Police Defend Later Search of Simpson Home

Police officers who searched O.J. Simpson’s home two weeks after the football great’s ex-wife and a friend were found dead conceded Thursday that they seized items not covered by a warrant but said that what they took appeared relevant to the case--including a note from Nicole Brown Simpson to her ex-husband promising not to call him anymore except in emergencies.

Thursday’s hearing marked the first time that the note’s contents were aired in public. Until it was removed from a package of evidence Thursday, neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys had copies of it, and it was not specifically detailed in a property report from that day’s search of Simpson’s home.

In the note to her ex-husband, found with family videotapes, Nicole Simpson wrote: “O.J., I understand that this is probably too late, but I have to do it for myself and the kids, or I would never forgive myself. I’ll call Cathy from now on, and will only call in an absolute emergency. Please believe me and return these calls immediately.”

A police officer had testified earlier that he seized the note because it appeared to suggest a motive for the slayings, but his recollection of its contents was substantially different from what was read in court. In fact, although the note is ambiguous, it could work against prosecutors by undercutting the belief that Nicole Simpson was being stalked by her ex-husband because it suggests that she wanted to maintain at least some relationship with him after their breakup.

Also Thursday, Simpson’s housekeeper, Josephine Guarin, testified that a group of police officers sat in Simpson’s family room during the June 28 search and watched a videotape about “Frogmen,” a pilot for a television show in which the former football star had appeared.

Detectives who were at Simpson’s house had testified earlier in the day that they had not seen officers watching the video. Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark stated at one point that no such viewing had occurred.

The developments occurred on the second day of a crucial hearing to determine whether items from several searches can be admitted into evidence against Simpson.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito already refused to suppress items found during an earlier search that may be introduced as evidence.

He did not rule Thursday on the latest batch of disputed items, but said he plans to when court reconvenes this morning. Simpson is charged with the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, who were slashed and stabbed to death June 12. He has pleaded not guilty, and jury selection in the celebrated case is scheduled to begin Monday.

The latest contested search yielded a number of items, including clothing, videotapes, letters and a script for the “Frogmen” pilot.

Simpson had recently finished filming for the pilot, which includes a scene in which he holds a knife to a young woman’s throat. Excerpts from the show also were seized.

In addition, officers took two drafts of a letter that had been faxed to Simpson from his business lawyer. The letters, one of which was written six days before Simpson’s ex-wife and Goldman were killed, apparently related to Simpson’s divorce.

But the warrant authorizing the search only gave officers permission to take clothing, a knife, packaging material, receipts for a knife and anything that appeared to be spotted with blood. As a result, Simpson’s attorneys maintain that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant and that the evidence they seized thus should not be used against their client.

Simpson’s lawyers also accused officers of needlessly stopping to watch the “Frogmen” videotapes and of setting up photographs of Nicole Simpson to resemble a “shrine.” If true, those actions could cast doubt on the integrity of the search.

Gerald F. Uelmen, one of Simpson’s attorneys, described the search that afternoon as a “grazing” for evidence, during which officers made themselves at home in Simpson’s estate.

“We would ask for the suppression of all items on this warrant,” Uelmen said. If Ito decides against that--and most legal observers predict he will--then Uelmen asked that he suppress specific items seized by the police, including the “Frogmen” tape.

Even before Ito could rule, Deputy Dist. Atty. Clark conceded that another seized videotape, highlights of Simpson’s football career titled “Ode to O.J.,” should not be admitted as evidence. But she argued that other items seized that day should not be stricken.

In trying to cast the officers’ conduct during the search as outrageous, Simpson’s lawyers called his housekeeper to the stand to describe the officers’ behavior during the three-hour search of Simpson’s home and property.

Guarin testified that, on the order of the officers, she spent much of the afternoon in the kitchen, but that they at one point asked her to turn on Simpson’s videotape player so that they could watch “Frogmen.” About 10 officers were gathered in Simpson’s living room when she started the tape, she said.

“I know they watched ‘Frogmen,’ ” Guarin said. “That’s all I know.”

That could represent a problem for prosecutors if Ito rules that the evidence on the tape was not in “plain view” and therefore should not have been seized.

