Simpson Judge Moves to Control Information : Courts: Ito proposes barring all involved from publicly discussing evidence, documents. He threatens sanctions.

With the murder trial of O.J. Simpson scheduled to begin in three weeks, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito took aggressive steps Monday to control information in the case, distributing a proposed order that would halt everyone connected with the investigation from publicly discussing evidence, documents or exhibits.

Although Ito declined to release his proposed order to the media, a copy reviewed by The Times makes it clear that he is angry about the continuing disclosure of information. In his proposed order, Ito cites two recent news reports in which evidence purportedly was disclosed, and he says he will bar any person connected to the case from leaking more information.

“A trial court not only has the authority but the affirmative duty to protect the right to a fair trial,” Ito wrote. “In order to fulfill this duty, given the amount of media interest and coverage this case has ignited, the court must use its inherent authority to control the judicial proceedings.”

Any violation of his order, Ito wrote, “will incur sanctions.” He did not specify what the sanctions would be, but cited three California code sections that lay out some possible punishments. The sanctions include fining violators or holding them in contempt.

Ito also suggested in the proposed order that the Simpson case might be cause to “reconsider the wisdom” of rules that allow cameras and recording devices in courtrooms.

As part of his authority to control the court proceedings and to ensure a fair trial, Ito said in his proposed order that he wants all motions in the case to be filed under seal, adding that he would only release those documents when they are argued in open court. He had already imposed that requirement during a closed-door session with attorneys last week.

Ito is expected to hear arguments on the proposed order Wednesday and may finalize it then.

Some legal experts commended him for trying to gain control of the high-publicity case, but others said his move to seal all motions was objectionable and might be challenged by an appellate court.

“That seems pretty excessive,” said Paul Hoffman, a Santa Monica criminal attorney. “I’ve been through the ropes on this many times, and I’ve never seen a judge try to say that every motion should be filed under seal.”

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed. “It’s wrong,” she said of Ito’s proposed order. “I don’t remember any judge imposing such a blanket gag order. It not only serves no purpose, it hurts the process. . . . I think in cases like this the public understanding of the court system is important.”

The immediate impact of Ito’s new clampdown on the release of legal pleadings was to prevent the disclosure of two important motions in the Simpson case filed Monday by the football Hall of Famer’s battery of attorneys. One of those motions seeks dismissal of the case by arguing that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was insufficient, and the other asks that evidence seized during a search of Simpson’s home be excluded if the case goes to trial, because police officers acted improperly in gathering it.

The conduct of officers in the search is one of several issues that Simpson’s attorneys are contesting as they assert their client’s innocence. He is charged with the murders of Ronald Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, whose bloody bodies were found just after midnight June 12.

The hearing Monday morning represented the most aggressive attack yet on the integrity of the investigating officers in the case and is the latest signal of the defense’s intent to challenge virtually every aspect of the proceedings against Simpson.

In the motion heard Monday, defense attorneys sought personnel records and other documents detailing the backgrounds of four key detectives in the case--Philip L. Vannatter, Tom Lange, Ronald Phillips and Mark Fuhrman. Vannatter and Lange are the lead investigators, and Phillips and Fuhrman were the first two detectives assigned to the case.

Defense attorneys are seeking any complaints filed against the officers and other material related to their LAPD performance.

But most of the argument Monday centered around Fuhrman, who said he found a bloody glove outside Simpson’s Brentwood estate a few hours after the bodies were discovered. In addition to Fuhrman’s personnel records, defense attorneys are seeking access to his Marine Corps file.

Members of Simpson’s defense camp have accused Fuhrman of being a racist and of planting evidence in a previous case that involved an African American man shot by LAPD officers. They also have suggested that Fuhrman might have planted the glove in the Simpson case to be hailed for solving the crime.

Law enforcement sources said LAPD officials have conducted an internal inquiry to find out if Fuhrman could have taken a glove from the murder scene unnoticed and carried it to Simpson’s house, as defense sources have alleged. The LAPD has concluded it would have been virtually impossible for that to happen, in part because 14 officers were at the scene and had secured it by the time Fuhrman arrived.

Defense attorneys did not directly raise the issue of planting the glove Monday, and they carefully broached the topic of Fuhrman’s alleged racism, eager to avoid accusations that they are injecting race into the already volatile case. Instead, they said their accusations are solely based on public documents and a sworn declaration taken earlier this month from a woman who said she met Fuhrman in 1985 or 1986.

