Ito Rejects Bid to Oust 80 Panelists : Court: Simpson case prosecutor fails in effort to remove prospective jurors. Defense effort to delay trial is also refused as new concern over jurors’ candor arises.

Smarting from the release of transcripts in which she questioned the honesty of prospective jurors, a prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson murder trial on Monday unsuccessfully tried to remove about 80 panelists--the entire first wave being considered during a selection process marked by controversy and delays.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito denied the motion by Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark, who at first sought to disband the entire 300-member jury pool. At the same time, Ito turned down a renewed defense effort to have Simpson released on bail and to have trial in the case postponed for a year.

Both motions were prompted by deep frustrations about the task of selecting a jury. During a closed-door hearing last week, prosecutors and defense attorneys expressed misgivings about the candor of the prospective jurors they were questioning.

Their remarks were first made public in a transcript unsealed by Ito on Friday. In it, Clark suggested that “many, if not most” prospective jurors in the case had been lying in order to win a place on the jury.

Although Ito rejected Clark’s motion Monday, concerns about the jury pool rapidly resurfaced once the judge and lawyers returned to the business of questioning potential jurors. The first candidate called to the box said other members of the jury pool may be less than candid.

“I just don’t believe them,” said the woman, a 51-year-old Glendale resident who was later excused from service. “I think they’re saying one thing and they’re meaning something else. . . . I think they’re coming here with a menu or agenda I haven’t even seen.”

Clark said those comments redoubled her fears about the possibility of jurors tainted by exposure to publicity, and emphasized the need to eventually sequester the jury that is chosen to hear the Simpson murder case. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman.

“Sequestration is no longer simply an option,” Clark said. “It’s a mandate.”

Trying to persuade Ito that the idea is feasible, Clark said prosecutors had found a possible site for the jury to be sequestered, an area near an unspecified college campus where jurors could walk, exercise and attend lectures. Transportation to and from court would be convenient, she added.

But her pitch met with a scornful response from Simpson lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who has vigorously opposed sequestering the jury despite the publicity surrounding the case.

“I have a place: It’s called Neverland,” Cochran told the judge, apparently referring to the estate of another celebrity client, entertainer Michael Jackson. “It has all kinds of rides.”

Although he left open the option of eventually sequestering the jury, Ito declined to approve that idea Monday and said he would wait to see how further questioning goes before making a final decision. “I’m not at the point of imploding yet,” Ito said.

The prosecution request for the first panel of prospective jurors to be sent home is the latest indicator of the government attorneys’ mounting frustration with the results of their jury questioning.

Last week, Ito released the previously sealed transcript in which Simpson lawyer Robert L. Shapiro said he was concerned that prospective jurors would say anything to get on the “case of the century.” In response to that, Clark was quoted as complaining that many of the prospective jurors appeared to be lying in order to cover up their fondness for Simpson.

“Many if not most (of the prospective jurors) are lying to the detriment of the People because they are sitting there as fans of this defendant saying: ‘We want to get on this jury because we want to turn a blind eye to your evidence and a deaf ear to the testimony so we can acquit this man no matter what,’ ” Clark said during that hearing.

Although she added that she wished she could subject prospective jurors to lie detector tests, Clark said Monday that she meant that remark facetiously and that the context was lost on reporters forced to rely on a transcript rather than hearing the statement directly.

Outside court, however, Cochran said he did not take Clark’s comments as a joke. And Shapiro, Clark’s principal nemesis, agreed, calling his adversary’s remarks “one of the most idiotic statements ever made in a courtroom anywhere.”

When defense attorneys first proposed that the transcript from the Oct. 19 hearing be made public, prosecutors objected. On Monday, Clark complained that its release resulted in news coverage unfavorable to the prosecution.

“Those remarks were made in closed hearings that the People were confident would remain closed,” Clark said.

Prosecutors had said they believed the transcript should remain sealed because it included a statement by Simpson to the judge that they characterized as self-serving. But defense attorneys accused the government lawyers of fighting the transcript’s release because it was embarrassing to them.

Shapiro said Ito was right to release that transcript because prosecutors were not allowed to seal documents merely because they were interested in “protecting themselves from their own stupidity.”

Whatever the motivation for prosecutors seeking to seal the transcript, its release would not matter if prospective jurors were obeying an admonition given to them by Ito. Last week, he instructed the 80 or so members of the jury panel then being questioned not to read newspapers or magazines and not to watch television, listen to the radio or enter bookstores.

As long as they are abiding by that admonition, the coverage should not affect their ability to be fair, defense attorneys noted.

Clark, however, told Ito that prospective jurors cannot avoid media coverage even if they want to, a point made last week by at least one potential juror who conceded that he had overheard news reports despite his attempts to stay away.

“It’s in the air,” that man said before being dismissed.

As questioning of prospective jurors continued Monday, the prosecution’s fear that some jurors were being exposed to media reports appeared to be borne out. One man said he read the sports section of USA Today and threw away the rest of the paper, apparently not realizing that Ito wants panelists to avoid all media, not just coverage of the case. That man was dismissed, as was a prospective juror who admitted to listening to the radio and turning it off whenever news came on.

After one of those panelists was excused, Shapiro mumbled: “Pretty soon, we won’t have a panel.”

Meanwhile, the Glendale woman who voiced concerns about her fellow panelists emphasized how difficult it was to abide by Ito’s strict rules. Saying she had been forced to make many adjustments in her life to accommodate the judge’s concerns, that woman noted that she had resorted to walking her dog over and over to fill the time.

“I walk my dog almost constantly,” she said. “The dog cries when I walk in the door: ‘No more, no more.’ ”

Although legal experts sympathized with the difficulties both sides have in finding impartial jurors, some questioned the wisdom of Clark’s criticisms of the panel and her attempt to have it dismissed.

They noted that if there is a conviction and appeal in the Simpson case, prosecutors could be in the unusual position of having to defend verdicts reached by the very people whose credibility they have now publicly assailed.

“What the prosecution has done is laid the groundwork for the defense appeal,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law school professor and former federal prosecutor. “If this group becomes the jury, you have to work with the assumption that they’re fair.”

Levenson and others said one irony of the prosecution seeking to excuse the first panel is that those are the only prospective jurors who have received Ito’s stern admonition directing them to avoid all media, not just coverage of the Simpson case. Thus, the panel that prosecutors wanted to be excused may be the group of people most protected from publicity surrounding the case.

“It would be folly for us to start over and think we’re going to be any better,” said Cochran in opposing the prosecution motion. “You’ll never find a panel that knows less than the panel we have now. And they know everything.”

Harland W. Braun, a noted criminal defense lawyer and former deputy district attorney, agreed.

“Where are you going to get any better jurors than these?” he asked. “They are probably the most shielded people out there.”

In rejecting the prosecution motion, Ito sounded some of the same themes.

“I feel that this particular panel has had the benefit of the court’s strongest admonition,” Ito said. “I’m not willing to say this panel is lost at this point. This panel is our best hope.”