Irate Judge Threatens to Bar TV in Simpson Case : Courts: Ito again denounces KNBC reports. As evidence hearings continue, seizure of Bronco is ruled legal.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, infuriated by what he called a local television station’s inaccurate and irresponsible reporting on the O.J. Simpson case, threatened Friday to bar the station from the courthouse and said he may shut down television coverage of the proceedings altogether.

Ito’s comments marked the second day in a row that he has angrily denounced reports stating that a pair of socks retrieved from Simpson’s bedroom had been sent to a Maryland laboratory and subjected to DNA tests, and that those test results pointed to Nicole Brown Simpson as the source of blood on the socks. Sources have told The Times that the report, aired by KNBC-TV, was incorrect and that no DNA test results have been returned on the socks.

The flap over press coverage came amid a hearing on evidence in which both sides made gains. Ito ruled that a handwritten note from Nicole Simpson to her ex-husband should not be suppressed, but also found that police exceeded the scope of a warrant when they searched Simpson’s home June 28. Because of that, he suppressed several other items seized that day, including a communication between Simpson and his business lawyer about Simpson’s divorce.

With seven search warrants in dispute, Ito was unable to complete the arguments about evidence Friday, but said he expects to take up the matter again next week. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday, which will mark the official opening of the trial.

It comes just over three months after Nicole Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were found slashed to death in front of her Brentwood townhouse. O.J. Simpson was charged with both murders, but has pleaded not guilty.

The case has attracted enormous publicity, and Ito has struggled to curtail some aspects of the public discussion regarding the case. Although he has complained about some reports in the past, this week’s dispute was by far the most serious and marked the first time he has accused a mainstream news organization of making a factual error.

Joined by attorneys for both sides, Ito first disputed the KNBC reports about new DNA evidence during Thursday’s hearing. But KNBC amplified its story that night, prompting Ito to attack the station and its reporter, Tracie Savage, at the opening of Friday’s session.

“I’m very concerned because this news operation was put on notice yesterday that this was incorrect information,” Ito said. “They have chosen not only to republish it but to embellish upon it. This is fundamentally unfair. It’s also fundamentally wrong.”

Seeking to put the reports to rest, Ito questioned Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark about the stories, specifically about KNBC’s contention that two different DNA tests have been performed on the socks and that they both pointed to Nicole Simpson as the source of the blood. One of those tests is known as a PCR test, while the other, more definitive analysis is called an RFLP test.

“KNBC news reporter Savage has reported erroneously that the sock has been submitted to a DNA lab for DNA testing,” Ito said. “Is that (report) correct, Miss Clark. . . ?”

“That is incorrect,” Clark said.

“They also report incorrectly that two tests have been conducted, that PCR and RFLP tests have been conducted and that results have been returned,” Ito continued. “That is also incorrect?”

“That is also incorrect,” Clark responded.

On Thursday, KNBC stood firmly behind its story. But in a release Friday, the station’s management was more circumspect.

“We will be responding directly to Judge Ito regarding the issues that he raised in court today,” the statement said. “We share Judge Ito’s concern that the facts of this case be reported accurately, and we have reported accurately the information our sources have told us, just as we have reported accurately what happened in court today.”

In response to the KNBC reports, Ito said he would convene a hearing next week to consider cutting off the station’s access to the Criminal Courts Building and to evaluate whether TV coverage of the case should continue at all.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys said they would accept whatever solution Ito proposed, but news organizations previously have fought for access to hearings in the case and are expected to contest this proposal as well. Legal experts warned that while Ito’s anger is understandable, the judge may have little ability to strike back at KNBC.

Any broader proposal to pull the plug on the televised coverage would certainly draw a vehement protest not only from television stations but from newspapers and magazines. Because seating in Ito’s courtroom is limited, many news organizations have been relying on the television coverage to prepare their reports on the case.

“The problem for Judge Ito is that to pull the plug on the television would be to deny the public access to the most accurate information about the Simpson case,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor.

The dispute also prompted defense attorneys to accuse the Los Angeles Police Department of conducting an organized attempt to deny Simpson a fair trial. They asked Ito to forward the matter to the state attorney general for investigation, or at least to seek an LAPD Internal Affairs probe into the source of some leaks.

Clark, whose office previously has blamed the LAPD for leaks, endorsed defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.’s suggestion that an Internal Affairs investigation be launched.

At the Police Department, officials privately fumed at the suggestion that they were to blame, but released a statement late Friday saying that an internal investigation already is under way and that procedures are in place to prevent leaks--including a requirement that test results be transmitted directly from the laboratories to Judge Ito.

