Legal Strategy in Simpson Case

* Poor, poor (Dist. Atty.) Gil Garcetti--not only does he have the Menendez brothers debacle and the unresolved Michael Jackson case to contend with, but now he is saddled, without grand jury assistance (“Judge, in Stunning Move, Voids Grand Jury Probe of Simpson,” June 25), with O.J. Simpson, accused murderer and convicted wife beater, to prosecute, along with O.J.’s boyhood friend and chauffeur.

Garcetti fell into a trap that he should have foreseen by not taking steps that would have prevented the use of the 911 tapes and the media to try and mold public opinion against Simpson prior to his indictment.

Simpson is certainly entitled to a presumption of innocence, but it is only we, the public and our criminal justice system, that will suffer if Simpson’s “high-priced” legal talent prevents a fair trial of the murder charges against him.

LEE G. PAUL

Pasadena

* Los Angeles--the only venue where the judiciary pronounces sentence on a grand jury before the charges are revealed.

LEWIS H. COHEN

Riverside

* I don’t get it. There has been all this outcry about Garcetti speaking to the media and appearing on TV shows regarding the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, the suspected guilt of O.J. Simpson, and the broader theme of domestic violence.

Yet, here comes F. Lee Bailey on every TV show imaginable for two days straight, doing his spin and setting a carefully crafted pitch in defense of his client and no one complains (June 27).

What’s wrong for the prosecution should be wrong for the defense; what’s fair for one should be fair for the other.

MADELINE DeANTONIO

Encino

* After reading your Column One piece, “The Team Defense: Strength in Numbers?” (June 25), I mourned for what we have lost. Justice in America has now gone the way of so many institutions--to the moneyed. Now, with enough financial resources, anyone can buy a place in Congress, be considered as a major candidate for President, or another office one might choose, and buy light punishment for a heinous crime.

It’s no longer a matter of guilt or innocence, but what priced legal counsel you can afford. Imagine if we gave indigent defendants the same kind of legal advantage that the rich can buy.

How can we justify an attack on crime without including those in power? They deserve the same justice as the ghetto youths who kill because we can’t afford programs to divert their energy into productive activities.

How far do we have to stray from the American ideal before we get back on track?

JOAN SOTKIN

Laguna Hills

* I watch in utter disbelief at the circus that passes for media coverage in the Simpson ordeal. What disturbs me the most is the single-minded coverage on the prosecution and defenses “strategies.” Strategies designed to play the media for the dupes they are. Your June 26 profile of (Simpson defense attorney) Robert L. Shapiro revealed a chilling aspect of today’s criminal “strategy.” In dealing with the press, Shapiro advises that fellow lawyers avoid cliches and that they pick their phrases carefully. “Repeat such phrases continually,” he wrote, and “they will be repeated by the media. After a while, the repetition almost becomes a fact. That is the lawyer’s ultimate goal.”

Wow. The ultimate goal of a lawyer is to create “almost facts” that will be repeated by the media that know only how to parrot the gibberish disseminated from the legal profession. It’s a tried and true “strategy” used throughout the world and throughout history, but where is the “strategy” that will discover the “real facts”? You know the facts I’m referring to; the facts that will inform the public of what actually occurred?

Why is our legal profession so concerned with cultivating the appropriate media image and not with cultivating the truth about the events that actually occurred so the people who should be in jail (even the ones with lots of money) end up there? And why are media so willing to play the same game?

LARRY HAWES

Vista

* The defense attorneys speak out in support of O.J. Simpson. This is their job. This is what they are paid to do.

But, who speaks out for the true victims of this crime, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Who speaks out for the thousands of others who have met death or injury as a result of spousal abuse?

I truly appreciate the articulate and eloquent words of Garcetti as he continues to remind the public about the true victims in the Simpson case.

Garcetti has continued to do battle with the unrealistic and lenient consequences issued by our legal system to perpetrators of spousal abuse. He has continued to remind us about this horrible sickness which has imprisoned family members whose only escape from this prison is often death.

Perhaps Garcetti’s words will no longer fall upon deaf ears. Perhaps it is time to listen to the words of reason and stop worshiping a hero who no longer exists.

