COLUMN ONE : The Team Defense: Strength in Numbers? : High-profile attorneys Dershowitz and Bailey add firepower to Simpson’s side. Some like the committee approach, but others say too many lawyers can spoil a case.

When Miami criminal defense lawyer Roy Black was hired to defend William Kennedy Smith against rape charges, he knew right away he would need help--lots of it.

Within a week he hired two lawyers to assist him in the courtroom and assigned a backup team of more than a dozen lawyers and specialists to various duties, from research to forensics.

They lived together in the Kennedys’ Palm Beach compound during the three weeks of jury selection for the highly publicized 1991 trial, working over meals and brainstorming until dawn. During the trial, Black kept a cellular phone at the defense table so he could summon other lawyers to research legal issues as they arose and call in their findings.

“There aren’t that many clients who can afford it,” said Black, who won his client’s acquittal, “but clearly if you can get a team of people, all of whom are assigned jobs within their specialties, you can really enhance your ability to defend a client.”

The potential advantages of such an approach are driving the intensive efforts to mount O.J. Simpson’s defense against charges that he murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers. Robert L. Shapiro, a Los Angeles attorney known more for his negotiating skills than his courtroom prowess, is methodically assembling a team of lawyers and experts to challenge the forensic evidence against his client, to prepare and argue motions on the law and assist at the trial.

Two legal heavyweights have been advising Shapiro: Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, who successfully defended Claus von Bulow, among other celebrated clients, and flamboyant veteran trial lawyer F. Lee Bailey.

Many criminal lawyers dislike the defense-by-committee approach, complaining that it can stifle creativity and discourage risk. But over the last 20 years the team defense has grown more popular--and is seen as increasingly necessary--as the law grows more complex and forensic science more important.

“The ‘lone eagle’ approach went out with Charles Lindbergh,” said Black, whose defense in the Smith case emphasized inconsistencies in the woman’s statements and doubts about her character. “Today, even planes have two people flying them.”

In the Simpson case, associates of the celebrated former athlete have been contacting criminal defense lawyers in Los Angeles. In addition to Dershowitz and Bailey, Shapiro added a legal scholar to the team this week.

“A lot of this case is going to turn on (forensic) expert witnesses,” said Santa Clara University Law School Dean Gerald Uelmen, a former federal prosecutor who joined Shapiro at the defense table for the first time Wednesday. “This is a defense that will undoubtedly present some very unique legal issues.”

Hiring a squadron of lawyers has always been an option for defendants who can afford it. Clarence Darrow had a team to help him with the murder defense of Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb in 1924, who eventually pleaded guilty in the thrill killing of a 14-year-old boy.

The lead lawyer looks for other lawyers with particular skills: one who is gifted in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, another in psychiatric defenses or forensic evidence, another in the research and writing of motions.

A lawyer in charge of the forensic evidence might have a science or investigative background, or a familiarity with the matching of fibers, the reliability of DNA tests and the interpretation of blood splatters.

Blood splatters can provide clues about whether the assailant is right- or left-handed, and his or her height and position in relation to the victim. DNA evidence, which is likely to figure in the Simpson case, is controversial, and some lawyers have fought to keep it out of the courtroom because of its potential unreliability. A month can be spent arguing the admissibility of DNA evidence.

“Experts (witnesses) are good, but they don’t know how to translate their findings into admissible evidence for the court,” Black said. “It’s such a huge part of the case (that) somebody has to take control over that.”

The research lawyer may spend 15 hours a day in a library preparing drafts of various motions. In the Smith case, more than 500 motions and memoranda were filed. One motion to postpone the trial was 80 pages. Other motions were filed to prevent prosecutors from releasing information to the news media, to quash subpoenas and for a change in venue.

“Your responsibility is for a particular subject matter and witness,” said prominent San Francisco defense attorney Tony Tamburello, who helped defend convicted Navy spy Jerry Whitworth and convicted Peoples Temple conspirator Larry Layton. “So you can pretty much hone in on that particular subject . . . or witness and concentrate as opposed to having to worry about everything else in the case.”

The work is often tedious and time-consuming. Whether testifying for the defense or the prosecution, expert witnesses must be thoroughly researched. An attorney assigned to them would read all of their published articles and transcripts from trials in which they had testified to determine their weaknesses and strengths on the witness stand.

“That is usually a very fertile area,” Black said, “because they are not expecting you to dig up a case in which they said quite the opposite 10 years before. That happens quite frequently.”

In selecting a team, the head lawyer often turns to people he or she knows personally. They must choose people whose skills complement theirs but who will not try to overshadow them. Personalities often clash, and trial lawyers, in particular, tend to be accustomed to calling the shots.

