Ito Bars Defense From Detective’s Military Files : Simpson case: Request for police records not addressed. News organizations, ACLU to fight gag order.

The judge in the O.J. Simpson murder trial Tuesday denied the football great’s attorneys the right to review a police detective’s military records, saying there was nothing in the 20-year-old documents relevant to the case.

Meanwhile, news organizations and the ACLU challenged a proposed gag order that could halt virtually all public discussion of the case by the parties closest to it.

In an order completed Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito said he had reviewed the military records of Detective Mark Fuhrman and found “no reports or other information relevant to the issues in this case.” Among the records that Ito said he reviewed were Fuhrman’s military personnel file, his medical records and his unit diary.

Ito’s decision was a significant victory for the detective, who has been accused of racism by Simpson’s attorneys but who has battled back, hiring his own lawyer and fighting defense requests for his personnel and military records. His attorney, Robert H. Tourtelot, argued in motions and in court that there was nothing embarrassing in Fuhrman’s military files but that allowing Simpson’s lawyers to review them was an invasion of the detective’s privacy.

Ito said in his order that he had balanced the detective’s privacy rights against Simpson’s right to gather evidence for his defense. After doing that, Ito said, he decided against releasing the military records.

Instead, he ordered them sealed and placed in the court file, to be used only in the event that Simpson’s attorneys appeal his decision. Ito did not rule on the defense’s request for Fuhrman’s police personnel records.

Defense attorneys also are seeking personnel records for three other detectives--Tom Lange, Philip L. Vannatter and Ron Phillips--all of whom played important roles in the Simpson case. Ito did not rule on those requests Tuesday.

Though defense attorneys want records for all four officers, they have launched their most aggressive attack on the integrity of Fuhrman, who said he found a bloody glove outside the Simpson mansion hours after the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

A local television station reported Monday that Fuhrman had been reassigned to desk work and quoted his attorney as saying that Fuhrman was upset by the move. According to LAPD spokesman Cmdr. David J. Gascon, however, that report is inaccurate.

“He’s still working with the West L.A. homicide unit,” Gascon said. “He is on vacation, and when he gets back he will still be a detective. He enjoys the full respect, support and admiration of the chief of police and the management staff of the Los Angeles Police Department.”

Gascon added that senior members of the department met with Fuhrman to discuss whether he would prefer to be moved to other duties until the furor surrounding the Simpson case subsides. If Fuhrman asks for such a move, his supervisors would be inclined to grant it, Gascon said, adding that there are no plans to transfer Fuhrman against his will.

Meanwhile, eight news organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union prepared to appear in court this morning to challenge a proposed protective order that the judge distributed to some attorneys in the case Monday but declined to release to reporters or lawyers representing news organizations. The media companies filed a brief Tuesday arguing that Ito’s proposed protective order, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, is too broad and unfairly denies the public access to the trial.

“There is no sufficient justification for a blanket protective order in this case because release of the information sought to be restrained will not prevent the selection of an impartial jury in his case,” states the motion on behalf of news organizations, including The Times. “Moreover, even assuming that some limited protective order was warranted, the proposed blanket protective order is impermissibly overbroad, in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

That motion, drafted by attorney Kelli L. Sager, adds that although the Simpson case has attracted unusual publicity, it is not the first to do so.

“Certainly there has been widespread media attention to this case, but it is hardly unprecedented,” Sager said in her brief. “In numerous other cases, involving such high-profile defendants as Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson and the alleged Watergate conspirators, there has been widespread publicity--even including disclosure of such potentially prejudicial information as one defendant’s supposed intention to plead guilty, and a videotape of one defendant purportedly committing a criminal act--yet the reviewing courts nonetheless found that an impartial jury was selected and a fair trial conducted.”

ACLU attorneys did not file their motion Tuesday, but announced that they too intend to be in court today to object to Ito’s proposed gag order.

Under his proposed order, the judge would bar virtually everyone associated with the case--including police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, investigators, lab technicians and anyone working for either Simpson’s camp or the government--from discussing evidence, documents or exhibits in the case. His proposed gag would also seek to stop any of those people from making “any comment for public dissemination as to the weight, value or effect of any evidence as tending to establish or support guilt or innocence.”

In addition, Ito has required that all documents, papers, letters or motions filed by any party in the case be submitted under seal. Those documents would only become publicly available when they were presented in open court, Ito said in his proposed order.

That provision was particularly upsetting to news organizations and civil libertarians, several of whom said they had never seen such a blanket order sealing motions.

In the motion on behalf of news organizations, Sager wrote that the court must make specific findings that there are “legitimate, compelling interests” that require motions to be sealed before doing so. “There is simply no adequate justification for entry of a blanket sealing order in this case,” Sager said.

In the case of auto executive John Z. DeLorean, who was charged with cocaine smuggling in the mid-1980s, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi, citing excessive pretrial publicity, ordered that all documents from lawyers be filed under seal--the same move that Ito has proposed in the Simpson case. Associated Press fought the order in the DeLorean case, and won in a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That court advised Takasugi that he could not confer a blanket of secrecy on all court documents, but instead was required to consider each document separately and make sure each met the legal requirements for sealing them.

“Although the prosecution of DeLorean has attracted a great deal of publicity, there are many other cases that generate significant public interest, yet documents in these other cases are routinely opened to the public without jeopardizing the fair trial guarantee,” the 9th Circuit decision said.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys were given until late Tuesday to file their arguments regarding Ito’s proposed gag order. On Monday, Simpson lawyer Robert L. Shapiro said he agreed with Ito’s suggestions, which he called “long overdue.”

Prosecutors did not comment on them during Monday’s session. It was not clear whether either side filed a response to Ito’s proposal Tuesday because the judge ordered that their responses, like all other documents in the case, be filed under seal.

The matter is scheduled to be argued this morning as part of a session in which Ito also will address the exchange of evidence going on between defense attorneys and prosecutors. Among other things, Ito has indicated that he expects to disclose the contents of a sealed envelope first displayed during the preliminary hearing.

That envelope has been widely reported to contain a knife, but so far, prosecutors have not been permitted to look inside.