SUSAN BRANDT

Reseda

* I read with great concern “D.A. Mounts Media Drive to Shape Opinion” (June 21). The whole point of your article is that Garcetti, apparently with some enthusiasm, is operating outside the judicial system to sway public opinion (and thereby the available jury pool) against Simpson. I wish to point out the following, which is Rule 7-106(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, to which Garcetti and his staff are subject as California licensed attorneys:

“Before the trial of a case, a member of the State Bar connected therewith shall not communicate directly or indirectly with anyone he knows to be a member of the venire from which the jury will be selected for the trial of the case.”

It seems to me that Garcetti and his staff are flagrantly violating their ethical standards as lawyers and, in doing so, making it less likely Simpson will obtain a fair trial. Garcetti has said numerous times that his only job is to obtain justice. That is what his job should be but this is not the way it is being carried out.

KURT E. MATTHEWS

Torrance

* Concerning the unfortunate case of O.J. Simpson, aren’t we losing sight of the big picture just a little bit? The man is accused of murder. If he did it, he should be punished. If he didn’t, he should go free, and the real killer should be caught. Why are we cranking out pages on how likable his attorney is, and how tough the prosecutor is? Ironically, it’s beginning to sound all too much like a sports event, with the audience whipped into a frenzy by the time the starting gun goes off.

The essential issue is that two people were brutally slain, and their killer should be stopped. To glorify and sensationalize this tragedy is shameful. Let’s not pervert the process any more than it already is, and attend to the job at hand--justice.

ROBERT STADD

Los Angeles

* Regarding the release of the Simpson 911 tapes to the press (June 23):

I watched and listened with disbelief as the Garcetti played good cop-bad cop with the city attorney on television. Garcetti’s remark, “I didn’t know this was going to happen,” was not convincing. If the evidence against Simpson is so overwhelming, why not let the jury system operate free of influence by the prosecution?

GENE P. MORRIS

Lake Forest

* Meir Westreich’s commentary (June 24) is written as though he thinks the grand jury system has been working the way it should be, except in the case of O.J. Simpson. Please, Meir, get real. Both federal and lower grand juries have for as long as I remember been simply rubber stamps of the district attorney. They have always been given only the prosecutor’s side of cases, so there can’t be an evenhanded operation standing between the criminal defendants and the government. To suggest so indicates a total lack of reality on his part. I wish that the way Westreich writes were true, but it isn’t and Simpson’s case simply puts it in the public eye.

BARRY MASON

Los Angeles

* Re “Oedipus, Achilles and O.J.--Lessons From Antiquity for Our Time,” by Michael Baur, Commentary, June 27:

Baur’s comparison of Simpson’s difficulties to a character in a Greek tragedy fails to mention the essential characteristic of the fallen hero--hubris. Hubris is the key element in the ultimate destruction of a classical hero. It is lethal insolence to the gods leading to prideful self-indulgence. Ruin and desolation follow.

On the field, physical and spiritual arrogance are equated with the superiority necessary to win the contest. In life, that same characteristic is a liability. Unlike the sporting contest, life’s game clock runs forever. The rules are different. The consequences for infractions are greater.

The classical analogy does not put us or our thoughts in center stage. We are part of a Greek chorus echoing the events we witness.

The focus of the play is still the tragic hero--fumbling against destiny, laced with hubris, headed for ruin.

LEO A. GORDON

Los Angeles

* Ellen Goodman goes right to what it’s all about in the Simpson tragedies (“Break the Male Code of Silence,” Commentary, June 21). “Am I my brother’s keeper?” goes back centuries and yes, in some ways, we must be guardians.

We need to reclaim our consciences, push back our fears of stepping in and stop abuse at the source.

That may well be the first sign of progress in this atmosphere of crime that paralyzes us.

JUDITH JACOVITZ

Laguna Hills

* What a good intervention program by family and friends could have done for O.J. Simpson! Right now, he could be our country’s leader against domestic violence and a true hero to all.

MARILYN SALEM

Huntington Beach