“They tend to have huge egos, be extremely demanding and be just really difficult to work with,” said Ted Cassman, a Bay Area criminal defense lawyer. “There is very, very often competition between various criminal defense lawyers involved in a case.”

Criminal defense lawyer Gerry Spence, who has defended former Philippines first lady Imelda Marcos, said it is crucial that team lawyers be willing to play subordinate roles.

“If you have a bunch of high-profile lawyers in there, there are going to be problems,” said the famed Wyoming lawyer, who wears a 10-gallon Stetson to court. “They will be like a bunch of maestros, all wanting to play at the same time, and the tune can get pretty damn well muddled.”

So much of what happens at a trial is spontaneous, and the trial lawyer has to react quickly. “A jury needs to believe you at all times,” said Spence, who briefly discussed the Simpson case with Shapiro, “and you can’t have someone whispering in one ear, and somebody else whispering in the other.”

Cassman has worked on teams with his high-powered partners, Penny Cooper and Cristina Arguedas, who both bring different skills to a defense.

Cooper, he said, is one of the best cross-examiners he has ever seen.

“By merely saying ‘What?’ to a witness, she can get them to recant what they just said,” he said. “It is magical, and I don’t understand how she does it.”

Arguedas, on the other hand, is adept at establishing the theme of a defense, organizing a presentation that jurors can easily understand, he said.

When the three lawyers worked on a drug case, they divided up responsibility for certain legal motions and for reviewing evidence by the prosecution. They also handled different witnesses.

The lead lawyer in a team defense often holds daily meetings, with written agendas. Each team member’s duties may be put in writing.

That was how the Smith defense team operated. “Everybody had in writing what their responsibilities were,” Black said. “Sometimes with too many cooks, somebody thinks somebody else is doing it, and it is not getting done. So the managing lawyer has to see that everything is on tap.”

In the Simpson case, Shapiro is running the show. He is widely liked as an affable, sensitive, decent man whom authorities tend to trust and who can work well in achieving favorable plea bargains for his clients.

But he is not known for defending accused murderers who go to trial, and some lawyers believe that inexperience is a handicap.

Shapiro also has on the defense team Leroy Taft, a corporate and business lawyer who has been Simpson’s personal attorney, and Robert Kardashian, a personal friend.

The latter two are not experienced in criminal defense and are believed to be on the team because of their close relationships with Simpson. Other lawyers said they did not expect them to play major roles.

Uelmen studies appellate rulings closely and worked with Shapiro in the defense of Christian Brando, who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of his half sister’s lover.

During that case, the Santa Clara professor successfully argued a motion to prevent Brando’s statements to police from being used against him, an issue that may arise in the Simpson case because he also spoke to police at length without a lawyer.

Uelmen also is expected to research and write motions to block prosecution evidence against Simpson and to handle issues that the defense may take to higher courts. The defense filed a successful motion that resulted in the dismissal of the grand jury Friday on the grounds that the jurors had been prejudiced by massive publicity about the case.

Although he is an expert in drug abuse law, Uelmen said, “I see nothing that will call for that expertise.” He also said it was too soon to say whether psychiatric testimony will be important.

Dershowitz has been providing advice on strategy but will not join the defense table during the trial. He and Bailey worked together on the defense of publishing heiress Patty Hearst, who despite their efforts was convicted of participating in a robbery. President Jimmy Carter later commuted her seven-year sentence after she served nearly two years. Shapiro represented Bailey in 1982 when he was acquitted of drunk-driving charges.

Los Angeles attorney Johnnie Cochran predicted earlier in the week that “a lot more” lawyers would be added to the Simpson team. He noted that the widespread dissemination of the 911 tapes--in which Nicole Simpson summoned help as her ex-husband yelled angrily in the background--is particularly troubling because those tapes might not be admissible in a trial.

In addition to having experts on forensic law and possibly on psychiatric testimony, Cochran said, Shapiro “might look for somebody who has great trial skills, who spends his life in the court. He wants to have all his bases covered in the team.”

Cochran said it is best to pick lawyers the chief attorney knows personally, but that is not always possible. Shapiro “is going about it very methodically, and I think that is good,” he said.

One Southern California defense lawyer said he was approached about working on the team but turned it down because he dislikes defending someone by committee.

Attorney Barry Tarlow, who primarily specializes in complicated white-collar crime cases, acknowledged the necessity and shortcomings of a team defense.

“As an abstract proposition,” Tarlow said, “I believe working by committee deprives you of the ability to make tough, hard, crisp decisions, deprives you of the ability to gamble, to do innovative and novel things because you tend to try to reach consensus. . . . It is a difficult approach.”

Others believe that Simpson’s defense demands a team.

“You can get pretty overwhelmed,” Black said. “I am sure Shapiro is working 18 or 19 hours a day trying to hold back the avalanche.”

Times researcher Norma Kaufman contributed to this report.