Ito Orders Probe After Charges of Jury Misconduct : Simpson trial: Deputies investigate ex-panelist’s remarks that sequestered members had unsupervised conversations. Garcetti says truth is being sought in an ‘honorable way.’

With a new cloud of juror misconduct suddenly shadowing the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito launched a delicate investigation Thursday to determine whether the panel has been tainted, and defense lawyers vowed to fight any effort to cut the case short.

“We will never agree to a mistrial,” lead defense trial lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. said moments after Simpson’s legal team accused authorities of harassing defense witnesses. A defense motion accusing government lawyers of misconduct does not address the alleged harassment, but in the motion, the defense accuses Deputy Dist. Atty. Rockne Harmon of making improper statements in court and of trying to elicit confidential information from defense experts.

Ito set a hearing on those accusations for next week, but Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti disputed any allegations of prosecutorial misconduct: “I am confident that whatever we do in seeking the truth--and that’s the bottom line here, seeking the truth--that we’re doing it in an ethical, professional and honorable way.”

Two jurors were given medical treatment for influenza symptoms Thursday, and a third fell ill with less serious symptoms, forcing the cancellation of Thursday’s court session and today’s as well. Knowledgeable sources vehemently denied a television report that the cancellation was caused by jurors boycotting the session to express their displeasure over a colleague’s ouster Wednesday.

With the jury ensconced at its hotel, Ito met the lawyers outside the jury’s presence and ruled that a new videotape of the crime scene may be shown to the panel, a significant defense victory that prosecutors had fought hard to prevent. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the June 12 murders of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Although the judge and lawyers met briefly in court Thursday morning, much of the day’s commotion took place outside court as both sides reacted to new concerns about the integrity of the jury considering the charges against Simpson. The latest fracas arose from a televised interview that one excused juror gave hours after being released from the panel.

That juror, Jeanette Harris, told KCAL-TV Channel 9 that she and other panelists had been allowed unsupervised conversations with people not on the jury and that some jurors might be talking about the case among themselves. In addition, she said the jury was dividing along racial lines, and she accused Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies of promoting racial divisions among the jurors.

If true, those allegations could result in further dismissals of jurors, and the suggestion that sheriff’s deputies were mismanaging the panel also thrusts that department into the spotlight.

A senior Sheriff’s Department official was summoned to Ito’s chambers Thursday morning, but the department at first refused to comment about what transpired.

“There was a meeting this morning between Sheriff’s Department officials and Judge Ito,” said Capt. Jeff Springs, chief spokesman for Sheriff Sherman Block. “The judge reiterated his position that . . . the sheriff should say nothing.”

Later, however, department spokesman John Castro did say that an investigation has been launched into the allegations raised by Harris. In response to questions from reporters, Castro said the inquiry had been initiated by Ito. Although Castro would not discuss details, he did deny the allegation that any deputy had encouraged or contributed to racial divisions within the panel.

“That’s not a problem,” Castro said. “I can say that confidently.”

In her original television interview, Harris denied that she had been the victim of domestic abuse and had failed to disclose that during the jury selection process--the reason for her removal from the panel. On Thursday, however, a 1988 request for a restraining order surfaced, and it documents her allegations that her husband shoved her and forced her to have sex with him.

After the document surfaced publicly, Harris said she had forgotten about it when she was completing the jury questionnaire in the Simpson case. Although Harris said Ito showed her the document before excusing her, she did not explain why seeing it did not immediately refresh her memory about the alleged incident.

Her husband, meanwhile, denied ever abusing her.

“I never, ever touched my wife violently,” Melvin Harris said. “Absolutely, we both deny it.”

Melvin Harris added that despite her unfavorable views of some aspects of the prosecution case, his wife had not made up her mind about the verdicts before she was dismissed from the panel. “All she feels is that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond a shadow of a doubt,” he said.

