U.S. Judge Refuses to Intervene for Simpson Lawyer : Court: Sharply worded ruling lambastes both DNA expert and Judge Ito. Scheduling conflict with a New York case may force postponement of key hearing in L.A.

Throwing yet another wrench into the timing of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a federal judge on Friday declined to intervene in a squabble between two jurists by refusing to overturn an order that requires one of Simpson’s lawyers to begin a New York trial next week.

In a sharply worded ruling, U.S. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy accused lawyers Peter J. Neufeld, a DNA expert, of putting off work for his New York client once he was presented with the more glamorous Simpson case. Duffy also had harsh words for Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, who ordered Neufeld to appear for a hearing on DNA evidence in the Simpson case but whose order Duffy said did not appear to be drafted with “full knowledge of all the facts.”

*

Although Simpson’s lawyers said they would continue to contest the requirement that Neufeld appear in the New York case, at least for now the decision threatens to force a long postponement of a DNA hearing scheduled to begin Dec. 12. Simpson’s attorneys have said they cannot go forward with the DNA hearing without Neufeld, and the New York case could last more than a month.

Other matters could be addressed during the interim, but any long postponement of the DNA hearing would push back opening statements as well. That would conflict with Simpson’s oft-repeated desire to get his trial under way as soon as possible and increase the hardship on jurors, who are being required to avoid most news media while they await the beginning of their duties.

*

Simpson is charged with killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Lyle Goldman, but he has pleaded not guilty and has vigorously declared his innocence.

The conflict over Neufeld’s responsibilities began Monday, when New York Supreme Court Judge Harold J. Rothwax ordered the lawyer to be ready for trial next week in a case in which he represents Pedro Gil, a man accused of killing a New York police officer. After a shouting match between Neufeld and the judge, Rothwax warned the attorney that he would be jailed if he failed to appear as ordered.

Simpson’s attorneys then complained to Judge Ito, who issued an order of his own, demanding that Neufeld appear in Los Angeles on Dec. 12 for the scheduled start of a much-anticipated hearing on the admissibility of DNA test results in the Simpson case. That order set up a conflict between the two judges, but Rothwax refused to yield, instead charging that Ito was interfering in his case.

Faced with the threat that Neufeld could be jailed if he failed to appear for the New York case, his attorneys filed a request for a restraining order Friday. They argued that Simpson’s right to effective assistance of counsel would be infringed if Neufeld is not allowed to travel to California.

*

In his brief, veteran civil rights lawyer William Kunstler wrote that if Neufeld were forced to obey Rothwax’s order, Simpson would “be denied the indispensable services of Mr. Neufeld in the forensic hearings commencing on Dec. 12, 1994, the outcome of which is crucial to his defense of the extremely serious charges pending against him.”

Kunstler filed that brief Friday, but it was denied within hours as Duffy, in New York, issued a wry, three-page order that took aim at a number of the participants in the Simpson case.

Duffy noted that defendants are entitled to competent lawyers but not necessarily to a particular lawyer of their choice. As a result, he said, he could not find that Simpson would be stripped of effective counsel by Neufeld’s absence unless he was prepared to rule that the rest of Simpson’s small army of highly regarded attorneys was incapable of representing him.

“For Simpson to have standing to raise any issue as to ‘due process’ in this court would necessitate a finding that Robert L. Shapiro Esq. of the California Bar and his entire defense team . . . are incompetent--a finding I am unwilling to make, at least at this time,” Duffy wrote.

In his order, Duffy also blasted Neufeld, suggesting that the lawyer was forgoing his responsibilities to his New York client in order to pursue the higher-profile Simpson case.

“Mr. Neufeld’s position in the Gil case is no different than that of any other lawyer who undertakes the defense of a criminal case and then finds a more interesting and lucrative matter presented,” said Duffy.

Of Ito’s handling of the matter, Duffy added: “I cannot believe that Judge Ito’s order was issued with full knowledge of all the facts. It is hard for me to believe that Judge Ito would hold that there are no California lawyers capable or competent to understand, present or refute scientific evidence, including DNA evidence.”

Legal experts were generally unsurprised that Duffy declined to act in the case. Jonathan Varat, a UCLA law professor, said federal courts are not allowed to intervene in pending state court matters except in extraordinary circumstances. Conflicts such as the one that has arisen between Ito and Rothwax generally are resolved informally, but so far neither jurist has been willing to yield.

*

Kunstler, the latest legal luminary to sign up with the Simpson team, said he would return to an appellate court in New York next week to continue fighting Rothwax’s order.

“We’re going to keep it up,” Kunstler said. “My office never gives up.”

At the same time, Shapiro said he wants to take the weekend to consider the defense team’s options if Neufeld is not available for several weeks. Ito said he would take the matter up Monday.

As the battle over Neufeld flared on both coasts, the judge and lawyers in the Simpson case continued to plod ahead with jury selection, netting three more possible alternate jurors by the end of Friday’s session. That brings the total number of prospective alternates to 41, just five short of the number Ito hopes to have when the attorneys begin exercising peremptory challenges.

Among the candidates cleared for possible service Friday was a 39-year-old postal employee who called himself a “regular guy” and who at first expressed some confusion about the legal standard that requires prosecutors to prove a defendant’s guilt but does not require a defendant to prove his innocence. That issue has proved a stumbling block for many of the prospective panelists.

But after Ito and Simpson attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. explained the concept to the man Friday, he said he understood.

“He’s presumed to be innocent,” Cochran said. “You have any problem with that?”

“No problem at all,” the man said, pledging to weigh the evidence in the case impartially and to disregard the bits and pieces he had picked up from the media.

Two other jury candidates cleared questioning Friday. One is a 27-year-old travel clerk and student who expressed misgivings about having to miss some classes. But that woman said she could rearrange her schedule, and she was asked to return next week for consideration as an alternate.

Likewise, a 53-year-old South-Central woman was allowed to remain on the panel after saying she had only limited exposure to the case, in part because she favors television soap operas over newspapers. The alternate jury candidates are to return Wednesday.

The Simpson Case: * For a complete package of stories on the O.J. Simpson trial, including the jury questionnaire, recent news articles and profiles of key figures in the case, sign on to the TimesLink on-line service and “jump” to keyword “Simpson.”

Details on Times electronic services, A5