Ex-Simpson Jurors’ Views Differ Sharply : Conference: Willie Cravin calls D.A.’s case ‘weak’ and says glove demonstration undermined the impact of the DNA evidence.

Dismissed O.J. Simpson juror Willie Cravin on Saturday labeled the prosecution’s case “weak” and suggested that the recent in-court glove demonstration by prosecutors could provide ample reasonable doubt to support a not guilty verdict.

Speaking in Downtown Los Angeles at a one-day conference sponsored by minority journalists, the 54-year-old postal supervisor also hinted at--but offered no concrete evidence of--the presence of a snitch among jurors or perhaps among deputies assigned to guard jurors in the Hall of Fame football player’s murder trial.

In forceful language, Cravin, who is black, also condemned what he termed a two-tiered criminal justice system, one for whites and another for African Americans. He cited as an example a Korean-born grocer who shot and killed black teen-ager Latasha Harlins in 1991 and was sentenced to probation. He contrasted that with a man who received a 30-day jail sentence for kicking a dog.

On a dais with him sat fellow dismissed juror Jeanette Harris, who described sequestration as like being “a prisoner.” The 38-year-old job counselor recalled family members, including her children, having to be searched whenever they visited. She also recounted an incident in which, she said, deputies mistreated her 70-year-old father and detained him until visitation was over even though he had another appointment.

In an hourlong panel discussion, Harris also attempted to clarify remarks she had made concerning Simpson’s innocence after she was excused from the jury April 5. Harris had been portrayed as believing in Simpson’s innocence after her dismissal for allegedly failing to disclose her involvement in an incident of domestic abuse. But she explained Saturday that she simply buys into what the Constitution requires: that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson is guilty.

“It doesn’t mean I see Mr. Simpson as innocent,” Harris said. “It means I presume he’s innocent. And there’s a big difference.”

Since his dismissal from the jury June 5, Cravin’s publicly stated views on Simpson’s guilt or innocence seem to have taken a twist or two: The day of his ouster for allegedly being intimidating to at least one other juror, Cravin told reporters the prosecution had been “doing a pretty good job,” although he believed some defense lawyers were “pretty sharp” too.

In a subsequent interview with The Times, Cravin said he had not heard enough evidence to convict Simpson, even after hearing some of the prosecution’s most compelling DNA evidence. On Saturday, Cravin said the “prosecution’s case was weak. . . . They botched a lot of the witnesses they brought on the stand.”

Although the DNA blood evidence constituted the strongest part of the prosecution’s case, Cravin said, whatever the government gained was lost when prosecutors had Simpson try on the murderer’s bloodstained gloves and he appeared to struggle to get them on. “ Those were the killer’s gloves,” said Cravin, who was no longer on the panel the day of the glove demonstration and did not view it firsthand.

Saying he believed that the prosecution may have “an informant somewhere on the panel,” Cravin recalled an incident where another juror remarked to him about the length of Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark’s skirt. The next day, he said, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito admonished jurors to avoid commenting on anyone’s clothing.

“If there was any investigating [of the jury] that was going on,” he said, “I think it was by the prosecution.”

Prosecutors have strongly denied defense claims of jury manipulation.