“It’s not plain view if you have play it,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor and former federal prosecutor. “That’s what the defense is arguing.”

Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor, agreed and said that if officers did view the tape at Simpson’s home, they probably overstepped their bounds.

“It’s not a close call on the ‘Frogmen’ tape,” he said. “I don’t believe that comes in.”

Practically, however, losing that tape might not pose such a hardship for prosecutors. They could issue another warrant for the tape and might be able to obtain it elsewhere if they consider it important, legal experts said.

In their testimony, the officers denied that they had committed any improprieties and defended their decision to take items not covered by the warrant.

“We’re permitted to seize those items specifically addressed on the search warrant itself,” said Detective David Martin, one of about 30 officers involved in the search. “We’re also permitted to seize items of obvious contraband. . . . We’re also authorized to seize items which we believe might connect the suspect being investigated to the crimes being investigated.”

As a general rule, officers who search a location are confined to seizing evidence outlined in a search warrant. But a widely used search warrant manual prepared by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and employed by officers throughout California states that officers can seize material that is not covered by a warrant under certain circumstances.

According to the manual, contraband can be seized, as can evidence of crimes that is observed by the officers while they are executing the warrant.

“Generally, the courts do not require a strong showing as to why the officers thought the item seized was or might have been evidence of a crime,” the manual states. “A reasonable, good faith belief is sufficient.”

The “Frogmen” tape is more problematic, however, because officers could not have known what was on the tape before viewing it. And that, according to legal experts, generally requires a separate warrant. There is another potential problem relating to the correspondence between Simpson and his business lawyer regarding Simpson’s divorce; those documents probably are covered by attorney-client privilege and are unlikely to be accepted into evidence, experts agreed.

Although the debate over evidence has dominated the week in the Simpson case, Thursday’s hearing opened with a furious denunciation of a local television station’s report that a Maryland laboratory had concluded that a sock belonging to Simpson was spotted with the blood of his ex-wife. The station, KNBC-TV Channel 4, said that DNA tests by the Cellmark lab led to that conclusion and that a written report from the lab detailed those findings.

Ito, who has generally remained collected on the bench, exploded at that report, which was picked up by other news stations and wire services. Ito said it was so outrageous that he is considering taking action to clamp down on reporting about the case.

“I’m beyond being outraged,” the judge fumed. “For this kind of information to come out, and for it to be incorrect, and for it to be so prejudicial, is outrageous, it’s irresponsible. . . . I’m very disturbed by this.”

Despite his obvious anger, Ito said some news organizations had refrained from reporting the inaccurate information about DNA tests. “My recollection is that the Los Angeles Times, for example, did not report this because it was not confirmed, so I don’t want to paint all the news media with a broad brush of irresponsibility,” Ito said. “But it causes me to wonder about professionalism and ethics in that profession.”

Clark and Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of Simpson’s lawyers, also criticized the report, albeit less stridently than Ito. Clark called the report false, though her denunciation was carefully worded and did not make clear whether she was objecting to the substance of the story or to certain details contained within it. Cochran warned that such misreporting could compromise Simpson’s ability to get a fair trial.

“The prosecution and the defense are united in our displeasure, in our upset with what has occurred with respect to this story,” Clark said. “We urge the court to take any further measures it deems appropriate to prevent this from occurring again in the future.”

Cochran agreed, saying the outrage was shared “across the room.”

“It impacts upon one person more than anyone else, and that’s Mr. Simpson,” Cochran said. “We certainly want to urge the court to do whatever you feel is necessary, short of sequestration, to do what is proper.”

Station officials said KNBC stood by its story, but other sources said the socks so far have been tested using conventional techniques, not DNA analysis as the television station reported. Those methods are far less discriminating than DNA tests, but can still yield important information about the possible source of a blood sample.

In another development, Simpson attorney Robert L. Shapiro said his Century City offices were broken into early Wednesday morning and that file cabinets containing material related to the Simpson case were found open. According to Shapiro, two computer printers were stolen, but Simpson’s lawyers are more concerned that files may have been copied.

“The only cabinets that were open were the Simpson cabinets,” Shapiro said. He added that police were contacted, and “they have been exceedingly cooperative.”