Ito to Allow Use of Graphic Autopsy Photos

Jurors in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson will be allowed to look at dozens of autopsy photographs that one of Simpson’s lawyers had warned would cause “revulsion and horror” but that prosecutors said would shed important light on how the June 12 murders were committed.

In his ruling, released Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito described some of the photographs as “horrible” but nevertheless cleared the way for the jury to see the pictures, most of which depict the wounds of the two victims, Ronald Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Ito’s orders--his ruling on the photographs was accompanied by two dealing with alleged instances of misconduct by the lawyers--highlighted a day of odds and ends in the Simpson trial as prosecutors attempted to wrap up the portion of their case devoted to the scientific analysis of evidence collected from the crime scene, as well as from Simpson’s home and car.

With that portion of the trial concluding, both sides are preparing to move to presentation of evidence about the autopsies performed on the two victims, an area in which the prosecution concedes that mistakes were made but says that none of them affected the substance of the case.

In arguing that the photographs should be admitted into evidence, prosecutors said the knife wounds to Nicole Simpson supported their contention that she was the victim of an enraged killer--consistent with the theory that her ex-husband killed her as the culminating act of a violent, abusive relationship--and that some wounds to Goldman were inflicted after he could no longer defend himself. Goldman’s wounds, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Brian Kelberg, demonstrated the savagery of that attack.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the double murder, committed outside his ex-wife’s Brentwood condominium. To prove its case, the prosecution must demonstrate not only that Simpson committed the murders but also that they were deliberate and premeditated.

During a May 19 hearing, Simpson attorney Robert L. Shapiro had argued against the admissibility of the photographs, largely because the defense does not dispute the brutality of the killings, only that Simpson was the culprit. Because of that, Shapiro and defense lawyer Gerald F. Uelmen said the photographs would not help the jury reach fair verdicts.

“It would be very rare that anyone would look at these photographs and not really get sick to their stomach,” Shapiro said at that hearing. “The autopsy photographs can only do one thing, and that’s infuriate and inflame the passion of the jury.”

But Kelberg, who will handle the autopsy testimony for the prosecution, countered by accusing the defense team of trying to depersonalize the crime and leave the jury with a sterile vision of what transpired late on June 12, when the two victims were knifed to death. Moreover, Kelberg added, the photographs are especially important because both sides acknowledge that the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsies, Dr. Irwin Golden, made mistakes.

Prosecutors intend to concede those mistakes, but say that the photographs will allow jurors to see for themselves the nature of the wounds, even those that Golden neglected to mention in his autopsy reports.

Pictures Admitted

The prosecution and defense vehemently argued their positions last month during a hearing that Simpson waived his right to attend, virtually the only proceeding during the long trial that he has asked not to be present for. In his order, Ito said that he had spent another 10 hours in his chambers individually reviewing the photographs and weighing the evidentiary value of each.

That painstaking review was reflected in his order, which ruled individually on the pictures. Ito ruled that jurors can see all but five of the 44 pictures--including 23 depicting wounds to Goldman, 16 showing wounds to Nicole Simpson and five of the crime scene. Four photographs were excluded because Ito concluded that they were redundant, and he deferred ruling on one other picture.

During the arguments over the photographs, Shapiro raised particular concern about pictures depicting the gaping knife wound to Nicole Simpson’s throat, an especially graphic depiction that they had argued should be demonstrated through diagrams or other means. In two of the photos, the wound is propped open to display the depth of the slashing, which extended from the left side of her throat almost to her right ear.

Kelberg said the jury should see those photos because they support the prosecution’s version of the crime, suggesting that the assailant forced Nicole Simpson to the walkway face-down, then pulled her head back by the hair and slashed her throat so deeply that the blade nicked her spinal column.

“This is a horrible photo,” Ito said in his ruling, but he allowed it into evidence. “It has substantial probative value that cannot be presented in any other meaningful way such as a diagram suggested by the defense.”

He also allowed the other photograph depicting the wound to Nicole Simpson’s neck, using nearly identical language to describe why it should be admitted into evidence despite its gruesomeness.

Likewise, Ito found that the photos of the wounds to Goldman were disturbing but important in explaining the prosecution’s theory of the crimes.

A pair of photographs depicting wounds to Goldman’s ear, neck and throat, for instance, demonstrate aspects of the struggle that the medical examiner did not report, the judge found.

“These photos are clearly relevant to the nature of the struggle between [Goldman] and his assailant,” Ito ruled. “These are graphic and disturbing photos; however, the court finds that their probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact.”

As he left court Wednesday, lead Simpson trial lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. said some of the photos are “real tough to look at. [But] the judge ruled so we’ll deal with it.”

Cochran added that Simpson might ask to miss the court session in which the jury will study the gory photos. “It’ll be real tough on him,” he said. “It’s going to be tough for everybody.”

Harmon Scolded

In a separate order, Ito dismissed defense charges of prosecutorial misconduct leveled against Deputy Dist. Atty. Rockne Harmon, who the Simpson team said was trying to ferret out confidential defense information from defense experts. But although Ito ruled in the prosecution’s favor on that matter as well, he made it clear that he was not pleased to learn that Harmon had talked to experts working with the defense team.

“The court takes a dim view of this type of behavior, and all counsel should consider themselves on notice,” Ito wrote.

But he added that the prosecution’s efforts to elicit confidential defense material had apparently been unsuccessful, and in light of that he declined to find that there had been misconduct: “The court finds that however reprehensible this conduct might be, the prosecution has not become privy to confidential defense information.”

