D.A. Says System Needs a Shake-Up

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, after struggling through the spectacle called the O.J. Simpson trial, believes the criminal justice system needs a fundamental shake-up--and that includes lowering the level of proof needed for a conviction.

He said he also is considering joining the ranks of those who advocate non-unanimous jury verdicts and abandoning the use of juries for trying some crimes, such as misdemeanor drunk driving and felony drug possession.

This would amount to a revolution of the criminal justice system, making it much more prosecution friendly. Californians’ lives would be impacted long after the trial of O.J. Simpson has faded into history.

The revolution would be inspired by the length, expense and circus atmosphere of the Simpson trial, as well as continuing controversy involving the jury. It would require amendments to the federal and state constitutions, as well as favorable decisions of the U.S. and California supreme courts. But the scenario is not far-fetched, especially since live television has given millions the impression of a Simpson court run amok.

In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Garcetti was, as usual, cautious and hard to read. He’s pleasant, intelligent and well-spoken. Yet I always come away from him feeling that his friendly face is a mask, and you’d have to pull it away to see the real Garcetti. Although he has been a top prosecutor for years and district attorney since 1992, the highly controlled D.A. remains an enigma.

I put my tape recorder on his desk. His chief press aide, Suzanne Childs, placed her recorder next to mine. That’s what I mean by cautious and controlled.

*

Garcetti was extremely careful in discussing his views on how the criminal justice system should be changed. He’s a Democrat who will be running for reelection in a law and order era. Advocating ways to make it easier to convict defendants will appeal to conservative voters.

Garcetti contends that “regardless of what happens in this trial, you’re going to see a strong movement for some change in the criminal justice system. People are talking and writing about non-unanimous juries. Ten years ago, I was strongly opposed to that.” Now, he said, he is having second thoughts.

Garcetti said that jury reform could come in other areas as well. “Do we eliminate some jury trials in misdemeanor cases, maybe driving under the influence cases?” he asked. “Does that go up to felony cases?”

As an example of a felony that could be tried by a judge, rather than a jury, Garcetti mentioned drug possession.

“I think the real question we have to look at is who are our jurors,” he said. “Who is able to come in and serve as a juror beyond four or five days? And who are the jurors who are willing to sit for four or five days?

“There are great frustrations with our prosecutors throughout the county with some of the juries that we’re getting,” Garcetti said. “The evidence (for conviction) seems to be clear but the juries, they’re hanging up or acquitting.”

I wondered whether that was because the prosecutors weren’t doing a good job. “I don’t think so,” Garcetti said, adding that many judges agree.

He suggested that maybe race tensions are to blame. “Is there sufficient racial strife in our community that is affecting the criminal justice system?” he asked.

Perhaps most significant, Garcetti said that the longstanding requirement to find a person guilty--proof beyond a reasonable doubt--be softened.

“(People) want a certain level of competence and security, that we are convicting those who should be held accountable. But is the reasonable doubt standard and definition consistent with that desire?

“We have to look at it. Right now, the reasonable doubt (jury) instruction is really unintelligible.”

Should the reasonable doubt standard be changed? “Yes,” Garcetti said.

*

As for the trial itself, Garcetti said, he thinks Judge Lance A. Ito will be making the lives of the jurors more tolerable and that the panel ultimately will find Simpson guilty.

He said he expects “another juror or two” to drop out. “Somebody is going to get sick, something’s going to happen,” he said. “We still have five (alternates) left. If the judge has to make some accommodation, take two days off, take all the jurors to San Diego or some other place to let them have a little freedom, that’s going to be done. If we have a juror who has an emergency and it’s going to take a week to resolve it, the judge is going to give that person a week or 10 days. I think the judge will be especially accommodating.”

And how would the trial affect his own political career? After all, some of his predecessors were hurt by reverses in big trials.

“I might be living in a rose-colored world, but I don’t think it’s really going to have much effect, if at all, on my reelection,” Garcetti said. “I believe I will be judged on all our initiatives and successes in the areas of domestic violence, insurance fraud, those things, juvenile justice.”

He’s already put his fund-raiser and media experts on the election that will be held next March at the same time as California’s presidential primary.

He’s smart to get an early start. For no matter what Garcetti says, his future, as well as that of the criminal justice system, can’t escape the unprecedented influence of the Simpson trial.