THE SIMPSON MURDER CASE : Shaping the News Means Shaping Minds of Jurors

As I joined the crowd of reporters questioning O.J. Simpson’s defense attorney, Robert L. Shapiro, I thought about the powerful role the media play in the criminal justice system, just as he does.

Shapiro knew it, too. Friendly, knowing the reporters by name, he talked to them as if they were the most important people in his life--and at that moment they were.

He turned to one, his face reflecting none of the tension of the case. “Back from vacation,” he said with a smile, looking delighted that the reporter was there. He urged another reporter, impatient for answers, to relax. He’d answer her questions. He did, with courtesy and respect.

The attorney’s helpful manner, during an informal question-and-answer session, in a Criminal Courts Building hallway after a hearing Tuesday, illustrated the way the prosecution and defense are trying to influence, or “spin,” the coverage of the Simpson murder case.

Why do they care how the case is covered? Because they know the men and women who will be chosen to determine the fate of O.J. Simpson, America’s most famous murder suspect, are probably watching. By spinning the press, Shapiro was trying to influence the jury pool, in the same way politicians and their consultants manipulate the media in an effort to influence voters.

*

Shapiro’s performance has its roots not in the law, but in the maelstrom of American politics.

Spin has been a powerful force in that arena since the advent of televised presidential debates. The process can be seen on television when, after the debates, campaign handlers swarm into the press room, trying to influence the reporters’ stories. The spinners figure if they hammer the press enough, the stories will proclaim a victory for their candidate, influencing the electorate--and the election.

The first spinners were guided by gut instinct. But they were also shaped by social scientists engaged in increasingly sophisticated research into how communities and voters behave. The scholars’ research showed political managers the correlation between the presentation of news, especially on television, and voter decision making.

Other social scientists figured out ways to use the research in the selection of criminal trial juries. These were political activists assisting with the defense in some of the great political trials of the 1960s and ‘70s, including those resulting from Vietnam War protests.

“The defendants were unpopular and were different from the vast majority of the jurors,” said Terri Waller, managing partner of the National Jury Project, which figured out how to gauge community sentiment and analyze jurors’ backgrounds to determine their prejudices.

Similar firms are operating around the country. In fact, what began as an attempt by anti-war activists to beat the system is now a growth industry.

“It is applying the skills of a political campaign to a courtroom,” said Jo-Ellan Dimitrius of Trial Logistics, a Pasadena firm that worked for the defense in the McMartin Pre-School molestation case, the “night stalker” murder trial, and the Rodney G. King and Reginald O. Denny beating cases.

*

This background helps explain why Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti mounted an unusually vigorous campaign on national television after Simpson’s arrest. He may have learned from the Menendez brothers’ murder case, in which his team was outclassed on television and in court by defense attorney Leslie Abramson, a pro herself at the spin game.

On “This Week With David Brinkley,” Garcetti pushed spin to the limit when he said “Well, it’s not going to shock me if we see an O.J. Simpson, sometime down the road--and it could happen very soon, it could happen months from now say, ‘OK, I did it but I’m not responsible.’ We’ve seen it in Mendendez. It’s going to be a likely defense here, I believe, once the evidence is reviewed by the lawyers.”

I’m sure, too, that Garcetti, as well as Shapiro, are aware of polling figures that show Simpson is much more highly regarded than the usual murder suspect. “The traditional view is that 80% of the public that walks into a courtroom believes the defendant is guilty because they think: ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,’ ” said jury consultant Dimitrius. “But because of his (Simpson’s) name recognition, because we have all grown up with O.J. in our lives, I believe the ultimate judgment is being suspended by a lot of the public.”

A Times Poll of 1,023 Los Angeles adults, taken last week, showed how Simpson is benefiting from his fame. A total of 48% of those interviewed said “yes” when asked if they were sympathetic toward him.

These numbers are shaping the case, both in the attorneys’ words to the press and in their courtroom behavior.

It’s a complicated process. During the televised preliminary hearing, which begins today, instead of my regular column, I’ll write daily pieces focusing on the extraordinary efforts by all parties to mold the opinions of a public gripped by every twist of the case. Together, we’ll try to figure out the daily spin.