Simpson Distraught in Jail Visit, Deputy Says : Trial: Hearing deals with admissibility of defendant’s conversation with Rosie Grier that officer says he overheard.

A crying and distraught O.J. Simpson blurted out two sentences to friend and minister Rosey Grier during an emotional jailhouse visit Nov. 13, according to testimony Wednesday by a sheriff’s deputy who says he overheard a snippet of their conversation.

Although Deputy Jeff Stuart did not repeat what he said he overheard, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman questioned him at length during a cryptic hearing in which prosecutors and defense attorneys were forced to argue about a statement that neither has read.

Hodgman was hoping to show that the conversation was so loud that Simpson and Grier waived the privilege that normally protects the privacy of discussions between an inmate and a clergyman. Simpson--who has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman--seemed relaxed and cheerful as Wednesday’s hearing unfolded, chatting quietly with his lawyers as the deputy testified.

The issue of whether the jailhouse talk should remain confidential was unresolved at the end of the day, but Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito is expected to take it up again when Simpson’s trial resumes this morning.

In other developments Wednesday:

* Sources close to the case said prosecutors drilled into Nicole Brown Simpson’s safety deposit box last month and secured four photos depicting her with bruises and cuts. Although the photos purport to show injuries inflicted by O.J. Simpson, members of Simpson’s camp downplayed the significance of the discovery, saying that the photos were taken in the wake of a 1989 incident in which Simpson pleaded guilty to spousal battery and noting that most if not all of the photos already were in the hands of prosecutors.

* Defense attorneys angrily announced that they received more than 1,000 pages of prosecution material just hours before they are scheduled to begin a hearing this afternoon on the admissibility of evidence relating to “domestic discord” between O.J. and Nicole Simpson. Among the documents, they said, is a 64-page statement from Faye Resnick, whose salacious book about Nicole Simpson briefly flared as an issue in the case during jury selection.

* Prosecutors submitted their formal opposition to a defense proposal for hearing DNA evidence in the case. Simpson’s lawyers want that hearing to take place after opening statements and in front of the jury. Prosecutors called that suggestion “as beguiling and simple on one level as it is misleading and without legal merit on the other.”

Although it was not resolved Wednesday, the issue of Simpson’s conversation with Grier continued to overshadow the proceedings, this time as part of a mysterious hearing in which lawyers and witnesses talked at length about a short conversation but never revealed what was said.

*

Stuart said he had been doing paperwork in a control booth about 10 feet from Simpson when he heard a loud bang--the sound of Simpson slamming down a phone in the visitors’ area. Simpson then slammed his fist on the table.

“Mr. Simpson appeared to be crying,” Stuart testified. “He appeared to be very upset.”

Asked to describe Simpson’s tone of voice during a brief exchange with Grier, Stuart replied: “He was yelling. . . . It was very loud, in a raised voice.”

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of two lead attorneys on Simpson’s defense team, cross-examined Stuart for nearly an hour, eliciting the deputy’s acknowledgment that the Sheriff’s Department trains its staff not to eavesdrop on conversations between inmates and their ministers. Moreover, the deputy said he was stationed inside a glass booth whose windows are tinted--which could have led Simpson to believe that no one was listening while he spoke with Grier.

Stuart added, however, that Simpson’s girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, often peered through the tinted windows and waved at the deputies. She sometimes did that when Simpson was present, Stuart added, which Hodgman said demonstrated that Simpson should have known deputies routinely staffed the booth.

Even if Ito allows the statement to be shared with prosecutors, it is not clear that it would hurt Simpson’s case. Although sources familiar with the statement say that it could be interpreted as incriminating to Simpson, they add that it is ambiguous. Cochran stressed Wednesday that the deputy did not hear the comments immediately before or after the exchange, so he does not know the context in which the remarks were made.

After hearing the exchange, Stuart wrote a document describing what he said he had heard. That document has been given to Ito, but it has not been turned over to the attorneys on either side of the case.

A second set of comments allegedly overheard by three deputies two weeks later also were forwarded to Ito, but those do not deal with the Nov. 13 conversation between Grier and Simpson. After reviewing a copy of their statements, Cochran called them “much ado about nothing.” Ito allowed prosecutors to have a copy.

Wednesday’s hearing underscored what has been a months-long legal tug of war between the Sheriff’s Department and the defense team lawyers over where they can meet with Simpson outside of normal visitation hours at the Men’s Central Jail.

From Monday through Thursday, lawyers and clients are able to confer in a first-floor room off the jail’s main entrance where they can talk and--with a deputy’s permission--pass documents between them across from tables with only a teller-like window between them.

But on weekends, they use a third-floor infirmary visiting room, where Simpson and his attorneys confer in private but are separated by glass and must speak to each other by phone. The Sheriff’s Department favors the arrangement because a guard already is on duty and no overtime pay is required. Simpson’s attorneys say they don’t like it.

“You talk about special privileges,” Cochran said outside court. “Special privileges is we were put in a room where bailiffs could sit and stand right behind and listen. . . . We objected to being put in this room all along.”

It was in that visiting area, sitting behind tinted glass, that Stuart allegedly overheard a snippet of conversation Nov. 13 between Simpson and Grier. The incident was reported to Ito 15 days later. The next day, Nov. 29, Ito and the attorneys toured the jail.

Shapiro said he would not return to the visitation area until there are better accommodations to ensure the confidentiality of conversations between him and his client.

“We were assured we had it,” he said. “The sheriff told us we had it. The judge told us we had it. And it turns out we didn’t.”

James M. Owens, principal deputy county counsel, said the Sheriff’s Department is making plans to modify the third-floor room to take care of privacy concerns.

“That’s our deal,” Owens said. “When we have our modifications completed, Judge Ito is welcome to come back and look at it . . . and give it a yea or a nay. But Judge Ito has been pretty supportive of our position.”

*

As the judge and lawyers in the Simpson case proceeded with their spirited series of debates over the evidence that will be presented to the jury, prosecutors lodged their formal objection to a novel defense proposal for dealing with DNA test results.

In a motion filed Tuesday, Simpson’s lawyers suggested that Ito delay the vitally important DNA hearing and instead allow them to argue the merits of scientific evidence in front of the jury.

Under the defense proposal, the jury, which normally is excluded from such sessions, would be allowed to sit in on the DNA debate, one that could involve weeks of highly technical information. As expected, prosecutors objected Wednesday.

“A jury confronted with several weeks of unnecessary scientific testimony will be both unduly burdened with irrelevant evidence and forced to forget important facts,” prosecutors said in their motion. “Neither (the defense) nor the prosecution should be compelled to abandon the orderly presentation of evidence.”

Before tackling the question of whether DNA test results should be allowed into court, the two sides are readying for another hotly contested debate over evidence. This afternoon they are expected to begin a hearing on the admissibility of evidence relating to domestic abuse during the time that O.J. and Nicole Simpson were married.

Among the information that prosecutors may ask Ito to accept are a 1985 incident in which Simpson allegedly smashed the window of a car, a 1989 case where Simpson pleaded no contest to charges of spousal battery, and a 1993 incident during which Nicole Simpson called for police assistance as a man she identified as her ex-husband tried to break into her house.

It was not clear how the four photographs of a cut and bruised Nicole Simpson seized from her safe deposit box last month might be used in the case.

Prosecutors had most, if not all, of the photos from the 1989 incident; a court order from last fall refers to photographs from that incident and notes that they were then in possession of the Police Department. Nicole Simpson apparently kept copies, which were among the items seized when authorities drilled into her safe deposit box, sources said.

*

Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino contributed to this article.