In comments to reporters, Melvin Harris also backed away from his wife’s description of a racially divided Simpson jury. “The tension was based on 12 people being cooped up in one place for so long,” he said. “That’s not to say it was racial tension or vindictiveness. Tension happens.”

The seriousness of Harris’ contentions about the conduct of the jury--some of which are inconsistent with comments from other excused jurors--makes it important that Ito investigate, according to many legal experts and sources close to the Simpson case. Those experts, however, said it is extremely unlikely that Ito would declare a mistrial as long as the defense is determined to go forward.

Harris’ husband said his wife believed that no mistrial was warranted.

“She doesn’t think any of the jurors are guilty of any type of misconduct,” Melvin Harris said, emphasizing that although his wife believes there were opportunities for jurors to talk about the case and receive information from visitors, she does not know whether that occurred.

Nevertheless, given the nature of Harris’ allegations, most legal experts agreed that Ito needs to move quickly to determine whether her accusations are true.

“The judge now has to deal with her allegations that the sequestration isn’t complete,” said Gerald Chaleff, a respected Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer. “She says outside information is leaking in. Perhaps worse, she alleges that the sheriffs are behaving improperly and, worst of all, that jurors are disregarding the judge’s instructions not to discuss the case or the witnesses among themselves until they actually begin to deliberate.”

Retired Superior Court Judge George M. Dell agreed and said Ito is now confronted with a vexing and important task.

“Judge Ito is a man of infinite patience and intelligence,” Dell said. “He has a very difficult problem. It’s going to range from inquiry of the jurors (to) . . . encouraging them to do their work and let it go at this point.”

*

If Ito does conclude that jurors have spoken among themselves or with outsiders about the case, he could dismiss the jurors who violated his order not to talk about the case. Or, he could declare a mistrial.

“If the judge . . . concludes that the jury is no longer impartial, will not be able to deliberate in an impartial fashion, has violated the rules, has heard information from left field, or any number of combinations thereof, the judge may conclude it is impossible for the jury to give either side or both sides an impartial trial,” said Warren L. Ettinger, a retired Municipal Court judge. In that event, Ettinger said, Ito would be forced to declare that a legal necessity had required him to discharge the panel.

But that would raise a number of problems, especially if the defense resists, as it has promised it would. Foremost among the concerns, legal analysts said, would be the fact that if a higher court disagreed with Ito about the legal necessity for excusing the entire jury, Simpson would go free, and prosecutors would be unable to pursue their case against him because the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy would prevent them from filing the case again.

“The big question is double jeopardy,” Dell said. “If a mistrial is declared and later on the higher court decides there was no legal necessity, that is the end of the case.”

Other experts said that threat would almost certainly dissuade Ito from declaring a mistrial on his own in anything but the most extreme circumstance.

“Given the state of the law in California, if Judge Ito granted a mistrial on his own initiative--without a defense request--that would prevent a retrial of O.J. Simpson,” said USC professor Erwin Chemerinsky. “Therefore, I think it would require an extreme showing that there could not be a fair trial for the judge to grant a mistrial on his own initiative. Based on what we know now, there’s no way under the case law that Judge Ito will grant a mistrial unless the defense requests it.”

*

Harris’ removal from the panel heartened prosecutors and angered the defense, which fought to keep her from being ousted. Thursday, Cochran suggested that authorities are waging a campaign to discredit certain jurors to secure a panel more inclined to convict Simpson.

“Big Brother is doing more than watching us in this case,” Cochran said during a courthouse news conference. Although Cochran would not say who he believes was behind the efforts to bring forward new allegations, other defense sources blamed the prosecution and suggested that members of the district attorney’s office were researching jurors and forwarding their findings to Ito anonymously.

In denying any wrongdoing by any member of his staff, Garcetti said: “We’re going forward ethically, professionally and very vigorously in seeking the truth.” He added later: “I’m not going to take umbrage, I’m not going to respond to every charge made by the defense lawyers. We are going forward with our case in a diligent, professional way.”

