Advertisement

SIMPSON MURDER CASE : Some Judges Might Want to Learn What This Reporter Did

Share

Starting this week, I’ll be back at the same old newsstand after several days on America’s hottest story, O.J. Simpson.

For me, the experience was an education. Except for a school desegregation trial several years ago, I hadn’t covered the courts since early in my career. I had no preconceived notions--or, unfortunately, much knowledge of procedure. Colleagues helped me with procedure, as did my brother Jeff, a criminal defense attorney in San Mateo County. For the most part, I approached the assignment without the background, or baggage, that I bring to political campaigns, government meetings, community protests and our occasional riot and fire.

That was viewed as a plus when my editors assigned me to write a daily commentary on the preliminary hearing. Educate our readers, they said, while you educate yourself.

Advertisement

Although we knew the proceedings might exceed the known limits of sensational journalism, we also thought they could provide a lesson in the criminal justice system which, despite all the coverage it receives, is still misunderstood and disrespected.

The extreme public interest in the Simpson case magnified every detail of the system. Procedures that would be ignored by the press in the usual hearing would be headlines. Although this distorted the system, it also exposed it to a public that does not normally get excited about a motion to suppress evidence or the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

*

We called the column The Spin because we wanted to explain how the prosecution and defense shape their actions to influence the public, especially potential jurors. Spinning, a term born of political campaigns, means presenting a candidate, or client, to the press in the best light. It’s become as important in high-profile legal cases as in political campaigns. “The lawyer’s role suddenly broadens to include the task of commentator and manager,” Simpson’s attorney, Robert L. Shapiro, once wrote in a legal journal. “In fact, the lawyer’s function as a spokesperson is maybe as important to the outcome of a case as his advocacy skills in the courtroom.”

I’d seen television change political campaigns. But until I walked up Spring Street from The Times to the Criminal Courts Building in the mornings, past the satellite trucks massed in the parking lot and the commentators outside the 11th-floor pressroom, I didn’t understand what a profound influence it could have on the criminal justice system.

Television has made us more aware of crime, more fearful even in neighborhoods where crime rates are low. Television’s unforgiving magnifying glass has exposed judges and juries to praise and ridicule for their decisions. In the Simpson case, with commentators dissecting every move, the focus has distorted the process but it has also opened it up.

Think about what we saw. The cops were forced to convince the judge that they didn’t burst into Simpson’s estate on a whim. The prosecution’s witnesses had to defend their scientific evidence. We watched the defense question the experts. The judge had to explain her reasoning at length, and in detail. Millions watched this.

Advertisement

This is important because of widespread skepticism about the courts, particularly in minority communities. Even after the intense coverage of the Simpson hearing, many blacks remain unconvinced that Simpson is getting a fair shake.

The only remedy for that is to make sure the process stays open. That’s our job.

It’s also the job of the people who run the courts, especially the judges. I had good conversations with a couple of them, and the court public information personnel hustled to get me appointments.

But I got the feeling that some judges are nervous around the press. I detected a wariness. That won’t work in today’s high-pressure, media-dominated justice system. If lawyers are becoming media spinners, judges must accept the role of educating the public.

*

When the preliminary hearing ended Friday, I turned in my column. The assignment was finished.

But not really. My editors had done me a favor by sending me over to the Criminal Courts Building. I’ve learned a lot, and I’ll stop by the courthouse more often. Monday, I’ll be back, talking to the presiding judge for a column on the rigors of being the judge in a high-profile case.

Advertisement