Ito Says Jury Can Hear Stalking, Abuse Claims : Simpson case: Ruling is major victory for prosecution. Judge drops two jurors; defense team heals its internal rift.

Handing prosecutors in the trial of O.J. Simpson their most important victory to date, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito ruled Wednesday that they may tell the jury about more than a dozen incidents in which the former football star allegedly beat, frightened and stalked Nicole Brown Simpson during their tempestuous relationship.

The ruling came on a day in which defense attorneys publicly announced that they had mended an embarrassing rift. Also Wednesday, Ito dismissed two jurors and ruled that family members of the victims, even those who may testify, will be allowed to attend the trial. The flurry of activity forced a postponement in opening statements, which now are scheduled for next week.

Simpson’s attorneys fiercely fought to keep the domestic abuse allegations out of evidence, but Ito ruled against them on most of the contested incidents. Among those that jurors will be allowed to consider are a 1989 fight in which Simpson slapped and punched his wife, later pleading no contest to spousal abuse, and a 1985 altercation in which he allegedly smashed her car windshield with a baseball bat.

Ito also ruled that jurors may hear a slightly edited tape of a 1993 emergency call in which Nicole Simpson pleads for help as a man she identifies as O.J. Simpson tries to break down her door. That ruling will allow jurors to hear for themselves the sobbing and trembling voice of one of the murder victims--a potentially stunning piece of evidence that Simpson’s attorneys had argued would unfairly prejudice the panel against their client.

Ito ordered one statement edited out of the tape. In it, Nicole Simpson says she fears that her ex-husband is about to beat her up. The judge ruled that jurors should not hear that comment because there is no evidence that Simpson struck his ex-wife that night. But with that one deletion, the tape will come into evidence.

Legal experts said the judge’s ruling was potentially devastating to the defense.

“It’s a very important ruling for the prosecution because now they can show the jury another O.J. Simpson, an O.J. Simpson who is capable of committing this crime and with a motive to commit this crime--jealousy and control,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor who has closely followed the trial.

One glimmer of good news for Simpson in the judge’s order was Ito’s refusal to allow prosecutors to tell the jury about a contact Nicole Simpson made with a battered women’s shelter five days before her death. According to prosecutors, Nicole Simpson called the shelter to say her ex-husband was stalking her, but Ito reluctantly ruled that admitting that evidence would be improper hearsay.

“To the man or woman on the street, the relevance and probative value of such evidence is both obvious and compelling,” Ito wrote. “ . . . It seems only just and right that a crime victim’s own words be heard, especially in the court where the facts and circumstances of her demise are to be presented. However, the laws and appellate court decisions that must be applied by the trial court held otherwise.”

Simpson is accused of murdering Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman on June 12. He has pleaded not guilty.

The judge’s ruling came as he and the opposing lawyers attempted to clear the decks of a number of lingering legal issues so that the trial can move to opening statements. The statements had been scheduled to begin today, but Ito postponed them until Monday.

*

With both sides rushing to wrap up details, Wednesday brought a host of developments in the Simpson case. Among them:

* Seeking to signal that a bitter feud over news leaks is behind them, Simpson lawyers Robert L. Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey arrived for court arm in arm, escorted by lead trial lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who had said he was considering dismissing one or more of his colleagues if they could not bury the hatchet and give their “total loyalty” to the defense effort.

The three later appeared together at a news conference, and Shapiro said all the lawyers would work to support Cochran as the lead lawyer at trial. “The dream team,” Cochran proclaimed as he stood between his colleagues, “is never going to break up.”

* Ito ruled that victims’ family members who are potential witnesses may attend the trial, rejecting a defense argument that allowing them to do so might compromise the testimony of any family member called to the stand. Ito did say he might have some family members excluded on days when testimony may involve incidents or allegations about which they might testify. The judge also asked that an order be drafted instructing all potential witnesses to avoid news media coverage of the proceedings.

* A newly unsealed court order revealed that Simpson has at least temporarily lost many of the expansive visitation privileges that he has enjoyed while in custody. He had used his right to meet with material witnesses to work with a book collaborator, an apparent abuse of the privilege that caused Ito to cut off his other visitation until Simpson can show why he needs to meet with various people.

