Ito Put Jurors in the Pressure Cooker

When Jeanette Harris gave KCAL-TV an interview after being dismissed from the jury in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, she put an unexpected spotlight on a volatile issue that thus far has remained in the background of the era’s most publicized case: race.

The ex-juror’s talk with anchor Pat Harvey on Wednesday night was the latest example of what has become a media staple--ex-Simpson jurors spilling at least part of their guts to television crews and print reporters.

Usually the shouted questions and atrocious manners of the journalists are enough to intimidate the former juror into retreat, cutting short the press conference. But Harvey’s polite, dispassionate questioning persuaded Harris to tell her story in much greater detail than any of her predecessors.

As a result, Harris, who is African American, gave her frank and surprising views on race, her fellow jurors and even the conduct of the sheriff’s deputies guarding the sequestered panel. She provided enough controversy to feed the media monster for days to come.

*

You didn’t have to be a genius to understand that race was wrapped up with this case.

A black man was accused of murdering a white woman, his ex-wife. The crime was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department, which is not especially respected in the African American community. Eight of the 12 jurors are black. The defense team has repeatedly waved the racial flag, obviously trying to influence the jury.

But despite all this, race has been part of the trial’s background noise, not getting nearly as much attention as Kato Kaelin. Now, Harris’ interview has drawn a lot of attention to the subject.

“When we were locked up, race was an issue . . . that you are not supposed to think about,” she said.

Harvey wondered whether there were racial problems among the jurors despite this admonition.

Harris replied that as the jury moved deeper into its enforced seclusion, racial feelings emerged. “You have people there,” she said, “say one of the Caucasians, (who says) ‘I can’t vote him not guilty because when I walk out of here, I want to walk back into a life.’ ” A not guilty vote, she said, would focus undue attention on the juror.

But Harris denied that race would be the only factor in the final vote. “I wouldn’t say that because a person is black that they would feel that he’s not guilty,” she said. “In my mind, I can think of a couple of jurors . . . that probably would say he’s guilty. So it isn’t a fact that he’s an African American man and we’re African American that we’re going to say ‘not guilty.’ ”

In one of the most striking parts of the interview, she said some of the sheriff’s deputies guarding the jurors are responsible for racial tensions in the group.

“There are racial problems and the deputies, some of them, not to bad-mouth the Sheriff’s Department, but some of them are promoting it, you know,” she said. “If they had a different attitude: like I explained to the sergeant, because I was really concerned about that, that I feel that they should be more professional. Some of them are not being very professional.”

Harris also questioned the effectiveness of Judge Lance A. Ito’s sequestration order, his effort to hide the jurors from the pressures of the outside world, and from any comments, by journalists or friends, about the trial.

It hasn’t worked. “You can still talk to people,” Harris said. “For example, when you make phone calls, it’s supposed to be monitored, but there are times when that would break down and anybody that wants to say anything can say it because the deputies weren’t always on their jobs.”

In other words, to hear Harris tell it, this jury is like some dysfunctional family encounter group, bound together not for a weekend retreat, but for months and months and months.

*

I discussed the conduct of the sequestered jury Thursday afternoon with an expert on jury behavior, Keith Rohman, a Los Angeles private investigator who looks into charges of juror misconduct. He said sequestration was backfiring in this long and high-publicity case.

Secrecy is vanishing as more is learned about the jurors. Skeletons, Rohman said, are emerging from jurors’ closets. This happened to Harris, who had said in her jury questionnaire that she had never suffered domestic violence and then was confronted with a complaint she once made against her husband, in which she alleged he pushed her and forced her to have sex with him.

“People are calling up the prosecution and defense with tips (on past conduct),” Rohman s aid. Despite Ito’s secrecy measures, friends, family, neighbors and enemies can figure out if someone’s on the Simpson jury.

“You can’t disappear from your life for a few months,” he said. “What if you stopped coming home for a few months? Wouldn’t the neighbors begin to ask your wife about it?”

By imposing such tight security, Ito’s goal was to protect the jurors from the press. He felt the media were the snooping villain. By blocking the media, he figured secrecy and serenity would prevail. It would be him and his jurors, embarked on a joyful search for truth and justice.

What the judge didn’t count on were the normal human emotions of everyday life.

I’m sure Judge Ito is furious about the current controversy, so alien to his controlled view of the world. By enveloping much of the proceedings in secrecy, and placing the jury under what amounts to house arrest, the judge has created a pressure-cooker atmosphere.

He shouldn’t be surprised if it explodes.