No Role in Probe, Ito’s Wife Says : Simpson case: LAPD captain’s declaration is a setback for defense. But judge rules in its favor on DNA expert issue.

Capt. Margaret York, the latest Los Angeles Police Department officer to come under the O.J. Simpson defense team’s scrutiny, never investigated a detective whose conduct the Simpson camp has questioned, according to a sworn declaration released Tuesday.

Although that declaration represented a setback for the defense, Simpson’s attorneys won a victory late in the day. Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito ruled that prosecutors may not call a defense expert to the stand even though that expert is one of the nation’s foremost DNA authorities.

In her declaration, York said she does not recall investigating Detective Mark Fuhrman or a group of West Los Angeles officers who called themselves MAW, short for Men Against Women. York was assigned to West Los Angeles as a watch commander in 1985, when Fuhrman was working as a patrol officer and the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division was concluding an investigation into the treatment of female officers at the station.

“I do not recall that at any time during my assignment at West Los Angeles was I given an assignment, instruction or charge of that nature,” York wrote, confirming what police sources said last week.

Although York’s declaration sets back the defense team’s attempts to have her testify about any role she might have played in investigating Fuhrman, Simpson’s lawyers vowed to press ahead. They are focused on Fuhrman because he testified at the preliminary hearing that he was the officer who discovered a bloody glove behind Simpson’s Brentwood home a few hours after the June 12 slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the killings.

Although defense attorneys are expected to file a motion next week explaining why they want to question York, the captain’s declaration suggests that she would have little if anything relevant to offer about Fuhrman, whom she said she only vaguely remembers as a “productive officer.”

Putting York on the witness stand is particularly problematic because she is married to Ito, who is presiding over the Simpson trial. If she were to testify during the Simpson trial, it might force Ito to recuse himself. Because of that, Superior Court Judge Curtis Rappe is presiding over the York issue and has set a hearing for Dec. 15.

Meanwhile, Ito and the lawyers are pressing ahead with the process of selecting alternates for the Simpson jury and with the array of legal issues that have cropped up as the two sides prepare for opening statements.

The latest of those was resolved in the defense’s favor after Simpson’s lawyers successfully fought to keep prosecutors from calling an expert defense witness. The witness, Edward Blake, is one of the nation’s most respected DNA scientists. Prosecutors had hoped to have him testify for them about a form of DNA testing known as PCR analysis.

Simpson’s lawyers complained that it was unfair for prosecutors to call a defense expert as a government witness. Such a move would violate the attorney-client privilege and undermine Simpson’s right to effective assistance of counsel, they said, in part because Blake has access to information about the defense.

Prosecutors responded by saying that Blake historically has testified for the prosecution in arguing for the admissibility of DNA evidence and by pledging that they would limit their questions to areas outside his employment by Simpson. Although Ito did not resolve the matter in court, he issued a written order granting the defense request.

“At this time, there has been no showing that Dr. Blake is a material witness whose testimony is essential to one party or the other and is not available from any other source,” Ito ruled late Tuesday. “It is also critical to note that Dr. Blake adamantly opposes being called as a witness by the prosecution.”

The ruling clears the way for Blake to testify on Simpson’s behalf, and a declaration submitted by Blake hints at the approach that defense attorneys may take.

“I agree with many substantial criticisms that will be offered by defense experts about the methods employed by the laboratories that performed DNA testing in this case,” said Blake, signaling that although he may not criticize the types of DNA tests employed by the prosecution, he may find fault with how those tests were performed and the results they produced.

Tuesday, only three prospective jurors were questioned in a day halted early for the hearing on Blake and for the Thanksgiving recess.

A 36-year-old Latino from Pico Rivera was cleared for further service after he indicated that he knew a great deal about the case but insisted that he could judge evidence fairly.

Two other panelists were excused, one after he said he was versed in the science of DNA testing.

Another panelist interviewed said he had followed the Simpson case closely, partly by watching tabloid television. From his viewing, that man said he learned that police repeatedly had been forced to come to Simpson’s home to respond to incidents of domestic violence 10 times.

Officers responded to a 911 call at Simpson’s home in 1989 and found Nicole Simpson crying and badly bruised, with a handprint on her neck, police reports state.

“The police have been out here eight times before, and now you’re going to arrest me for this?” Simpson is quoted in one report as saying. “This is a family matter.”

Although Simpson pleaded no contest to charges growing out of that incident, his attorneys maintain that he never struck Nicole Simpson. Tuesday, the prospective juror appeared to refer to the reported history of beatings.

“They (the police) have been called out there so many times,” the man, a 26-year-old house painter from Santa Monica, said. “I heard 10 times.”

Hearing the prospective juror’s description of his relationship with his ex-wife, an apparently angry Simpson raised his arms in exasperation, leaned back in his chair and rolled his eyes to the ceiling.

“Do you see how upsetting this is to him?” Cochran asked the prospective juror, prompting Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark to object.

Ito responded that he had informally asked Robert L. Shapiro, Simpson’s other lead attorney, “to caution his client.” The prospective juror was excused because Ito said he had been “exposed to too many things about this case.”