NEWS ANALYSIS : Halt in Trial Hurts Defense, Experts Say

A camera operator’s error and an angry judge added up to a potentially significant setback for O.J. Simpson’s defense team Tuesday, legal experts said.

Prosecutors had just delivered their opening statement, and defense lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. was poised to launch into his own account when Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito abruptly halted the proceedings because an alternate juror inadvertently was briefly shown on television.

“The defense has to be really frustrated and upset that the judge did not allow them to respond today to the prosecution’s opening statement,” said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson. “These jurors are going back to their hotel rooms and all that is ringing in their ears is that it was O.J.’s blood, O.J.’s blood, O.J.’s blood.”

Added Washington D.C. defense lawyer Greta Van Susteren: “I’d be furious if I were the defense. I would have said, ‘Judge, if you want to throw the cameras out, fine, but I don’t want those jurors to go back to their hotel and have only in their mind the prosecution’s statement.’ ”

Still, Gigi Gordon, a Los Angeles defense lawyer, said she did not think the defense had been hurt that badly: “It’s always nice to get the last word, but 3:30 in the afternoon is a bad time to start an opening statement. The jurors are tired; they’re cranky; they’re on overload. It’s much better to start out fresh in the morning.”

For their part, Simpson’s defense lawyers expressed outrage at the turn of events, although they did not criticize the judge directly at a post-proceedings news conference. Robert L. Shapiro flatly declared that his client’s rights to due process of law had been violated.

He also asserted that it was doubly unfair that Cochran may not be able to present his opening statement on live television, which could blunt the impact the statement will have on public opinion, which could be vitally important to Simpson’s future if he is acquitted.

Cochran said Judge Ito acted so swiftly that he did not even have an opportunity to argue that he should be allowed to go forward Tuesday afternoon.

Ever ebullient, though, Cochran said he thought he could still gain the attention of the jury and win them over: “If the jurors keep an open mind, I can remind them of all the fallacies in the prosecution’s opening statement.”

The day’s events seemed to confirm that the only thing predictable about the Simpson case is that something unpredictable will happen.

The ultimate impact of Tuesday’s developments is hard to gauge, though.

“This will be a long trial,” noted defense lawyer Marcia Morrissey. “There will be a lot of nights that the defense will have to go home without having the opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness. These things happen in the course of a case. It’s unfortunate but it is by no means devastating.”

While the postponement of Cochran’s statement occupied much of the pundits’ attention, some also offered a critique of the prosecution’s presentation.

Morrissey and several experts said they were struck by how “low-key” the opening statements were. At times, Morrissey said, the prosecutors seemed “almost apologetic about O.J. Simpson. . . . They seemed to feel they had to justify this prosecution. That’s very unusual.”

But others said that was simply a reflection of the unique circumstances of presenting a murder case against a renowned former football star with a popular public image.

The prosecution also took the unusual step of dividing the opening statement in two, with Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden starting out, followed by his colleague Marcia Clark. Darden began by recounting the prosecution’s contention that Simpson had a lengthy record of domestic abuse. Darden took pains to tell the jurors that, although they may think they know O.J. Simpson from having watched him as a football player or a corporate spokesman, they do not really know him.

In truth, Darden said, there was another side of Simpson they would see--a man eminently capable of murder. “That is the face we will expose to you in this trial, the other side of O.J. Simpson, the other side you’ve never met before.”

Darden had a particularly tough task, according to UCLA law professor Peter Arenella.

“While the allegations of domestic abuse are gripping and powerful material that clearly held the jury’s attention, Darden had to walk a very fine line between using this evidence to establish Mr. Simpson’s capacity and motivation to kill and using it to simply diminish Mr. Simpson’s character in the jury’s eyes,” Arenella said. “At times, he appeared somewhat hesitant in his delivery, as if he himself were concerned that he might be crossing that line.”

Arenella said he thought the prosecution would have been better off reversing the sequence of the opening statements. He said he thought it would have been “less risky” to start with Clark’s presentation concerning all the evidence allegedly linking Simpson to the crime, followed by an attempt to explain to the jury “how and why Simpson could be capable of such crimes.”

But Van Susteren said the order of presentation made sense. “The approach is right. You want to end with the gore. While the beatings were terrible, it’s not like the bodies lying in a pool of blood.”

Many complimented Clark’s performance. “Her opening statement was brilliant. She very methodically laid out all the evidence in an interesting fashion, didn’t use words above the jurors’ heads, did it a nice smooth pace and used exhibits to keep their attention,” Van Susteren said.

Arenella also praised Clark for anticipating several likely defense arguments, including contentions that evidence was contaminated by sloppy police work.

On the other hand, Gordon and defense lawyer Andy Stein said they thought Clark was more restrained than necessary--possibly at the urging of her superiors. “We’re not seeing the real Marcia Clark--a feisty impassioned prosecutor,” Stein said. Added Gordon: “Let Marcia be Marcia.”