“It is not and has not been defense counsel who have created reports reflecting that Mr. Fuhrman is a malingerer willing to twist the truth for his own personal benefit. That’s in the reports,” said Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of Simpson’s lead attorneys. “It was not us who discussed Mr. Fuhrman’s alleged repugnant attitudes toward people of color. That’s in those reports.”

But Cochran was met with a furious response from Fuhrman’s lawyer, Robert H. Tourtelot, who accused Simpson’s attorneys of making up allegations against his client and asked Ito to sanction them for their comments. Tourtelot said Fuhrman’s right of privacy was being invaded by “desperate, snooping defense attorneys” using “truth-be-damned tactics” to discredit an honest police detective.

“I’m outraged,” Tourtelot said. “I’m absolutely outraged by these defense tactics. . . . I don’t believe the defense should be permitted to get away with it.”

Tourtelot denied that Fuhrman is a racist or that he made racially inflammatory comments attributed to him. In connection with a 1983 pension case, Fuhrman allegedly told a psychiatrist he was frustrated by minorities and preoccupied with violence. And a real estate agent named Kathleen Bell said in a recent sworn declaration that Fuhrman told her in 1985 or 1986 that he intentionally pulled over interracial couples when he spotted them in cars.

Tourtelot said the comments in the pension case were taken out of context. And he flatly denied that Fuhrman ever spoke with Bell or said the things she attributed to him.

“The only people calling Mark a racist are these attorneys for the defense,” Tourtelot said. “We’re going to fight back. By the time of the trial in this case, the entire world will know that Mark is not a racist.”

Ito did not rule on the defense request for the officers’ records, but his comments from the bench suggested that he is likely to grant it at least partially. If he does, the LAPD would first be required to turn over certain records to him, which Ito would then review to decide which, if any, should be shared with defense lawyers.

Because they are personnel records, the attorneys would be prohibited from discussing anything in the documents with reporters.

As the case moves closer to trial, Ito is waging a determined campaign to halt disclosure of information in the media. He was angered earlier this month when Robert L. Shapiro, one of Simpson’s lead attorneys, sent news organizations copies of a letter to the court. Because it was filed late in the day, Ito first learned of the letter while listening to the radio.

Later, prosecutors filed a motion disclosing that DNA tests being conducted in a Maryland laboratory reaffirmed earlier DNA tests showing that blood from the crime scene contains some genetic markers identical to Simpson’s blood.

Ito called Shapiro and Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark into his chambers Aug. 22 to voice his concerns and, sources said, to instruct them to file future motions under seal. Defense attorneys said Monday that they had not understood that requirement and filed a motion Thursday that was not under seal. But Monday, after Ito gave them copies of his proposed order, they said they welcomed it.

“We agree with all the court’s comments in your protective order and agree that it’s long overdue,” Shapiro said in court. “Our understandings are the same, and that procedure will be followed.”

In his proposed order, Ito cited two stories last week as having been particularly irritating. One involved reports by The Times and KNBC-TV that microscopic analysis determined that the hairs from a knit cap found at the crime scene resembled Simpson’s hair.

The second was a broadcast report indicating that the item in a mysterious envelope displayed in court during the preliminary hearing is said to be a knife. Ironically, that information was first reported more than a month ago, though last week’s story added that the knife “has been tested, was undamaged and still has a price tag on it,” Ito said in his proposed protective order.

The judge did not say whether either of the reports was accurate.

That envelope has never been opened, but Ito said Monday that he intended to disclose the contents during a hearing Wednesday. Simpson’s lawyers seemed surprised by that announcement, and told Ito that they would file a motion dealing with how the envelope and its contents should be handled.

“All right,” Ito responded. “But I’m indicating to you that I would like to resolve the discovery issues on the 31st.”

Ito invited attorneys involved in the case to respond to his proposed protective order today before he finalizes it. He has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday.

Legal analysts were divided on the question of whether Ito is right to impose a strict gag order and to limit public disclosure of motions in the case. Ito’s proposed order is far broader than one briefly imposed by the federal judge in the Rodney G. King civil rights case, which went to trial amid enormous publicity.

Still, Robert A. Pugsley, a law professor at Southwestern University, said the proposed order is consistent with constitutional requirements “given the hemorrhaging that has occurred in this case.”

Others, however, said the proposed order probably is illegal and ultimately will be ineffective.

Blocking the release of motions will only force journalists to turn increasingly to anonymous sources on both sides of the case, said attorney Hoffman.

Harland W. Braun, a criminal defense attorney who was briefly subjected to a gag order during the King trial, noted that he had successfully contested that gag order. Braun predicted that Ito’s efforts to control information about this case also would fail.