* As expected, Ito dismissed two jurors--a Hertz employee who allegedly had met Simpson at a party years ago and failed to disclose that brief contact during jury selection, and a letter carrier who has encountered domestic violence since she joined the jury. Those two were replaced by alternate jurors, but the shifts did not dramatically alter the racial or gender composition of the panel. The Hertz employee, a black man, was replaced by another black man, and the letter carrier, a Latina, was replaced by a white woman.

In addition to ousting those two panelists, Ito grilled jurors and alternates about their exposure to news media since they were picked for the panel. All 22 of the remaining panelists said they had tried to avoid the coverage and had not been tainted by it.

One alternate juror said she had seen a computer-generated photograph of a battered Nicole Simpson that ran on the cover of the National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid. But the alternate juror said she did not pay much attention to the photograph, and after Ito explained that it was a “phony,” she pledged not to let it influence her evaluation of the evidence. Wednesday’s hearing was the first time that jurors have appeared in court since being sequestered a week ago. Most appeared in good spirits, decked out in dresses and suits and full of praise for the food and accommodations that they have been given since being cut off from their families.

After just a week away from their loved ones, however, several of the panelists expressed concern about the prospect of a long sequestration without conjugal visits. Some broached the topic delicately--reporters were in the room and an audio feed from the hearing was broadcast nationally--while others were more direct.

Said one 52-year-old male juror to the judge: “I would like you to reconsider or to consider conjugal visits.”

“I have already reconsidered that and have directed the sheriff to make arrangements for that,” the judge responded.

Currently only monitored visits are allowed.

Of all the day’s far-flung developments, however, none had the emotional or legal impact of Ito’s ruling on domestic abuse. Prosecutors had pushed for the admission of the evidence, saying it was central to their theory of the June 12 murders.

According to that theory, Simpson went to his ex-wife’s house to murder her after she broke off their attempts at reconciliation and rejected him. Having failed to control her, Simpson decided to kill her, prosecutors allege.

They believe Goldman was killed when he arrived to return a pair of glasses belonging to Nicole Simpson’s mother and was mistakenly believed by O.J. Simpson to be his ex-wife’s suitor.

Because prosecutors believe Simpson’s attempt to control Nicole Simpson was the underlying motive for the murders, they argued to Ito that not allowing them to present that evidence to the jury would deprive them of the ability to explain the killings. Simpson’s lawyers responded that the alleged incidents of abuse bore no relationship to the murders and thus should not be accepted as evidence.

*

Both sides portrayed the debate as one with huge implications for the trial. At a news conference just before the release of Ito’s order, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti called it “the most critical ruling the court will be making during this trial.”

Prosecutors initially had asked for admission of more than 60 allegations (though some are overlapping, involving multiple perspectives on a single incident). After introducing all of those charges in court, however, prosecutors withdrew 18 of the allegations, including one based on the testimony of a witness whose credibility came under fire from the defense.

Of those that remained, defense attorneys conceded the admissibility of some, including such innocuous facts as the dates that O.J. and Nicole Simpson initiated divorce proceedings, concluded their divorce, embarked on a reconciliation and ended that reconciliation.

But they vigorously fought to keep other allegations away from the jury, and they succeeded in some respects. In particular, they won the battle to keep seven statements attributed to Nicole Simpson out of evidence because Ito ruled that they were inadmissible hearsay. Such statements, including her contact with the battered women’s shelter, generally are not admissible because the person making them cannot be cross-examined.

Six statements attributed to O.J. Simpson were allowed into evidence, however. And some of them could come back to haunt him.

One statement that Ito said he will allow, for instance, comes from a golfing partner of Simpson. According to prosecutors, William Thibodeau is prepared to testify that Simpson showed him a secret back way into Nicole Simpson’s Bundy Drive condominium.

“Sometimes she doesn’t even know I’m here,” Simpson allegedly told Thibodeau.

Ito also ruled that the jury may hear about several other incidents in which Simpson allegedly stalked his ex-wife, occasionally confronting her when she was with other men. In one such episode, Simpson allegedly spied on Nicole Simpson and a restaurateur named Keith Zlomsowitch as they had sex on a couch in her home.

