Simpson Experts Decline DNA Test : Courts: Defense attorney Robert L. Shapiro says guidelines are too restrictive. Procedure is to begin this morning.

After an emergency court hearing Wednesday, O.J. Simpson’s defense team reversed field and told a judge that their experts will not participate in DNA testing of blood sample evidence because the conditions being placed on them were too restrictive.

“The guidelines are totally unmanageable,” Robert L. Shapiro, Simpson’s lead lawyer, said as the hastily called hearing came to an end. “We will not be participating.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito abruptly scheduled the court session after he received a letter from Dr. Robin Cotton, director of the Cellmark Diagnostics laboratory in Germantown, Md.

Testing is scheduled to begin at Cellmark at 9 a.m. EDT today on critical physical evidence in the murder case against the former football star, who is accused of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Wednesday’s hearing, like all the others in the case, was televised live in Los Angeles, and Shapiro asserted that his client’s due process rights would be violated unless his experts could play a bigger role in the testing process.

The gravity of the issue was reflected by the presence of nine lawyers in the courtroom--six for the defense and three for the prosecution.

Wednesday’s hearing ends one skirmish, but as the case progresses, the DNA war is expected to have many more battles, including the admissibility of test results.

On Monday, Ito had ruled that defense expert Dr. Edward Blake would be allowed to “cut” 10% of blood samples found outside the Brentwood condominium where the killings occurred, as well as samples taken from Simpson’s estate and Ford Bronco two miles away. Shapiro said at the time that cutting was a critical phase in the DNA analysis process, where errors often occur.

The defense wants to preserve 10% of the samples so that it can perform its own tests. Under California law, the defense is allowed to perform its own tests if the sample is large enough to be divided. It is not clear yet whether there will be a large enough sample for such a division, and on Monday Ito ordered that the 10% cuttings be set aside pending further rulings.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor, had agreed Monday to allow Blake to perform the cuttings.

On Wednesday, however, Ito said that he had received a letter from Cotton objecting to his ruling. “Our laboratory policies for visitors and our evidence-handling procedures preclude anyone other than the appropriate Cellmark staff from doing any analysis or procedures in our laboratory,” Cotton wrote.

“We strongly prefer that Dr. Blake and/or Dr. (Henry) Lee observe the cutting as it is made by the Cellmark staff member who is handling the case. This procedure presents no break in our chain of custody, and avoids the necessity of a transfer of evidence custody and control to Dr. Blake and/or Dr. Lee.”

Clark said that after reading Cotton’s letter, she realized that she had been unaware of all the Cellmark procedures and had overstepped her bounds. She said she could understand Cotton’s concerns. She emphasized that Cellmark was an independent laboratory, not under the control of the district attorney’s office.

Shapiro retorted that it would be unfair to limit the defense experts to simply observing what the Cellmark personnel do. “I talked to Dr. Lee at length yesterday and he told me it would be an exercise in futility,” the attorney said.

Observing the tests might limit the defense’s ability to later contest the accuracy of Cellmark’s work when the case is before a jury.

Shapiro had maintained that all the defense wanted was to get a small piece of the blood samples for independent testing.

Ito pointed out Wednesday that Blake was still welcome to perform the cutting--he just had to use Cellmark’s equipment and personnel to assist him.

But Shapiro declined the judge’s offer, insisting that Blake be allowed to do the cuttings using his own assistants and his own machinery rather than Cellmark’s. “Although the (prosecution) has great faith in this lab, we have some questions about it,” an apparent reference to testing errors made by Cellmark.

Southwestern University criminal law professor Myrna Raeder said the defense had been forced to rethink its original request once it became apparent that the role of its experts would be limited. “The defense doesn’t want to buy into a protocol that it may want to challenge at trial.”

She said it was clear that the defense still “wants the ability to test samples on its own without anybody looking over its shoulder.” However, it is not clear whether eight blood samples in question are large enough for such testing.

Clark maintains that the most sophisticated DNA test--called RFLP--normally destroys 90% of a sample and if that test is inconclusive, the prosecution would need the rest for a retest.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday, on a defense motion that the prosecution be required to turn over information that might exonerate Simpson. Prosecutors filed their response to the motion late Wednesday, saying they had complied with “the overwhelming majority of defense requests,” but could not comply with others for various reasons.

Prosecutors said that the Los Angeles Police Department “is diligently pursuing investigative leads submitted by the public” but that so far “none of the leads have resulted in the development of any suspect other than the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.”

In another development, attorneys for Goldman’s mother, Sharon Rufo, announced that she has filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson, charging that Simpson murdered Goldman.

The wrongful death suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 20, seeks unspecified damages for the loss of Goldman’s “companionship, society, comfort, attention . . . and support.”

Rufo and Goldman’s father, Fred Goldman, divorced in 1974 and Goldman grew up with his father. Rufo lives in St. Louis, Mo., and has said she last saw her son seven years ago and last spoke to him two years ago.

“She loved her son . . . and there’s no way of bringing him back,” said Michael Brewer, Rufo’s attorney.

In a brief interview, Fred Goldman said he had not been in contact with his ex-wife. “I don’t know anything about it other than what I’ve heard on the news. But it doesn’t surprise me.”

Brewer said Fred Goldman has, through his attorney, indicated that he does not want to join the complaint. He will nonetheless be a technical party to the proceedings because under California law, a wrongful death suit is brought on behalf of all heirs. As a procedural matter, Fred Goldman is named as a defendant in the case, simply as a way of bringing him into the case.

*

Times staff writer Bettina Boxall and special correspondent Matthew Mosk contributed to this story.