THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : L.A. County Moves to Ease Trial Costs : Courts: Supervisors ask Judge Ito to bill the media for a share of the expense of televising the double murder trial. Broadcasters vow to fight the plan.

In a unique move designed to ease the county’s financial woes, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to ask Judge Lance A. Ito to bill the media for a share of the costs of televising the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Relying on a legal opinion from county lawyers, the supervisors contend that much of the costs of trying the Simpson case are being driven by frenzied publicity and should not be borne solely by taxpayers.

The board did not suggest a specific dollar amount or percentage of costs associated with the broadcast of the trial. That analysis presumably would have to be ordered by Ito, should he grant the board’s request.

But supervisors singled out the sequestering of the jury as an action that was likely driven, in part, by the gavel-to-gavel television coverage of the trial.

Court spokeswoman Jerrianne Hayslett said Ito received a copy of the county’s request after Tuesday’s court session and was studying it. She said Ito has previously expressed interest about costs from the trial that could be borne by the media.

A representative from a local broadcasting group promised a fight if Ito agrees with the county.

“As soon as the next step is taken, we will respond with our attorney in court,” said Sylvia Teague, president of the Radio and Television News Assn. of Southern California and managing editor at KCAL Channel 9.

The Simpson case has cost the county nearly $2.5 million, including nearly $198,000 to house, feed and protect the jury. Sheriff Sherman Block has advised the board that his department will need to spend nearly $1.6 million more over the next four months for security costs related to the trial.

The case’s spiraling costs come as the cash-strapped county is searching for ways to reduce spending to close a $600-million budget hole.

“Understand, we are not trying to hurt television stations,” said Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. “We are not trying to take away their profits, we just want a part of it.”

Aside from injecting the county’s elected officials into the thicket of the Simpson trial, Tuesday’s action was also fraught with public policy and constitutional implications, as media representatives who objected to the plan were quick to point out.

“I’m not sure where the idea comes from that counties should profit from trials just because private business does,” media attorney Kelli Sager told the board. “There is a serious conflict of interest here that is not covered.”

The proposal would set up a situation, Sager argued, where the county, for whom prosecutors work, could conceivably be perceived as “prolonging a trial because the longer it takes, the more money (the county) would make.”

The board submitted its request to Ito after hearing from its legal counsel, DeWitt Clinton.

“As a principle of law, the public and press have a right to attend a trial in this county, but there is no constitutional right to televise it,” Clinton said. “We believe . . . the trial judge has discretion to determine what costs the county and its courts are suffering and to pass along those costs to the parties televising the trial.”

The board also approved setting up a task force to probe other ways of profiting from future high-profile trials. One such proposal discussed calls for installing county-owned video equipment in courts and then selling the rights to live video feeds.