Simpson Lawyers Drop Plans for DNA Hearing : Courts: Move is strategy shift for defense, which still can challenge handling of blood drops. Judge to sequester jury.

In a move with dramatic implications for the trial of O.J. Simpson, defense lawyers changed course Wednesday, dropping their plans to contest the admissibility of DNA evidence in a prolonged hearing outside the jury’s presence.

The move clears the way for opening statements to begin this month and makes it all but certain that jurors will hear about test results that authorities say link Simpson to the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman. Simpson has pleaded not guilty.

Instead of challenging the science of DNA at a special hearing, defense lawyers instead plan to argue before the jury that blood samples were so poorly handled by investigators that any analysis is hopelessly compromised.

With the DNA hearing suddenly eliminated, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito ended months of speculation by announcing that he intends to sequester the jury. Jurors, who had been slated to return Jan. 18, will be back in court on Monday for new instructions.

Ito has said he would give the panelists a few days to pack their bags before being cut off from friends, family and media. In court Wednesday, he indicated that he expects to sequester the panel next Wednesday. Ito has set a hearing for that day on a volatile issue, the defense’s effort to limit evidence of domestic abuse by Simpson.

Simpson’s lawyers initially had opposed sequestration but revealed Wednesday that they had reversed position on that issue as well. In the motion explaining their about-face, the lawyers said they were concerned that jurors would be exposed to sensational media coverage of the domestic abuse hearing and that they preferred sequestration to that possibility.

The defense’s shift in tactics on the DNA issue represented a far more significant development, one likely to affect the course of the trial. Experts said that by forgoing a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Simpson’s lawyers cleared the way for prosecutors to admit the results of DNA tests, a bulwark of their case.

In order to ensure that Simpson cannot later claim that he did not understand the implications of giving up his right to the separate DNA hearing, prosecutors asked Ito to pose a series of direct questions to the defendant Wednesday. Ito declined to do that, but he did ask Simpson whether he understood the implications of his lawyers withdrawing their motion.

“Your honor, I am ready,” Simpson responded. “I have full confidence in my lawyers.”

Simpson’s lawyers still could object to the admission of the DNA results when prosecutors seek to introduce them at trial. Prosecutors would then be likely to argue that the defense had waived its right to object--a contention the defense would dispute, a source close to the Simpson camp said.

Ito would be forced to resolve that issue, but legal experts gave Simpson’s lawyers little chance of succeeding with that tactic. Nevertheless, several experienced lawyers said the move by Simpson’s camp was strategically sound.

“This is a good tactical move, mainly because there was zero chance that Ito was going to keep this evidence out anyway,” said criminal defense lawyer Harland W. Braun. “Meanwhile, they have gained the fact that they don’t preview their evidence (seeking to undermine DNA tests).”

By withdrawing the request for a hearing, Simpson also saves thousands of dollars, avoids the possibility of losing jurors because of media exposure while the prolonged session is under way and saves himself from what could have been weeks of bad publicity before the lawyers began their opening statements, according to Braun and others.

The defense motion makes it clear the main target will be how authorities collected and analyzed physical evidence.

“In filing this notice of withdrawal, Mr. Simpson does not in any way waive his right to fully challenge at trial the weight or reliability of the prosecution’s scientific evidence by any appropriate means,” the motion states. Defense lawyers said they reserved the right to cross-examine witnesses and present their own evidence regarding the reliability of DNA tests and the statistical significance of any genetic match.

Simpson’s lawyers also said they may attack the “questionable performance of law enforcement authorities and forensic laboratories and personnel in their handling of the samples and evidence in this case and in the slipshod execution of these techniques.”

If they are successful in that argument, it could undermine all the DNA tests, and legal experts said it might even pave the way for an instruction to the jury about how much weight to attach to the scientific evidence. That could be especially true with results of tests known as PCR analysis, said Southwestern University law professor Myrna Raeder, because those tests are particularly susceptible to contamination.

