Simpson Defense

* Re “Simpson Lawyers Attack Key Detective’s Credibility,” July 19:

Even though circumstantial evidence points toward his guilt, because O.J. Simpson has been a charming individual, most people, I think, have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. It would therefore be a horrible mistake for Simpson’s lawyers to introduce the ugly word “racism” into the case by accusing a “racist” LAPD officer of planting the bloody glove.

The New Yorker magazine dug into Mark Fuhrman’s past and cited psychiatrist Ronald R. Koegler’s report that he left the Marines for racist reasons.

Be that as it may, when a person we admire is charged with premeditated murder, he will need all the friendly support he can get, without the community being divided along racial lines.

BEN AUSTIN

San Marino

* In “The Case for the Defense--If You’re Poor and Charged With Murder” (Opinion, July 17) Charles L. Lindner described the Simpson defense team as a “Rolls Royce” and dismissed the rest of us who do capital cases at public expense for people of no means as the “legal equivalent of a broken-down Yugo from which they (Los Angeles County judges) had siphoned the gas.”

Such is far from the truth. The myth that only limitless spending can produce justice demeans the hard, thankless, misunderstood, creative work being done on a daily basis throughout the county by judges and lawyers who are in the law because they love it. The pursuit of justice is ennobling to the soul and enriching to the spirit and damn hard work.

The Big Three auto makers are recording record profits this year by having finally learned to make a better car at less cost. “Have you driven a Ford lately?”

ALAN JAY EAKIN

Marina del Rey

* I read with great interest and considerable concern the article by Franklin Strier regarding his opinion that juries are not reliable vehicles for the resolution of disputes (Commentary, July 18). As a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court and a former trial lawyer, I could not disagree more.

I am constantly in trial primarily with juries and I never cease to be amazed and pleased by the collective intelligence, wisdom and perceptiveness of the citizens who donate their time for this valuable purpose.

Contrary to the position of the author, I often see “David” prevail over “Goliath.”

The pejorative reference to “crafty” attorneys and “forensic” tricks does not coincide with my experience. Our judiciary will not accept unethical or shabby behavior on the part of counsel.

The suggestion that most courts forbid jurors to take notes or prevent the jurors from hearing the testimony is at odds with my experience. On the contrary, we encourage jurors to take notes if it is helpful to them, and during their deliberations they may and often do ask for a reading of testimony about which there is some concern. This is common practice not limited to my courtroom.

After over 30 years of working with juries, my respect for their decisions and their willingness to serve increases weekly.

JUDGE VICTOR E. CHAVEZ

Superior Court, Los Angeles

* Inmate Charles (E.Z.) Williams (Commentary, July 15) is right when he equates the criminal justice system to a sport, defense versus prosecution. But he seems to think the way to stay out of “the regimented drudgery and forced labor that is prison” is to be able to hire the best and the brightest counsel. I wonder if it has ever occurred to him and most of his fellow inmates that the vast majority of Americans stay out of prison through an absurdly simple technique--they don’t commit crimes!

ROD ROESCH

Huntington Beach

* In “Death Penalty Unlikely for Simpson, Experts Say” (July 10), The Times quotes experts who claim that the prosecution is unlikely to press for the death penalty in the Simpson case because of his clean criminal record and celebrity status. Also important, according to the article, is the fact that the death penalty is rarely used in the case of spousal murder.

The only difference between defendants like Simpson and the untalented, unlucky, and universally hated men who go to the gas chamber every year is one of fortune. The fact that Simpson was lucky enough to have his talents noticed and thereby gain universal adoration and great wealth should add to our sense of outrage if he is convicted. Instead it generates public sympathy because it keeps us from demonizing him and disconnecting ourselves from his plight.

I hope that reflection on the Simpson case will help people to see the death penalty for what it really is; a cruel and arbitrary punishment that can only be applied with one eye closed--in order to avoid seeing the humanity of the victim.

BEVERLY KLEMME

Los Angeles