Search in Simpson Case Upheld

A detective recklessly misstated facts to get a search warrant a day after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, but that is not enough to justify throwing out evidence obtained in the search of O.J. Simpson’s estate, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito ruled Wednesday.

The ruling was another victory for prosecutors in fending off relentless defense attempts to have Ito suppress what may be key evidence against Simpson.

But as soon as the ruling came down, a new battle began as Ito allowed the defense to call witnesses in an attempt to suppress evidence that had been gathered from Simpson’s home under a second warrant. The defense contends that the second warrant precipitated a search that was overly broad and therefore illegal.

During that testimony, defense lawyers learned from the two lead detectives in the case that some items taken in the second search seem to have little to do with items that the warrant authorized them to seize. The challenged items include videos of “Frogmen,” a television movie pilot that Simpson was shooting, and highlights of his football career.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the June 12 slayings of his ex-wife and Goldman outside her Brentwood condominium. Jury selection in his trial is scheduled to begin Monday.

Wednesday’s hearing was one of a series of pretrial proceedings in which attorneys have jockeyed to bolster their cases before presenting them to jurors.

In other action Wednesday, Ito:

* Put off until next week an inquiry into why Simpson’s longtime personal assistant, Cathy Randa, shredded some papers investigators saw at his business office and later came back to seize with a search warrant.

* Ordered turned over to the defense and prosecution police records relating to an August, 1993, unsolved slaying in Hollywood. Simpson’s lawyers contend that the manner of death in that case makes it so similar to the Brentwood murders that it may point to a suspect other than Simpson.

* Refused to allow the defense to call Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor in the case, to the stand Wednesday, but left open the possibility that she, and presumably other prosecutors, could be called later.

* Heard arguments on whether a warrant issued to seize Simpson’s Ford Bronco authorized police to search the vehicle and on whether the vehicle was so loosely monitored at an auto yard that it was burglarized and left open to other tampering.

* Postponed a decision on whether to allow the defense to take testimony to challenge the credibility and character of Mark Fuhrman, a Los Angeles police detective who has testified that he found a bloody glove on Simpson’s estate similar to one discovered at the murder scene.

Fuhrman’s lawyer went on the offensive Wednesday to try to protect the reputation of his client. At a news conference during the hearing’s noon recess, Robert Tourtelot told reporters that a woman lied when she contended that his client once made racist statements. Defense lawyers contend that those statements by Fuhrman indicate bias against Simpson. She either confused Fuhrman with someone else or was angry because he had rejected her romantic advances, Tourtelot said.

Kathleen Bell, in a written declaration she turned over to defense lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. in July, has contended that Fuhrman in the mid-1980s made disparaging remarks about black people in general and interracial couples in particular, raising the possibility that he was predisposed to dislike Simpson, who is black and whose ex-wife was white.

Tourtelot also asserted that during an Aug. 29 court hearing, Cochran misrepresented Bell’s statements about Fuhrman and the assertions of a man whose lawyer contends that Fuhrman made a racial slur to him after the officer and his partner shot him, allegedly without cause.

Tourtelot said he would ask Ito to refer the Cochran statements to the California State Bar for possible discipline against the defense lawyer and would ask Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti to refer the Bell matter to the state attorney general for investigation.

Bell could not be reached for comment, and Cochran dismissed Tourtelot’s allegations as “preposterous.”

Bell, a San Pedro real estate agent, contends that Fuhrman made the offensive remarks to her at a Marine Corps recruiting station in Redondo Beach in 1985 or 1986.

But Anthony J. Pellicano, a private investigator hired by Tourtelot to investigate Bell’s background, contended at the Wednesday news conference that three former marines who say they were present when Fuhrman talked to Bell do not recall him saying anything improper. Pellicano acknowledged that he has received no sworn affidavits from the marines.

One of the marines, reached Wednesday evening, confirmed that he knew Bell and Fuhrman in the mid-1980s, when Bell worked at a real estate office above a Marine recruiting station in Redondo Beach. Maximo Cordoba, 44, of Bellflower, said that Fuhrman had come into the recruiting office twice to talk about going on active duty in the reserves.

“At no time, when Mark was with me or in our office, did he speak in any racist manner about blacks or anyone,” said Cordoba, who said he is black. Cordoba said he did not recall seeing Bell in the office when Fuhrman was there.

In ruling on the flawed search warrant, executed June 28, Ito said he was concerned about how an experienced officer, Detective Philip L. Vannatter, one of the two lead investigators in the case, could make so many errors in his request for a judge’s authorization to search Simpson’s property.

In the search warrant request, Vannatter said human blood was found on Simpson’s Bronco, on the driveway of his estate and on the glove found on the property when no such confirmation had been made. He described as “unexpected” a trip to Chicago that Simpson had planned for two months. Vannatter also failed to note on the request that Simpson had agreed by phone to return to Los Angeles and cooperate with police.

Ito rejected Clark’s contention that representations were at most negligent.

“I have to make a finding that it is at least reckless,” Ito said. But he nonetheless spurned the defense’s request to invalidate the search conducted after the warrant was obtained.

Although the defense lost its attempt to get the evidence suppressed, legal experts said that Ito’s finding produced a public relations point for Simpson.

“One important theme throughout the pretrial process that the defense has pushed insistently is that you can not necessarily trust the credibility of police officers, and Wednesday in a limited fashion Judge Ito helped endorse that message by his finding,” said UCLA criminal law professor Peter Arenella.

In agreeing to allow the defense to query witnesses about the scope of the second search warrant, which Ito also ruled legal Wednesday, the judge said he had “about 30 questions I want to ask myself.”

The first witnesses called by the defense were Vannatter and his partner, Tom Lange.

In questioning them, the defense “did a very effective job of demonstrating that the second search of Mr. Simpson’s home included police behavior that is extremely hard to justify,” Arenella said.

What the defense is trying to establish, he said, is that the second search “degenerated into a general exploratory search in which the police seized a great deal of material not listed in the warrant and which was clearly not incriminating on its face,” including the “Frogmen” tape.

During the questioning, defense lawyers repeatedly suggested that officers sat around Simpson’s living room watching watching the movie and football videos on television. They also suggested that officers may have assembled a “shrine” from photographs of Simpson’s family in his bedroom.

Vannatter acknowledged that scripts, schedules and notepads were seized from Simpson’s home when none of those items were listed on the warrant.

Vannatter appeared testy Wednesday and said he believed everything that was seized was obtained legally.

“I believe if I see an item in plain view that has evidentiary value, (it) can be seized,” he said.

The defense wants Clark, her co-counsel, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman, and a third prosecutor to testify about what they saw during the search. All three have been subpoenaed by the defense, but are fighting being forced to take the witness stand.

Vannatter testified Wednesday that the prosecutors were at the scene during the search, but were merely questioning witnesses, including Fuhrman.

* ‘MEDIA CITY’: Television news organizations have built an encampment across the street from the courthouse. B1