islam filmmaker, 6 others sentenced to death by Egypt court

But in a three-page ruling, the judge questioned the validity of such a claim. He held that even if she could prove a legitimate copyright interest in her film performance, she effectively relinquished her rights to producers of the film.

Fitzgerald also ruled that Garcia failed to show that she would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Slideshow: Anger over film spreads throughout Muslim world

Protests ignited by a controversial film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad spread throughout Muslim world.

Launch slideshow

Garcia's lawsuit identifies Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian living in the Los Angeles area, as the film's producer. His legal name has since been established to be Mark Basseley Youssef and he served time in federal prison for bank fraud.

According to the lawsuit, Youssef operated under the assumed name of Sam Bacile when he misled Garcia and other performers into appearing in an anti-Muslim film they believed was to be an adventure drama called "Desert Warrior." She claims to have since received death threats.

Man behind 'Innocence of Muslims' film sentenced to one year in prison for violating probation

"We hope that worldwide the message has been heard that Ms. Garcia was not complicit and did not voluntarily participate in this heinous piece of hate speech," Garcia's lawyer said in a statement, despite Friday's ruling against her.

Youssef was sent back to jail for a year on November 7 for probation violations stemming from his role in making the video, including his use of an alias in connection with the film.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• 66 species of coral proposed for protection by US
• College students witness murder suicide in class
• Wikileaks case: Manning asked why he didn't complain earlier
• Missouri Powerball jackpot winners revealed: 'We’re still stunned by what’s happened'
• Mystery man claims winning Powerball ticket ... in Maryland?
• Harvard latest college to accept BDSM club

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook