Defense Asks Ito to Bar TV From DNA Hearing

O.J. Simpson’s lawyers have asked that television cameras be excluded from a crucial hearing on the admissibility of DNA evidence so jurors in the case will not be exposed to potentially prejudicial information, according to a letter sent to Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito.

“If the courtroom camera is eliminated during the (DNA) hearing, it will reduce the extent of media saturation while the jury panel is at risk,” Simpson attorney Peter J. Neufeld said in an Oct. 18 letter to Ito that was made public this week. In addition, Neufeld suggested that the lawyers for both sides avoid any discussion of the DNA test results during the hearing, which is not scheduled to begin until after a jury has been selected.

DNA evidence is expected to play a key role in the prosecution case against Simpson, who has pleaded not guilty to the June 12 killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

In his letter, Neufeld warns that if prosecutors call their full complement of what they term “potential” witnesses, and defense attorneys summon a like number, the DNA hearing could last as long as five weeks, far longer than previously estimated. He asked Ito to limit the number of witnesses that each side is allowed to call, but if Ito declines and Neufeld’s estimate proves correct, it could be well into December before opening statements in the trial are delivered.

Even before that hearing begins, the trial is proceeding more slowly than anticipated because jury selection is moving at a crawl. Candidate after candidate has been dismissed after admitting to the slightest hint of exposure to publicity in the wake of Ito’s admonition directing them to avoid all television, radio, newspapers and magazines--and even to refrain from entering bookstores.

After a brief hiatus Tuesday morning, jury selection resumed in the afternoon. Ito and the attorneys painstakingly questioned the first prospective juror, a 60-year-old merchandise buyer from Bell Gardens who said she had witnessed a murder in Oregon in 1972. The judge and lawyers probed her reaction to that experience and questioned her about her impressions of Simpson and her reactions to media coverage of the case.

As for Simpson, the woman acknowledged that she had a generally favorable impression, but added: “I also believe in justice.”

The woman said she had conscientiously abided by Ito’s order to avoid all media, a direction that he gave to prospective jurors after a splashy new book was released. She said her only exposure to information about the case had come during a news snippet that appeared on a videotape that she had made of soap operas.

“I fast-forwarded past it,” she said of the news report, adding that she has fastidiously avoided a television at her workplace despite the teasing of colleagues. “There’s no Mafia watching,” she recalled one colleague saying.

Ito responded: “You’d be amazed by how many people will contact the court about what jurors are doing.”

The judge asked the woman to return Nov. 2 for further questioning, but he dismissed another potential juror who at first said she had few opinions about the case. Under pointed questioning by Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark, the woman eventually acknowledged that she doubted the story that police gave when they said they jumped the wall to Simpson’s estate hours after the slayings partly because they were concerned that someone might be injured inside.

“I felt the police were looking for Mr. Simpson rather than being concerned that he was hurt,” said the prospective juror, who also called Nicole Simpson a “party girl” and said she may have been killed by someone she met socially. She expressed other doubts about the prosecution theory of the case as well but insisted that she could be fair.

Meeting outside the prospective jurors’ earshot, prosecutors asked that she be excused because of her views.

“You’ve expressed some opinions that cause me concern,” Ito told the woman. “You seem to have formed opinions that are skeptical of the prosecution’s case.”

“This is the way I feel right now,” she responded. “Of course, if the evidence is different, I’ll change my beliefs.”

The judge did not accept that explanation, excusing her instead. Afterward, Simpson attorney Robert L. Shapiro angrily disputed that decision.

“My blood is boiling,” he told reporters.

That woman will not return, but those who are cleared for service from the first panel have been directed to come back Nov. 2. Then, prosecutors and defense attorneys can exercise their right to make use of their peremptory challenges, excusing prospective jurors with whom they feel uncomfortable.

Of 44 prospective jurors who have undergone extensive questioning about their exposure to news media reports, 25 are still in contention for a place on the jury and 19 have been excused. At the close of Tuesday’s session, one potential juror--a 66-year-old retired bookseller from Alhambra--was in the middle of questioning and was told to come back today.

Once a jury is picked, Ito has said he hopes to break the trial for a day or two and then commence the so-called Kelly hearing to assess the DNA evidence in the case and determine whether it should be admitted. While that hearing is under way, Ito has said he expects jurors to return home with a warning that they are not to pay any attention to the case or publicity surrounding it.

That hearing could last as long as a month, however, and prosecutors in particular have worried that jurors might be exposed to the debate even if they try to avoid it. Neufeld’s suggestions about barring the television camera from the proceeding and limiting the discussion of the evidence are intended to prevent that from happening.

But they offer yet another possible flare-up in the debate between news organizations and Ito over the public’s right to observe the Simpson case as it unfolds. Media lawyers were reviewing Neufeld’s letter Tuesday and considering whether it warranted a response.

Already, Ito has scheduled a hearing for Nov. 7 to weigh the possibility of pulling the television camera from the courtroom for the duration of the trial. In the meantime, the camera is not in use because court rules prohibit televising jury selection.

Neufeld’s letter also offers the most comprehensive preview to date of the witnesses and the parameters of the DNA hearing. In it, Neufeld writes that prosecutors list nine potential witnesses who might be called and predicts that they may add at least two more--one each from the LAPD laboratory and the state Department of Justice laboratory, where tests are being performed.

Neufeld did not say whom the defense might call, but listed a number of scientists and statistical experts who he said appeared on the prosecution list of possible witnesses. Ito has previously indicated that he may call witnesses of his own, but has said that he will not make a final decision on that until after he reviews the witness lists prepared by both sides.

Prosecutors have said they expect each expert witness to take about a day to question, including cross-examination.

* THE SPIN: Simpson case jurors deserve praise, not criticism. B1