Transfer of Deputies Provokes Boycott by 13 Simpson Jurors

In an extraordinary expression of discontent that brought the trial of O.J. Simpson to a halt Friday, recalcitrant jurors boycotted the session because they were angry about the judge’s decision to request the transfer of three sheriff’s deputies assigned to monitoring the panel.

According to a spokesman from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 13 of the jurors at first refused to come to court Friday morning, the 101st day of their sequestration. They asked Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito to visit them at their hotel so they could explain their anger--which a sheriff’s deputy said was so fierce that some panelists were crying in the van as they returned to court Thursday evening--but Ito refused.

Instead, the 18 jurors and alternates were summoned to the courthouse, where 13 of them arrived wearing black or dark clothing, in an apparent gesture of protest against the transfer of the deputies. Once at the courthouse, a standoff ensued, with the jurors refusing to work and the judge debating how to respond to their work stoppage.

After meeting with attorneys from both sides, Ito blinked, canceling testimony for the day, sending the trial into chaos and raising new fears that this jury will never reach a verdict.

With the testimony of police criminalist Andrea Mazzola on hold, Ito met individually with jurors who asked to speak with him. By the end of the morning session, the patient and conciliatory Ito had met with seven jurors, some of whom sources said were emotional as they described their affection for the transferred deputies. They and their colleagues were then sent back to their hotel.

The unusual sessions, which took place behind closed doors, were attended by attorneys for both sides and by a representative of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The meetings were expected to last at least into the first part of next week and caused Ito to cancel Monday’s testimony as well.

Legal analysts could recall no prior instance in which a jury successfully boycotted a court session, and they agreed that it posed mind-boggling problems for Ito, who must somehow regain the jury’s confidence without ceding his own control of the proceedings.

“He better take three deep breaths and approach things cautiously,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law school professor. “You can threaten them all you want, but they have the power to decide whether this case has a verdict.”

As he left the courthouse, Simpson’s lead trial lawyer, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., expressed amazement at the latest turn in the case.

“In 32 years of practice,” he said, “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Who’s in Charge?

The prospect of a mistrial long has haunted the Simpson case, but Friday’s activity redoubled concern and raised questions about who is in control of the Simpson trial--the judge or the jury.

“They have exercised the ultimate right, the right not to participate, shutting the process down,” said Robert B. Hirschhorn, a Houston-based jury consultant.

Searching to explain the problem confronting Ito, Hirschhorn and other analysts looked past the normal legal metaphors. Hirschhorn compared the latest development to a marital dispute, defense lawyer Barry Levin called the group “a formed community,” and attorney Edi M.O. Faal described it as a “juror revolt.” And Myrna Raeder, a Southwestern University law professor, likened the dispute to a family fight.

“This is like a huge family squabble,” Raeder said. “It’s almost as if someone needs to bring some parenting skills to this.”

Because of that, analysts commended Ito’s decision to meet privately with the jurors and to let them talk out their unhappiness. But even as the judge and jurors met in his chambers, experts agreed that the latest developments raised anew the threat of a mistrial. Jury selection began in September and opening statements were delivered in late January.

Harland W. Braun, a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney and now a prominent criminal defense lawyer, said the jury’s outburst raised concern about whether this panel can work together closely enough to reach a verdict. With the panel apparently divided over a variety of issues and distracted by the deputy dispute, Braun said, prosecutors might hope for a mistrial, though government attorneys are not allowed to request one.

If Ito determines there was a “legal necessity” to declare a mistrial, he could do so. But if the defense objects, and Simpson’s lawyers have said they would, any attempt to declare a mistrial now could prompt an appeal. And if that appeal were successful, Simpson would go free and could not be tried again because he would be protected by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

As he left court Friday, Cochran said that despite the latest outburst from the jury, he still considers a mistrial “highly improbable.”

Jurors’ Clothes

While legal analysts mulled the options before Ito, lawyers in the case and outside observers madly searched for clues about what has driven the panel to such extremes. The expansive press corps devoted to covering the Simpson trial abandoned legal analysis and courtroom drama for the suddenly curious task of evaluating the jurors’ clothing.

Although it was difficult to assess whether some jurors meant their clothes to signal their protest or not, four came to court dressed in black, and three others were in very bright garb. The balance of the panel was somewhere in between, but a total of 13 wore black or dark clothing of some kind.

The support for the deputies included blacks, whites and Latinos, but there were some racial lines drawn in the protest. Sources said all three black men on the jury panel declined to join the protest, while the panel’s four white members were among those who backed the deputies.

Friday’s protest capped a week devoted largely to jury concerns. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Ito interviewed jurors individually to follow up on comments by an excused panelist, Jeanette Harris, who said the panel was racially divided and who accused sheriff’s deputies of promoting those problems.

Ito has yet to release transcripts from those sessions, but sources said little that was discussed gave any hint that jurors would react so strongly to the removal of the deputies.

Sources said the recent interviews showed that most of the jurors were eager to continue their service with the panel and were determined to stay with the trial to its conclusion. Several jurors, however, expressed concern about the sheriff’s deputies.

One of those who voiced unhappiness with the conduct of the deputies was a 25-year-old flight attendant. During a meeting with Ito and the attorneys Thursday afternoon, that juror, a black woman, asked to be excused from the panel, saying: “I can’t take it anymore.”