Simpson’s lawyers portray that incident in a different light, however, stressing their client’s restraint upon spotting a woman he loved with another man.

*

Although the Zlomsowitch incidents are the most provocative, prosecutors also won the right to discuss the only known incident in which Simpson saw his ex-wife and Goldman together. According to a witness at the scene, Nicole Simpson, Goldman and another man were having coffee together at a Brentwood Starbucks when Simpson drove by and motioned Nicole Simpson to come over to his car. Simpson, according to the witness, appeared to be agitated.

“This incident is relevant as evidence connecting Brown, Simpson and Goldman with defendant, and as evidence of jealousy and motive,” Ito said in ruling that testimony about that exchange can be admitted.

After ruling that many of the domestic violence allegations can be admitted into evidence, Ito also concluded that defense attorneys may not block prosecutors from using such terms as battered wife, spousal abuse and stalking in their presentation to the jury. The defense prefers the less-ominous-sounding domestic discord, but Ito said prosecutors can use the more volatile terms if they wish.

The ruling on the admissibility of domestic violence evidence was the final major decision that Ito was slated to make before opening statements can begin. He does have several smaller issues to dispose of, however, and he has set aside today and Friday to deal with those questions.

Today, he is expected to confer with the attorneys about what instructions to give the jury before opening statements and he has set aside time for the installation of a sophisticated evidence-presentation system that both sides will use during the trial.

Friday, Ito expects to rule on whether the two sides may mention Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman in their opening statements. Prosecutors would like to say that Fuhrman found a bloody glove outside Simpson’s home shortly after the murders, while defense attorneys would like to discredit Fuhrman by suggesting that a witness recalled Fuhrman making racist remarks and vowing to make up evidence if it implicated a minority defendant.

Times staff writers Henry Weinstein and Ralph Frammolino contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Evidence Ruling

In a key ruling for prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson murder case, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito ruled Wednesday that evidence of domestic abuse may be admitted at the trial. Ito said prosecutors may use terms such as “battered wife” and “stalker” in their presentation to the jury.

WHAT’S IN:

* A 1982 incident in which Simpson allegedly smashed framed photos of Nicole Simpson’s family, threw her against a wall and threw her and her clothes out of the house.

* A 1985 call to a private security officer in which a crying, puffy-faced Nicole Simpson alleged that Simpson had bashed her car with a baseball bat.

* A 1987 incident in Victoria Beach in which Simpson allegedly struck Nicole Simpson and threw her to the ground.

* The 1989 incident that resulted in Simpson’s conviction for spousal abuse after he pleaded no contest. Included are letters from Simpson apologizing for his behavior.

* Another 1989 incident in which Simpson allegedly slapped Nicole Simpson and pushed her from a slow-moving car.

* Six statements made by Simpson in 1993 and 1994. These include statements from the tape of Nicole Simpson’s 911 call and one incident in which Simpson showed a friend the secret back way into his ex-wife’s home. “Sometimes she doesn’t even know I’m here,” Simpson allegedly said.

* Seven allegations of “stalking behavior,” including two times Simpson allegedly followed Nicole Simpson to restaurants with another man, as well as one incident in which he claimed to have observed them having sex on a couch in her home.

* A 1994 incident in which Simpson saw Nicole Simpson with Ronald Lyle Goldman and another man having coffee at Starbucks, allegedly stopped his car and angrily motioned for her to come over. Ito said the episode is relevant because it connects Simpson with Goldman and is “evidence of jealousy and motive.”

WHAT’S OUT:

Ito ruled the jury may not hear about:

* Seven statements made by Nicole Simpson, including entries in a diary and a telephone call that she allegedly made to the Sojourn house shelter for battered women five days before she was killed. Among the statements not admitted is Nicole Simpson’s remark to her mother that her ex-husband was following her to the gas station and while driving. Ito said that although the relevance was “both obvious and compelling” to the average person, such statements are hearsay and legally inadmissible.

* A 1977 incident in which neighbors said they heard Simpson beating Nicole Simpson and later saw her with black eyes.

Researched by Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino