Testimony Focuses on Jail Privacy : Simpson trial: Commander of the facility appears to bolster lawyers’ contention that the defendant’s outburst to a minister, which a deputy overheard, should not be used by prosecutors.

The commanding officer of the Men’s Central Jail, where O.J. Simpson has been housed for almost six months, testified Thursday that the room where Simpson allegedly blurted out an emotional comment to the Rev. Rosey Grier was in an area where, the defense team had been assured, confidential conversations could be held.

Called to the stand by defense lawyers, Capt. Albert A. Scaduto appeared to bolster the claim that Simpson’s remarks should remain out of reach of prosecutors, who are seeking access to them because they believe the comments might tend to incriminate the football great in the double murder of his ex-wife and her friend. A deputy working in the jail said he overheard the remarks Nov. 13, and he subsequently wrote a memorandum detailing what he allegedly heard.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito has that memo, but neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have been allowed to read it while the judge considers whether the conversation should remain privileged because it was between an inmate and a clergyman. One issue before Ito is whether Simpson and Grier had a reasonable expectation of privacy during their conversation, even if Simpson raised his voice loud enough to be heard by a deputy working in a nearby control booth.

Simpson, who has pleaded not guilty to the June 12 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, has listened to several days of testimony and argument about the conversation, conveying little sense that he is concerned about the outcome. As Scaduto testified Thursday, Simpson frequently smiled and arched his eyebrows in apparent bemusement.

Sources have said the remarks by Simpson could be construed as incriminating but are ambiguous. The deputy who overheard them has conceded that he did not hear the full context of the comments, only a three- to five-second snippet from Simpson and a brief retort from Grier.

“Judge Ito approved of the . . . visiting area as a place for confidential communications?” Simpson lawyer Robert L. Shapiro asked the captain.

“Yes, sir, he did,” Scaduto responded.

“And those confidential communications extended not only between the lawyer and the client but to any material witnesses . . . as well as any parishioner?” Shapiro continued.

“Yes, sir,” Scaduto said.

Although Scaduto later added under cross-examination that Simpson had never been promised that deputies would not staff the control booth while he held conversations nearby, his testimony about the assurance of privacy strengthened the Simpson team’s contention that their client’s remarks were made privately to his minister and thus should not fall into prosecutors’ hands.

Ito did not resolve the matter Thursday because Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman was out sick, leaving prosecutors unprepared to argue the matter. But the judge scheduled a hearing for this morning in the hopes of finally settling an issue that has lingered at the margins of the case for weeks.

Ito also delayed a hearing, potentially of far greater significance, on the admissibility of evidence relating to domestic discord between Simpson and his wife.

Simpson’s attorneys complained that they were deluged by 1,044 pages of new prosecution documents--including statements from a dozen new possible witnesses--on the eve of that hearing. Gerald F. Uelmen, one of Simpson’s attorneys, called that a “deliberate and calculated move” to leave the defense unprepared for the session.

As he outlined the defense team’s complaint about the late disclosure of documents, Uelmen revealed the names of 12 new potential witnesses from whom prosecutors have taken statements regarding the relationship between Simpson and his ex-wife. The couple divorced in 1992, and prosecutors are expected to try to introduce evidence of several violent confrontations between the two.

Among those from whom prosecutors have taken recent statements are former Dodger star Steve Garvey and his wife, Candace--who are friends of Simpson--and Faye Resnick, who co-wrote, with a National Enquirer columnist, a splashy book about Nicole Simpson’s final months of life.

One source said the list of witnesses was culled, at least in part, from notes, legal records and other information gathered for Resnick’s tell-all best-seller. Resnick, who has said she believes O.J. Simpson is guilty, wanted to cooperate with the prosecution and has been turning over background material to them for at least two months, the source said.

The book describes several scenes of alleged domestic violence between the Simpsons that Resnick says she either witnessed or heard about from Nicole Simpson. One involved a 1993 Christmas party given by Chris and Bruce Jenner. Resnick wrote that Simpson attended the party with his ex-wife and children, but caused a scene and stormed out when one of Nicole’s purported lovers showed up.

*

Candace Garvey said Wednesday that the prosecution had wanted to corroborate that incident and other portions of Resnick’s book. She said she had witnessed the disagreement but had “not been a witness” to any physical abuse. “That was a verbal fight,” she said.

Her husband, meanwhile, said he had been questioned on matters ranging from discord between the Simpsons to what transpired at a June 12 dance recital hours before Nicole Simpson was stabbed to death. The Garveys were at the show because their daughter was in the same program as the Simpsons’ daughter Sydney.

But Steve Garvey said he saw little that would have been useful to investigators. “I was there, briefly exchanged hellos with O.J. and then spent the time videotaping the recital,” Garvey said Wednesday.

Statements were taken from Garvey, Resnick and the others in October and November, said Uelmen, who accused prosecutors of sitting on the information and only turning it over when it was too late for the defense to study and prepare for the scheduled hearing Thursday. Uelmen accused prosecutors of holding back on the information intentionally and asked Ito to sanction them for their actions.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden, a veteran prosecutor whose appointment to the Simpson prosecution was fought by Simpson’s attorneys, retorted by accusing Uelmen of hyperbole and by noting that prosecutors have turned over 18,060 pages of material to the defense. For the most part, Darden said, the latest batch of transcripts are merely typed versions of tapes that the defense has long had in its possession.

“We haven’t been hiding the ball,” Darden said. “There really isn’t anything new. We’ve pretty much exhausted everything we have.”

Faced with such voluminous material handed over on the eve of the hearing, Uelmen urged Ito to press ahead with opening statements in the trial on Jan. 4 and to force prosecutors to delete any reference to domestic abuse from their initial comments to the jury.

That is the second time this week that defense attorneys have proposed a scheduling alternative that could force a curtailment of the prosecutors’ opening remarks; a defense motion for addressing the issue of DNA evidence, if accepted by Ito, also could have the effect of forcing prosecutors to avoid commenting on DNA test results in their opening remarks.

Legal experts said that asking prosecutors to curtail their opening statements was highly unusual and probably unfair.

“The prosecution should know what evidence is likely to be admitted and to take full advantage of it,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC law professor. “Each side, as much as possible, should know the evidence that’s going to be admissible before they deliver opening statements.”

Ito has yet to rule on when he will hold hearings on the DNA test results and domestic abuse. He is expected to discuss both issues this morning.

*

Times staff writers Shawn Hubler and Ralph Frammolino contributed to this story.