Slowing Down for the Rich and Famous

As the search for the perfect jury in the O.J. Simpson case plods on, you might wonder whatever happened to the much-heralded Proposition 115, which California voters passed four years ago to speed up this very process.

The Proposition 115 backers were a group of prosecutors and cops who, unhappy at losing criminal cases, dreamed up a way of tilting the rules toward their side. Their idea of a perfect juror was someone who would vote for conviction.

The measure, the hottest item on the June, 1990, primary ballot, was sort of the Proposition 187 of its day. True, Proposition 115 didn’t have the far-reaching impact of 187. It didn’t kick children out of school or turn teachers into secret police. Still, the initiative had something in common with our new immigration law. They both dominated the election campaign. Like 187, Proposition 115 offered a simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem.

Voter approval of Proposition 115 was the culmination of a decades-long political battle between the prosecutors and a liberal state Supreme Court and Legislature. The high court had been interpreting the law in favor of defendants’ rights.

As public concern over crime increased, prosecutorial anger spread to the voters, especially during the tenure of Chief Justice Rose Bird. Delays in big cases exacerbated public anger. For example, it took six months in 1988 and 1989 to pick a jury to try Night Stalker Richard Ramirez, accused of serial murders.

Legislative efforts to change the court’s decisions were blocked in the Assembly by the committee in charge of criminal law. Frustrated, the prosecutors went to the initiative, which passed overwhelmingly.

The measure brought many California criminal statutes into conformity with federal laws, which tend to be much less friendly to defendants. It became easier for cops to search suspects. Obstacles were lifted to prosecutors having access to defense evidence. Prosecutors who had complained of delaying tactics by defense attorneys were assured of speedy trials.

The questioning of prospective jurors--voir dire--was taken out of the hands of lawyers, who tended to linger over their questions. Judges would do the questioning unless there was good cause for the attorneys to participate. This was one of 115’s most important speedy trial provisions.

*

I wrote about the campaign and the importance of Proposition 115 as an election issue. But, as is the unfortunate habit of political writers, I didn’t follow the new law once it entered the statute books. The excitement of covering a campaign is usually more stimulating than the drudgery of tracking implementation.

With the Simpson trial, I’m getting a look at post-115 justice and it doesn’t look much different.

While Judge Lance A. Ito questions prospective jurors, as 115 requires, he also turns voir dire over to the prosecutors and defense attorneys for long periods in which they work over each jury candidate in the manner of a combination detective-psychologist.

Wednesday, the judge put time limits on the questioning to speed up the process. But the questioning of a panelist before the noon break stretched on and on.

When I got back from the courthouse in the afternoon, I called Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Ernie Norris, who was one of the authors of Proposition 115.

I asked what happened to the speedy trial provisions. I didn’t think lawyers were supposed to be asking all those questions.

They’re not, Norris replied. “What Ito is doing is way beyond the bounds of propriety,” he said. Ito, he said, was allowing the questioning because of the trial’s publicity, the media spotlight on the courtroom and “the pressure of defense attorneys to hold him to be fair.”

Norris said he is currently prosecuting a similar case in Pasadena--a double murder, just like the Simpson trial--where the judge allowed him 10 minutes to question prospective jurors, and the defense attorneys 20 minutes. There, with the defendant unknown and poor, Proposition 115 is being implemented the way Norris said it should be.

I talked to Art Goldberg, a defense attorney who represents many poor defendants in the same Criminal Courts Building where Simpson is on trial. He agreed with Norris.

‘A few judges will let you go for 20 or 30 minutes (on juror questioning),” he said. “The normal 95% (of defendants) are rushed through like cattle.” Speaking of the poverty and lack of celebrity of his clients, Goldberg said, “I don’t have O.J. and the whole world isn’t watching.”

*

With Simpson, the world is watching.

The world media records every minor move of Judge Ito and the attorney. Inconsequential details become big news. The spotlight is on the L.A. judiciary and legal community. Everyone wants to look good, judge and lawyers alike.

As a result, Simpson is given every break in the law. Proposition 115 doesn’t really apply to him. There’s no speedup in the Simpson trial. The prosecution isn’t permitted any shortcuts here.

I asked 115 author Ernie Norris about this. We talked by phone during a recess in his Pasadena double murder case. It was moving fast. Jury selection had taken just a day. Norris was happy about that.

I asked him if this was fair, the difference between how his case was being handled and the Simpson trial. Aren’t we talking about two brands of post-115 justice, one for the rich and famous, and one for the poor? “Absolutely,” he said. “It’s tragic. It shouldn’t be done.”