Although that prompted some media outlets to speculate that the jury might soon lose another member, sources told The Times on Thursday that her concerns were alleviated by the replacement of the deputies.

In fact, she was among those whose brightly colored clothing Friday suggested a lack of sympathy with the protesters.

One of those who dressed in black, however, has been the subject of sharp criticism from Harris, whose allegations of improprieties by the sheriff’s deputies sparked the recent inquiry by Ito. According to Harris, that juror, a 38-year-old white woman, intentionally stepped on one juror’s feet and hit another in the head; Harris said those actions were intentional, an assessment with which not all the other jurors agreed, according to sources.

Sheriff Assails Judge

In conducting his investigation earlier this week, Ito interviewed all 18 members of the jury panel, and sources said he had planned to interview the deputies as well on Friday.

But when the flight attendant came to Ito on Thursday and asked to be removed immediately, sources said the judge decided he needed to act to preserve the panel. The judge then called Sheriff Sherman Block and asked that the deputies--two men and one woman--be transferred. Block reluctantly agreed to carry out that task.

According to sources, Ito decided to request the transfer of the deputies to reassure those jurors who, rightly or wrongly, took issue with the deputies’ handling of the panel. Through a court spokeswoman, Ito said Thursday that he had not found misconduct on the part of any deputies or jurors--a statement that the judge reiterated Friday.

Ito’s action, however, immediately prompted a stinging dissent from Block, who called a news conference Thursday to denounce the judge and who publicly chastised him again Friday after the turmoil engulfed the panel in the wake of the deputies’ removal.

“I hate to say I told you so,” Block gloated, “but I said that Judge Ito acted precipitously.”

Block also focused his criticism on the young flight attendant whose Thursday afternoon appeal to the judge apparently was the protest that finally convinced him to request the deputies’ removal. “She was crying, emotional and distraught,” Block said. “I wonder how effective a juror she could be.”

Despite Block’s defense of his deputies, the flap in the Simpson case is not the first time the performance of deputies has been questioned by members of the local judiciary.

Two years ago, a majority of local judges voted against turning over the job of courtroom security to the Sheriff’s Department. One of the judges’ main contentions was that sheriff’s deputies were unsuited for the job because--unlike the marshals who then acted as bailiffs in the Municipal Court--the deputies received no special training in providing court services, including the handling of juries.

Despite a vote of judges overwhelmingly favoring marshals over sheriff’s deputies for courtroom security, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in favor of the Sheriff’s Department.

That action is being contested by Municipal Court judges, who have a lawsuit pending against the county. The presiding judge of that court, Alban I. Niles, said Friday that it did not shock him that some Simpson jurors are complaining about the behavior of some of the deputies.

“The attitudinal problem (of deputies) doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “Those are some of the same complaints we heard from judges.”

Ito Moves Carefully

Faced with the new concerns about the jury, Ito moved cautiously, trying to restore the panel’s willingness to get back to work, sources said. Although analysts commended the judge for his approach, many said the repairs may only be temporary.

The question, they said, is whether Ito can restore enough harmony to the panel that its members can rationally debate Simpson’s guilt or innocence and succeed in reaching a verdict. On that, analysts disagreed, with some suggesting that the divisions and emotions already are so deep that it is difficult to imagine the group agreeing on anything.

“This jury may be predisposed to taking sides,” said Faal, a well-known criminal defense lawyer who represented Damian Monroe Williams at his 1993 trial for assaulting truck driver Reginald O. Denny. “Taking sides is inconsistent with deliberations based on the evidence. It signals problems with this jury.”

Faal said the latest stresses on the jury also may increase attrition on the panel and reduce it below the 12 jurors generally needed to reach a verdict. Others agreed that the pressures on the jury were growing, but said that it was too soon to throw in the towel.

“Just because there may be some factionalism,” said Raeder, “doesn’t mean that they can’t put whatever divisions they have aside and consider the evidence and render a verdict.”

Police Challenged

The swirling questions about the jury have overshadowed other developments in the Simpson trial for nearly a week, but both sides are continuing to press ahead on other fronts. Friday, for instance, Simpson’s lawyers filed a motion asking for the right to conduct wide-ranging questioning of LAPD officers to ferret out any bias that might cause them to lie on the witness stand.

“While loyalty and support are sometimes necessary and salutary qualities, it is well-documented that these same qualities frequently lead to police misconduct,” the Simpson attorneys stated in their motion. In support of their request, the defense lawyers cite the Christopher Commission report, which analyzed the LAPD in the wake of the Rodney G. King beating.

The Simpson defense team asks Ito to let it engage in questioning about the so-called “code of silence” among LAPD officers.

The Christopher Commission documented such a code, under which officers resisted providing adverse information about colleagues. According to the commission, that code inhibited effective investigation of police-abuse complaints, but the panel did not suggest that officers lied for one another in murder cases or other criminal probes.

Cmdr. Tim McBride, a spokesman for the LAPD, rejected the latest defense claims, saying that Los Angeles police officers are committed to telling the truth.

“Integrity is a value system that goes very deep and true throughout the Los Angeles Police Department,” he said. “If we lose our credibility in a criminal case, we lose our credibility everywhere.”

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.