Talking to Police Limits Defense, Experts Say : Courts: Simpson’s interview the day after the killings ‘was a colossal mistake,’ according to one lawyer. No matter what he said, it restricts his attorney’s options.

When O.J. Simpson’s lead lawyer, Robert L. Shapiro, went to court Wednesday, one of the first things he requested was a tape of his client’s 3 1/2-hour interview with Los Angeles police officers last week before Shapiro was on the case.

Simpson spoke with investigators June 13 against the advice of his first lawyer, Howard Weitzman. And legal experts say that interview could have a dramatic impact on his defense, no matter what he said and regardless of his innocence or guilt.

Simpson locked himself into a statement before his lawyer could explore the case with him, said Loyola law professor Laurie Levenson.

That easily could come back to haunt him, several experienced criminal lawyers said. “The prosecution now has that statement as a potential weapon,” West Los Angeles criminal lawyer Harland W. Braun said.

“If your client wants to talk (to police), you chain him to your desk at your office!” Braun exclaimed.

If Simpson deviates from the statement in any way, he can be impeached and his credibility questioned, attorneys said.

All the legal experts contacted by The Times cautioned that they do not know what Simpson said and emphasized that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

However, whatever Simpson said will have a serious effect on his attorney’s range of options, Los Angeles criminal lawyer Bradley W. Brunon said.

Without that interview, Shapiro would be playing on a much more open field and could be more creative in his strategy, without having to worry about a possible “credibility deficit,” Brunon said.

Shapiro has declined to make any comments about his strategy.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark said in court Wednesday that Shapiro would be given the tape promptly. However, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office said late Wednesday that she did not know if a copy of the tape had been turned over.

Clark also said in court that the interview had been conducted “with full waivers.” According to the landmark Supreme Court decision of Miranda vs. Arizona, before the police can question an individual in custody, they must advise him of his right to remain silent and that any statements he makes may later be used against him.

Despite any waivers by Simpson, his defense lawyers may still attempt to keep out of evidence any statements he made to the police.

Weitzman did everything but physically restrain Simpson from talking, according to sources. They said that Weitzman spent nearly an hour attempting to keep Simpson from talking to LAPD detectives, but the former football star said he had nothing to hide.

On Wednesday, Weitzman would only confirm that he advised Simpson not to talk to the police, but would not discuss anything else about the case.

Weitzman has said that the press of other cases and his long personal relationship with Simpson prompted him to withdraw.

But sources said Weitzman was stunned and angered by Simpson’s decision to speak with police, and dropped out of the case soon thereafter.

Criminal lawyers from Los Angeles to New York said they were shocked that Simpson talked to the police, and that Weitzman was not present when he did.

“It was a colossal mistake,” said Los Angeles criminal lawyer Danny Davis, who successfully represented Ray Buckey in the McMartin Preschool molestation case.

For Simpson to go “in front of a very hostile LAPD was a terribly bad error,” said William Kunstler, a New York lawyer who has represented prominent murder defendants.

“In this case in particular, there was no benefit to your case to talk,” said attorney Paul Harris, who won several high-profile cases in the 1970s and is now teaching at New College of Law in San Francisco.

“The only reason is to look good to the media, and you could have done that by having your lawyer say, ‘My client authorized me to say he is innocent,’ ” Harris said.

He added that Simpson “had a perfect reason to just go into seclusion,” because his former wife had just been brutally killed.

The day Simpson was interviewed by the police, Weitzman told reporters that Simpson was innocent. “He had nothing to do with this tragedy. He is in shock,” Weitzman said.

What Simpson said in those 3 1/2 hours is known to only a few people, and they are not talking.

But, whether Simpson is innocent or guilty, he now has to live with what he told Detectives Tom Lange and Phil Van Atta.

“The things that experienced homicide detectives do . . . are to ask an individual they suspect questions that inherently carry knowledge about physical evidence,” said Davis, who added that he knows and respects both of the detectives.

“Under pressure, all (an innocent suspect) can do is wiggle and equivocate, when they are trying to look as though they are innocent . . . and try to help and they can’t. All they do is compound suspicion about their culpability,” he said.

Levenson said the lengthy interview also gave the LAPD detectives an opportunity to observe Simpson’s demeanor, which would aid them in evaluating the case.

Moreover, she said, their observations of him the day after the killings could be critical if his attorney eventually decides to mount a defense asserting temporary insanity or claiming that Simpson acted in the “heat of passion.”

Nonetheless, there still has to be an explanation made about why a defendant, who initially claimed to be innocent, later would admit to the crime and seek a lesser penalty, Harris said.

“The prosecution . . . would use the fact that he talked for that long a time (to police) to show that he was rational enough to make up things,” he said.

Despite the pitfalls, several lawyers said Simpson’s statement to police may not turn out to be a fatal mistake.

“The damage need not be irreparable,” Levenson said. “Any statement he made could be explained as a statement made by a man in shock.”