Cochran offered no support for his allegation that authorities are behind the effort to remove certain jurors, a charge that could amount to obstruction of justice. Peter Neufeld, another member of the defense team, did not address the allegations that the district attorney’s office is targeting jurors, but he accused police and prosecutors of a different brand of misconduct--waging a campaign of harassment against potential defense witnesses.

In particular, he said authorities had been following Dr. Henry Lee, a highly respected criminalist working with the defense, and had grilled colleagues about Lee. But the defense did not include those contentions--or the allegations of targeting jurors--in its motion urging Ito to find the prosecutors guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark said the prosecution would respond to the formal misconduct allegations, those involving comments and conduct by prosecutor Harmon, early next week. Ito has scheduled a hearing for Thursday.

In addition to her comments about the conduct of the jury, Harris offered some critical observations about prosecutors and their witnesses--in marked contrast to her glowing evaluation of the defense team, especially Cochran. Although Harris did not say whether any of the jurors who remain on the panel shared those views, the allegations nevertheless were widely aired and raised new questions about the effectiveness of the prosecution case so far.

Garcetti said Harris’ opinions did not shake his confidence in his prosecution team or in its approach to the case. A previously excused juror, Michael Knox, said after his dismissal that he believed prosecutors were doing an effective job in building their case against Simpson. Knox, who is black, is hoping to write a book about his jury experience.

“We know what we’re doing,” the chief prosecutor said, citing Knox’s comments without naming him. “We are confident of the witnesses as we go forward. The evidence has been coming out almost exactly the way we expected it to come out. We are fully confident.”

Other veteran prosecutors added that although Harris’ views were no doubt disturbing for the prosecution, the district attorney’s office has still not presented the most important evidence in its case, the physical evidence that authorities say links Simpson to the crimes. With that evidence still to come, legal experts said it was too soon for prosecutors to panic over Harris’ remarks.

“If the prosecution recalls that there’s still a lot of testimony and evidence to be presented and doesn’t let this get to them,” said former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert Philibosian, “the fact that one juror has this opinion at this time shouldn’t be too troubling.”

Moreover, Philibosian said that while prosecutors obviously would be disturbed to learn of Harris’ views, they also undoubtedly would be relieved at her removal from the panel.

“It is disturbing that a juror was forming opinions at this early stage of the trial, and it would be even more disturbing if others share Jeanette Harris’ views,” Philibosian said. “But juries tend to be divided into leaders and followers. If she was the leader of jurors making judgments in advance, it has to be a relief to the prosecutors that she’s gone.”

In Thursday’s brief morning session, defense attorneys won the right to introduce another videotape into the Simpson trial, this one a clip of news footage of the crime scene. On the videotape, a dark-brown object that resembles a glove appears to be on a white blanket that police took from Nicole Simpson’s condominium and used to cover her body.

Defense lawyers have said that the blanket could have contaminated evidence at the crime scene, and the videotape could bolster that argument by suggesting that the glove came into contact with the blanket. Deputy Dist. Atty. Hank Goldberg argued that the tape, shot from across the street, was unclear and did not fairly represent the position of objects at the scene.

*

Outside court, Detective Tom Lange, a lead investigator in the case, said the tape did not show a glove on the blanket but rather depicted a blood puddle with white spots in it. Lange added that he had taken the blanket from a cupboard in Nicole Simpson’s condominium, checking it for fibers or for other debris before using it to cover her body.

But despite the prosecution’s objections that the defense sought to use the latest tape only to sow confusion in jurors’ minds, Ito allowed its introduction. Jurors could see it Tuesday, when the panel is next scheduled to be in court.

Lange, an even-tempered LAPD veteran, shrugged off that setback.

“What can you do?” he asked. “There’s nothing you can do.”

* THE SPIN: Pressure-cooker atmosphere heightens jury tensions. B1.

* JUROR FUROR: KCAL anchor did not expect bombshells from interview. B1