“It’s clear the real challenge will be on collection, handling and laboratory procedures,” she said.

None of that came as a surprise to prosecutors, who have battled with Simpson’s team for six months as the defense has picked away at the integrity of the investigation.

“They are giving up the right to legally challenge the admissibility or to limit the evidence,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark said. “They will attack it as the defense always does in terms of how reliable it is. That’s a standard attack.”

The DNA tests include analysis of blood drops found at the crime scene and others recovered from Simpson’s home and car. Although the results have not been officially disclosed, sources close to the investigation say the DNA tests show a genetic match between Simpson’s blood and at least two drops found near the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Goldman.

In addition, sources say that DNA analysis of other samples suggests that blood with some of the same characteristics as the victims’ turned up at Simpson’s Brentwood estate, about two miles from the murder scene. Tests also have been conducted on stains from the floor, seats and seat belts of Simpson’s car.

Before opening statements can begin, Ito and the lawyers still must resolve the dispute over whether prosecutors can introduce evidence that O.J. Simpson abused Nicole Simpson.

Prosecutors want the jury to hear about several instances in which Simpson allegedly abused his wife, while his lawyers are fighting to keep that information away from the jury.

Just before the holiday break, the district attorney’s office turned over to the defense transcripts of statements from dozens of potential witnesses on the abuse issue, prompting Simpson’s lawyers to complain that their adversaries had withheld that information until the last minute.

Prosecutors also are attempting to force Simpson’s first wife, Marquerite Simpson Thomas, to take the stand, though they would not say why they served a subpoena on her last month.

Her lawyer, Carl Jones, said Wednesday that authorities frightened his client when they served the subpoena, which he has asked the judge to void. Prosecutors Clark and Christopher Darden were present when the subpoena was served Dec. 27. Jones said they were responsible for the conduct of officers who, he said, lured Thomas’ husband out of their Fullerton apartment on false pretenses and, when she checked on him, stuck a foot in the door and thrust in the subpoena.

The prosecutors “seemed to be in charge of this raid on her home and the terror that was being inflicted on her,” Jones said in a motion to throw out the subpoena. “Her first thought was that she had broken no law, she was not a defendant and she was not a suspect.”

Even if she is forced to testify, Jones said Thomas had no information relevant to the charges against her ex-husband. Clark would not say why prosecutors want to put her on the stand. But she defended the lengths authorities went to in order to serve the subpoena, saying Thomas had been avoiding them.

One of those who has cooperated with the prosecution efforts is Faye Resnick, the author of a book purporting to detail Nicole Simpson’s final months. In her book, Resnick says she believes Simpson is guilty and that Nicole Simpson had feared for her life. But Resnick has admitted to using drugs during that time, and she co-wrote her book with a writer from the National Enquirer--two facts that could make her vulnerable to attack by Simpson’s lawyers if prosecutors elect to call her as a witness.

“If Faye Resnick is to testify as a witness at the trial . . . significant preliminary factual issues will be raised regarding her extensive use of mind-altering drugs during the period of the events she describes and her bias and interest related to the financial success of her book,” Simpson’s lawyers said in a motion asking that prosecutors be sanctioned for turning over material so late to the defense team.

The request for sanctions is among the issues that Ito hopes to resolve this week before turning to the admissibility of domestic violence evidence on Wednesday. Once the domestic violence issue is resolved, the two sides will argue over the admissibility of evidence regarding Los Angeles police Detective Mark Fuhrman, who testified at the preliminary hearing that he found a bloody glove on Simpson’s property.

Since then, Fuhrman has come under attack, and prosecutors hope to limit how far the defense can go in its efforts to undermine the detective’s credibility.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.

* THE SPIN: Reporters coming back after a holiday break get the big story they had been craving. B1

The Simpson Case

* A package of photos, articles, and other background information on the Simpson trial is available from TimesLink, the new on-line service of the Los Angeles Times.

Details on Times electronic services, B4.