Simpson Costs, Ito’s Sanctions

Re “Trial-of-the-Century Dept. (Continued),” editorial, March 1: My motion before the Board of Supervisors asking Judge Lance Ito to condition further broadcasting of the trial upon media payment of any costs caused or increased by the broadcasts of the Simpson trial was a necessary step to protect the taxpayers of Los Angeles County.

By the time this trial ends, it is projected that the taxpayers will be forced to write a check for $5 million to $7 million to pay for it. It is only appropriate the media assume any costs caused or increased by the broadcasts. That plan is constitutional. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nixon vs. Warner Communications there is no constitutional right to have a camera in a courtroom.

It would also not restrict TV’s right to report the trial. The stations and networks would continue to be allowed to have reporters in the courtroom, who would then recap the sessions at their conclusions, much like newspaper reporters.

Two recent high-profile trials have been covered in that manner--the rape trial of former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson and the trial of the accused plotters of the World Trade Center bombing--without any infringement on the public’s right to know. This proposal would not impact on coverage of other government proceedings, whose openness is guaranteed by the Brown Act. (The courts are exempted from the Brown Act.)

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor, Los Angeles County

Certain pundits opine that O.J. Simpson will suffer from the sanction to be imposed by Judge Ito for his attorneys’ sins (March 5). That is, if the defense seeks to use the videotaped testimony of Rosa Lopez, the jury will be informed of his attorneys’ untimely disclosure of the July 29 written report and audiotape of Lopez’s interview by private investigator Bill Pavelic. Whether the failure to disclose was willful or negligent, Penal Code Section 1054.5 specifically provides that “the court may advise the jury of any failure or refusal to disclose and of any untimely disclosure.”

Respected, competent defense attorneys as well as unknown novices all must comply with reciprocal discovery statutes, however much they may dislike them. Lawyers in a high-profile case know that sanctions may be imposed which may indeed hurt their clients. But the conduct--or misconduct--of lawyers always has the potential to hurt their client.

It is precisely for that reason that attorneys living in the fishbowl of worldwide TV coverage should understand--and they do understand--that they violate the reciprocal discovery laws at peril to their own reputation. More importantly, they imperil the welfare of their client. Whether negligent or willful, that responsibility they cannot escape.

GEORGE V. DENNY III

Former President of Los Angeles

Criminal Courts Bar Assn.

I find the O.J. Simpson double murder trial very interesting and highly educational. Among other benefits, I am improving my lawyerese considerably. The most commonly used words by the lawyers on both sides are: outrageous (the winner by far), appalled, ludicrous, reprehensible, egregious, inappropriate, disingenuous, preposterous, impugn, allegations, willful and (last but not least) snookered and sandbagged .

I didn’t know there were so many words for dirty pool.

BETTY GOODHUE

Chino