PERSPECTIVE ON THE SIMPSON TRIAL : Just the Facts--but All of Them : The jury should be allowed to hear evidence of Simpson’s abusive behavior toward his wife, including her calls to 911.

Judge Lance A. Ito will soon decide one of the most important issues in the trial of O.J. Simpson: Should the jury be allowed to consider Simpson’s 1989 no-contest plea to beating his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and the 911 tapes in which a fearful Nicole calls for assistance while O.J. is raging inside her home?

Introduction of this critical evidence should be permitted. If it is not, it will be a miscarriage of justice for Nicole Simpson and battered women everywhere. Surely if there is evidence that the man accused of murdering his ex-wife had repeatedly committed acts of violence against her and threatened and stalked her, it is relevant information which the jury must know.

There is probably no single piece of evidence in this case that conclusively establishes Simpson’s guilt. There is rarely a “smoking gun” in cases such as these. On TV shows, cases are dramatically won by the testimony of the last-minute witness who saw all or the defendant breaking down and confessing, but in most real-life trials, the jury tediously sorts through many bits of evidence which seem to have only a tangential relationship to the case. Each piece goes on one side or the other of the scales of justice and the jury must ultimately decide in whose favor the scales tip.

Evidence rulings make or break a case. Evidence is generally admissible at trial if it tends to prove or disprove a fact. While judges are not permitted to admit evidence of a defendant’s miscellaneous “bad acts” unrelated to the crime charged, evidence of prior “bad acts” is relevant if they tend to prove a defendant’s motive to commit this crime.

If the jury is permitted to consider the evidence of past abuse, the prosecution may argue that Simpson beat and ultimately murdered his former wife in an attempt to control her, to exact revenge or to vent his anger. The jury may conclude that his prior abusive behavior demonstrates his motive and plan for attacking her a final time.

The defense may argue that the prior conviction will unfairly prejudice and influence the jury and that the assault five years prior to the murder was too remote in time to demonstrate motive, intent or plan.

Allowing the 911 calls into evidence is relevant as they bridge the time gap between 1989 and 1994 and show that Simpson may have had a continuing motive and plan to harass and possibly injure Nicole Simpson. The jury should have an opportunity to hear and consider this evidence.

On a common-sense level, clearly Simpson’s beatings of Nicole are relevant to whether he had a propensity for violence.

When the news of the tragic double murder first broke, most people who knew O.J. Simpson only from sports and movies assumed that the public image of an affable, friendly man was the real O.J. and that he could not possibly be responsible for the brutal murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. However, when the public learned of their “hero’s” shameful past and heard Nicole Simpson’s poignant 911 calls, many people changed their opinion and became more open to the possibility that he might have committed these homicides. The reason for the new openness to the possibility of guilt was the recognition that a man who in the past had violently beaten his ex-wife is more likely to have murdered her than a man who had no history of violent abuse.

In 1988, California voters, sick of critical evidence being kept from juries, passed Proposition 8, the Victims’ Bill of Rights, which requires and affirms that all relevant probative evidence be admitted in criminal trials. This proposition sent a message to California judges that the voters want juries to hear all pertinent information so that they may make fair decisions.

The California public demonstrated faith in juries to intelligently weigh all the evidence. Jurors are not idiots; they are mature, capable adults, who in this case passed through not only the usual screening procedures but a lengthy questioning process. Let’s let them have all relevant information, including the important evidence of O.J. Simpson’s history of battering his wife, and trust them to decide this case fairly based upon all admissible evidence.