Simpson Hearing

Re “Judge Cites ‘Ample Evidence,’ Orders Simpson to Stand Trial,” July 9:

The O.J. Simpson preliminary hearing was a blockbuster for the armchair legals. It was thrilling to watch the power lawyers, detectives, etc., in action. Robert Shapiro and Gerald Uelmen showed us some of their brilliant color in defensive rhetoric. But let us not overlook the preparation and persuasive delivery of Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark. Though on opposite sides, Uelmen had to be proud of his former student.

HAZEN D. WHITE

Rancho Palos Verdes

While the Fourth Amendment may have survived the O.J. Simpson hearing, it survives with diminished strength. Jerome Skolnick (Commentary, July 8) argues that the court’s ruling upholding the police’s warrantless entry into the Simpson estate was correct. He also argues that the ruling was correct because the public would have been outraged otherwise.

His analysis omits two important points. First, search warrants can be obtained by telephone in about 45 minutes. Second, if the integrity of the Fourth Amendment is to be maintained, it must be viewed in the context of the protection of 300 million Americans. It is far better that many O.J. Simpsons continue to run free (regardless of guilt or innocence) than to subject all Americans to the increased possibility of unwarranted intrusions by police.

TRENT L. BARNES, Attorney

Long Beach

Thanks to the worldwide televising of the Simpson case everyone can see our American justice system in action. It’s a sophisticated maneuvering contest between attorneys to determine which parts of the evidence will be used in the trial. What really happened is not the concern of the system! The public may never know the real truth. Justice may be served, but only by accident.

DENNIS J. SCHNEIDER

Los Angeles

Too much already has been written about the O.J. Simpson case and the legal pundits have taken over the airwaves. The preliminary hearing was subjected to minute scrutiny and ongoing analysis by every “name” criminal attorney in reach.

As the legal process makes its tortuous way through our court system, does anyone else get the impression that it’s less a matter of Simpson’s guilt or innocence and more of a game with arcane rules, restrictions and prohibitions known only to a few high-powered lawyers?

The ultimate verdict lies with a jury of laymen who are not privy to the rules of the game but get on-the-job training as they go along. Only the opposing lawyers presumably know the rules and they are more often than not in disagreement, with the presiding judge as initial arbiter (subject to appeal).

If any case demonstrates the value of name and money, it’s this one and it highlights the inequality of our legal system. Simpson is represented by the redoubtable Shapiro, assisted by the renowned Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey and Uelmen with an able corps of forensic scientists, investigators, psychiatrists, et al. Every step of the way is contested.

Can you imagine an ordinary impecunious defendant standing in Simpson’s shoes and how those legal proceedings would unfold!

BERNARD AXELRAD, Attorney

Los Angeles

O.J. Simpson shed a few tears on his birthday (July 9), and will get to shed many more if he is guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman will never have another birthday, be with their friends and loved ones, or smell an ocean breeze. They will turn to dust and be gone forever.

PHIL PSZENNY

Oxnard

Re “Public Defense for Everybody Equals Justice,” by James Lafferty, Column Left, July 7:

I was delighted to read Lafferty’s commentary, as it took a positive view of the much-maligned office of the public defender. Yet I must take issue with his recommendations to reform the system. Lafferty suggests that private criminal defense be entirely replaced by state-appointed attorneys. He justifies this socialization by noting that criminal defendants are charged by the state with a crime against the state. However, it is not the state that goes to jail; it is the individual who retains a very personal interest in staying out of jail.

Justice is a commodity as well as a principle. More money can mean better justice if both sides have access to comparable funds. However, in cases where the prosecutor cannot match the purse of a wealthy defendant, justice may be harder to achieve. Private criminal defense is thus a double-edged sword. Lafferty’s proposal would eliminate its benefits along with its potential for abuse at the hands of those rich enough to “buy” justice. I agree with Lafferty’s premise that justice is best served by a level playing field. Therefore, I would suggest that defendants who choose to spend more than a certain sum be required to partially subsidize the prosecution.

DAVID FETTERMAN

Pacific Palisades

Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature just agreed to a budget that signifies lean times for local programs, including important spending for educational programs. At the same time, local taxpayers are apparently going to have to foot the bill for pursuing and prosecuting Simpson.

Why cannot our local representatives send Simpson a bill for the civic resources spent to bring him to justice? Why should his lawyers be reimbursed for their resources expended--but not we taxpayers? The same question applies to the expensive Menendez trials, etc.

VELMA MONTOYA

EARL THOMPSON

Los Angeles

Re “Simpson’s Legal Fees Could Run Into Millions,” July 9:

After listing the high-priced lawyer fees at $250 to $400 per hour, investigators $75 per hour, DNA experts $550 per hour, molecular biologist $1,200 per day plus the $100,000-a-year judge, you missed the most important members of this group. The jury! $5 per day, plus mileage (one way).

JOHN D. WALULIK

Hacienda Heights