“On Sept. 22, 1994, the department initiated an Internal Affairs Division investigation to determine if there is a possibility that information may have been inappropriately released by any member of the department to the media,” the statement said. “As in all confidential personnel matters, the department cannot address any aspect of its internal investigation.”

The LAPD also called on prosecutors and defense attorneys to “join in this effort by discussing (it) with their personnel who are involved in any manner in this investigation.”

This is not the first time that Simpson’s lawyers have sought to stem the information being released about the case. In the weeks before and after Simpson’s arrest, numerous news reports contained details about the case, frustrating defense attorneys who complained that potential jurors should not be exposed to that information.

Simpson’s lawyers blamed the district attorney’s office and the Police Department for disseminating the information in those reports, many of which first appeared in The Times.

But the latest dispute had added new intensity to the issue because of the contention that the KNBC reports were inaccurate and highly inflammatory--especially coming so close to the beginning of the trial.

“Let’s not even dignify it as a news leak,” Ito said of the KNBC report. “It’s a fabrication.”

As the hearing Friday continued, Ito ruled that a search of Simpson’s home was reasonable and that a note from Nicole Simpson to her ex-husband was properly seized. That note, whose existence had previously been unknown either to prosecutors or defense attorneys, was read in court for the first time Thursday.

Written in Nicole Simpson’s handwriting and attached to family videotapes, the note states: “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 detective said he seized that note because he believed it suggested that Nicole Simpson was ending her relationship with her ex-husband, and thus possibly offered a motive for the killings. But Simpson’s attorneys read the note differently, saying that Nicole Simpson was attempting to keep contact with her ex-husband even after their breakup.

That belies the theory that she was being stalked, said Robert L. Shapiro, one of Simpson’s lead attorneys.

In addition to the note, Ito’s ruling cleared the way for prosecutors to introduce a tape of a television pilot titled “Frogmen.” That show features Simpson, who at one point holds a knife to a young woman’s throat. Police have said that Simpson received special knife training from the Navy SEALS in preparation for that film, and they seized the tape believing that it would help demonstrate how Simpson could have committed the murders.

Even though Ito ruled against the defense’s efforts to strike those items, he agreed that a few others were taken illegally.

He ordered those items, which include a communication between Simpson and his business lawyer about his divorce from Nicole Simpson, suppressed. Ito also found that a note pad containing names and phone numbers should not be admitted into evidence, and he similarly ruled out the use of a videotape featuring highlights from Simpson’s storied football career.

That defense victory was quickly overshadowed, however, when Ito ruled against a defense attempt to contest the seizure of Simpson’s Ford Bronco.

The Bronco was parked outside Simpson’s home when police arrived a few hours after the killings. One of the detectives said he spotted a small bloodstain near the door handle, and it was that stain that officers said was largely responsible for them deciding to jump the wall and enter Simpson’s estate without a warrant.

When they returned later with a warrant authorizing a search of the car and home, they seized the Bronco and subsequently tested it for blood. They also seized a number of items from inside the vehicle, including receipts, notes and equipment.

Simpson’s lawyers argued that the material should not be admitted as evidence. The initial warrant was incorrectly drafted, said Gerald F. Uelmen, one of Simpson’s attorneys. Uelmen added that drafting mistakes cannot be taken lightly because the 4th Amendment requires that warrants be issued only upon a showing of probable cause and “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In the affidavit for a warrant to search Simpson’s home and car, Detective Philip L. Vannatter described the Bronco as being parked “at the west side of the residence headed north on Rockingham Avenue.”

Uelmen said that was incorrect, since it did not make clear that the car was on a public street but rather implied that it was on Simpson’s property.

Clark responded by calling that “hair splitting” and by reminding Ito that Vannatter had been up all night when he drafted the affidavit. When Ito said Vannatter was an expert with long experience in criminal investigations who should know better than to make drafting errors, Clark answered: “He’s also a human being, your honor.”

After reviewing the affidavit and other court cases regarding warrants, Ito concluded that the statement about the Bronco’s location was not enough to justify suppressing the warrant.

Though the defense did not prevail in that search warrant dispute, legal experts said Simpson’s lawyers have effectively used the issue to bolster their claims of investigative incompetence and malfeasance. Already, Ito has found that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth in preparing one warrant, and Friday’s rulings show that he believes other officers exceeded the bounds of a second one.

He deferred a decision about other specific items taken from the Bronco, however, promising to return to that topic on Wednesday.

Both sides are next expected in court Monday morning, when the grueling task of picking a fair and impartial jury will begin. One thousand prospective jurors have been summoned, but about 700 already have indicated that they would have difficulty serving on a trial that could last as long as six months.