Jury Duty and Simpson Case

* In response to your editorial, “Going, Going and Soon All Gone?” regarding the O.J. Simpson case jurors, May 28:

Although certainly not the only factor, sequestration probably contributes significantly to the juror attrition in the Simpson trial.

Here’s a suggestion for the future: Change the regulations that set jurors’ pay. Pay sequestered jurors $50 per day, whether or not they are present in court. This would be paid at the end of service, over and above any amount paid by employers. If a juror were in service for 200 days, he or she would receive $10,000--a nice sum--but also hardly enough to compensate for the personal sacrifices that must be made. Some people might protest the cost of such an arrangement, $180,000 for 18 jurors for 200 days; but this would be insignificant in comparison to the enormous cost of such a trial. Would this help?

And how about a crash course for impaneled jurors to acquaint them with court procedures and the duties of a juror. Reports of stepping on toes, hitting each other, refusing to come to court and “dressing up” in black are hard to believe! We need some changes.

EMMA BATT KURZE

Pasadena

* Regarding your editorial on the appalling over-allocation of resources on high-profile legal cases, I have the following modest proposal:

Let the court, after reviewing the evidence to be presented by both sides, set a time limit for the trial, giving each side an equal number of hours. Taking a cue from chess, a timekeeper would keep running totals. Each side would have complete freedom in allocating their time between opening and closing statements, direct or cross examination, objections and motions, etc.

Under a time constraint, one would expect less of the mind-numbing repetition of minutiae as the attorneys would conserve their allotment for more profitable pursuits.

JOHN C. NELSON

Los Angeles

* So what if a juror plans to write a book about his or her experience. After all, that is part of what free speech is all about. As long as it has no adverse effect on the jury decision, there is no reason to dismiss a juror for such an “offense.” Besides, look at all the grief it would have saved.

GEORGE EPSTEIN

Los Angeles

* Re “Improvements Planned to Ease Hardships for Jurors” (June 1), I have a few observations of my own to add.

Although recognition of a problem and proposed measures by the court system are laudable, nowhere in the article did I see a juror’s opinion of jury duty. My own introduction to the jury system came a few years ago, when I was summoned for jury duty at the Criminal Courts Building Downtown. An hour after arriving at the jury assembly room, some 80 prospective jurors and I were impaneled for a gang-related murder trial. Four days a week, we spent four hours standing in a hot, smoke-filled hallway outside the courtroom, and three to four hours inside the courtroom sitting through the longest voir dire in recent L.A. history. Six months later, as one of the few remaining panelists of group which had grown to 160 at one point, I was “thanked and excused.”

The hallways are no longer smoke-filled, but the system remains the same. Ask anybody who has spent any time on jury duty Downtown, and they will tell you the same thing: If the courts insist on calling citizens to jury duty, they could at least recognize the dignity of the jurors. They can keep their measly $5 a day and put in some chairs so the elderly and handicapped don’t have to sit on hallway floors. Don’t call the jurors at 9 a.m. and leave them in same hallway until noon.

MATTHEW P. MACKENZIE

Temple City

* Many of the us look forward to the day when lead Simpson defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran stands up like a “real man” to apologize to lead prosecutor Marcia Clark for calling her “hysterical” (May 25), when she merely was passionate about supporting her belief in the same manner as he and other male lawyers often do. It is a clear sexist remark to call a woman hysterical when she does nothing out of the ordinary.

Women are tired of being held to higher or different standards in our society.

MARIE TAGENIUS

Los Angeles

* I cannot believe Judge Lance Ito not sanctioning Marcia Clark for her derogatory comments May 30. He has lost control of this case to Clark’s obvious histrionics and has not ruled against her in public yet.

As the father of a child with a “low IQ” due to mental retardation, I am offended by the callousness of Clark’s comments degrading the defense lawyer with an ugly aside comparing him to people with “an IQ of 5.” I hope Judge Ito will tell her to stop her nastiness, just like he advised the defense to avoid calling Clark hysterical--but, I doubt that he will.

GREGORY T. PARKOS

Venice