Ito did give defense attorneys one possible victory Wednesday, informing them that he is willing to inform the jury that the prosecution had failed to turn over a document to the defense before unveiling it in court. Simpson’s lawyers had suggested that a prosecution witness, criminalist Dennis Fung, intentionally discarded the document--only to have the prosecution present it minutes later, deflating one aspect of the defense’s conspiracy theory.

Ito agreed to tell the jury that the prosecution had violated a court order by failing to turn over the document sooner and to inform the panel that it could consider that failure in evaluating Fung’s credibility. Although prosecutors objected to that admonition, Ito’s ruling may or may not benefit the defense, since Simpson’s lawyers have expressed mixed feelings about raising the topic again and drawing new attention to it.

From the start, the Simpson case has been distinguished in part by the high vitriol between the attorneys, a subject that surfaced in Ito’s orders and in his courtroom Wednesday.

“Over the course of this litigation, it has become apparent to the court that certain counsel are given to an unusually high level of hyperbole and gamesmanship,” Ito wrote in his misconduct order, adding in a footnote: “In contrast with sportsmanship.”

In court, meanwhile, he chastised Harmon and defense attorney Barry Scheck for a series of testy exchanges between the longtime rivals. But while Ito was directing his comments directly toward them, the judge made it clear that he was also angry with Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark, who on Tuesday said Scheck had posed a question that “any lawyer with half a brain” would have known was improper.

“I sense that we are sliding here,” Ito said, speaking in a quiet voice but glaring at the opposing attorneys. “I’m hearing speaking objections, I’m hearing personal comments about people’s intelligence or the size of their brains, which I find childish and unprofessional. And as you know, I’m not wild about chastising lawyers in front of the jurors, but the next time I have to do that, I’m going to fine and sanction people in front of the jurors.”

Testimony Resumes

Chastened, the attorneys went back to the business of grilling witnesses--an aspect of the trial that sometimes seems lost in the legal arguments, jury machinations and angry accusations.

On Wednesday, a pair of now-familiar criminalists took the witness stand, one for the fifth consecutive court day and another in a return appearance to complete testimony interrupted by a family emergency. Both have already covered the most important aspects of their testimony, so much of the court day was devoted to mopping up details, a painstaking process that dragged on for hours.

That effort was further hampered by breakdowns in courtroom technology that forced delays.

Jurors seemed largely unimpressed by Wednesday’s testimony. Some spent their time reviewing old notes while the witnesses were questioned. Others glanced at their watches impatiently or rocked back and forth in their chairs.

On the stand, Collin Yamauchi, a Los Angeles Police Department analyst who has been testifying since last week, defended his evidence-handling techniques by saying they mirrored the practices of a highly acclaimed expert working for the Simpson defense team.

Yamauchi said he had watched carefully as Henry Lee, director of the Connecticut State Police crime lab and a nationally recognized criminalist, examined evidence in the Simpson case.

Yamauchi said he was gratified by what he saw: “Basically, he has a good reputation, and he handles evidence in the same way we do.” Far from resenting Lee’s interference in the case, Yamauchi said in response to a question from Scheck, he found Lee to be a “nice, congenial man.”

Lee is expected to testify for the defense later in the case.

As the prosecution attempted to wrap up the presentation of its scientific evidence, both sides resumed their interrupted questioning of Gary Sims, a senior analyst from the state Department of Justice laboratory in Berkeley. Since Sims last appeared on the witness stand, the defense has attempted to press its conspiracy theory in part by highlighting the fact that more DNA was recovered from bloodstains found three weeks after the killings than from stains collected just a few hours after the crimes.

The defense contends that the discrepancy is because the blood drops on the gate were planted by police, an allegation that LAPD officials and prosecutors dismiss as absurd.

Nevertheless, Scheck bored in on that point Wednesday afternoon, reminding jurors that far more DNA was found on the drops from the back gate and highlighting them with a quickly assembled defense chart outlining the results. Jurors snapped to attention as Scheck presented that chart, which showed that the blood on the gate contained hundreds of times more DNA than some other samples.

Sims acknowledged the discrepancy, but earlier agreed with prosecutor Harmon that nothing about the results necessarily pointed to evidence-tampering as the reason. Bacteria from the walkway where some drops were recovered could have contributed to the degradation of DNA in those samples, as could have other factors, Sims said.

Defense attorneys also have leveled the accusation of planted evidence with respect to a pair of socks recovered from Simpson’s bedroom. DNA testing of the socks found genetic markers that matched Nicole Simpson’s--only one person in billions who could be expected to have those markers--but Simpson’s lawyers contend that the blood was planted.

They have attempted to bolster the argument by eliciting testimony that various analysts looked at the socks in the days immediately after the murders and that none noticed any blood. Responding to that allegation, the prosecution has drawn out testimony of its own--the same analysts have said the stains were very subtle and hard to see against the dark background of the socks.

On Wednesday, jurors got a chance to see for themselves, parading one at a time to a microscope on the prosecution table. Each of the panelists paused to look through the microscope, some staring for almost a minute but most just taking a brief look. As they returned to their seats, most of the jurors jotted notes in their pads.

Both sides had hoped to finish Sims’ testimony on Wednesday, and Ito held the jury for an extra 30 minutes after Scheck said he thought he could finish in that time. That time came and went, however, and Scheck still was plowing through his questions.

Because Wednesday is the jurors’ family visitation day, Ito eventually cut Scheck off, reminding him that the jurors had other appointments to keep. Scheck apologized to the judge, and Ito in turn apologized to the jury.

“I was trying to finish,” he said, “but it’s a little slow here.”