With Trial at Risk, Ito Sends Issue of Tapes to Another Court : Simpson trial: Prosecution wants judge removed from case, saying Fuhrman’s alleged comments about Ito’s wife create conflict of interest. Defense objects vehemently.

The murder trial of O.J. Simpson was suddenly thrown into chaos Tuesday as a set of audiotaped interviews with former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman exploded across the case, forcing the judge to send the issue, and possibly the entire trial, to another court--and casting a new dark cloud over the reputation of the Los Angeles Police Department.

“Just when you thought we couldn’t have anything crazier happen,” said Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, who presided over a helter-skelter and emotional court day that ended with the trial at risk of disintegrating.

According to sources and transcripts of court hearings, the audiotapes include dozens of inflammatory comments by Fuhrman, who derides women and minorities and boasts of beating suspects and manufacturing evidence. The comments that threaten to derail the trial, however, are his disparaging references to Capt. Margaret York, the highest-ranking woman in the LAPD and, in a coincidence with grave implications for the Simpson trial, also the wife of Judge Ito.

Concerned about the appearance of a conflict, prosecutors argued that Ito could no longer supervise issues related to Fuhrman--and said that as a result, he must step aside altogether. The latter course, which Ito will consider this morning, could force a long delay in the trial or even trigger a mistrial, though prosecutors insisted that they wanted to avoid that outcome.

Defense attorneys, who are fighting to keep Ito on the case, are preparing to contest any attempt to end the trial prematurely unless Simpson would be freed as a result.

Caught in an avalanche of legal argument and personal drama, Ito took a long lunch break to contemplate his options. When he returned, he appeared subdued and said he had reluctantly concluded that another judge should make the decision about the admissibility of the taped interviews and about the question of whether Capt. York might be called as a prosecution witness to rebut the comments by Fuhrman.

“I love my wife dearly, and I am wounded by criticism of her,” said Ito, his voice low and husky and his delivery halted by emotion. He paused for several seconds, doodling on a white pad of paper and struggling for composure.

“As any spouse would be,” he then added quietly.

After another pause, Ito continued: “I think it is reasonable to assume that that could have some impact.”

The tapes, which defense attorneys and prosecutors have reviewed in recent days, have quickly and dramatically reshaped the dimensions of the trial in which Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. LAPD officials have begun trying to assess their importance, and both sides are frantically trying to react to their revelations--defense attorneys to extract maximum advantage and prosecutors to contain the damage.

“This is a blockbuster!” Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Simpson’s lead trial lawyer, thundered during an impassioned morning court session without the jury present. “This is a bombshell! This is perhaps the biggest thing that’s happened in any case in this country in this decade, and they [prosecutors] know it. They’ve got to face up to it.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark countered by accusing defense lawyers of introducing “one of the biggest red herrings in the history of jurisprudence” in their attempt to persuade the jury that Fuhrman’s statements had bearing on Simpson’s guilt or innocence.

Clark did not, however, make much of an attempt to defend the officer. In fact, she told Ito that the prosecution was willing to stipulate that the detective, contrary to his sworn testimony during the trial, did in fact use the term nigger in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

Fuhrman testified that he never had used the word during the past 10 years, but the tapes include dozens of instances in which he says it--at least 30, by Cochran’s count. Faced with that evidence, Clark conceded that point but argued that the contradiction does not taint the rest of the prosecution’s case, which is based on hundreds of pieces of evidence and scores of witnesses.

“I’m not saying that Mark Fuhrman should be painted as a god or hero,” she said. “But he’s no critical witness.”

Use of Epithets Reported

Although the former detective’s comments about York are what thrust the trial into disarray Tuesday, defense attorneys are far more interested in other sections of the interviews, which span a period from 1985 to last summer.

On those tapes, Fuhrman repeatedly uses racial epithets, boasts of fabricating evidence and asserts that he pulls over blacks driving fancy cars--referring, in one instance, to “a nigger in a Porsche,” according to Cochran, who said Fuhrman also disparaged black City Council members, judges and defense lawyer Robert L. Shapiro, whom the detective allegedly referred to as a “Jew.”

One particularly alarming interview includes his reference to an investigation of the shooting of an officer in the Hollenbeck Division in which he claims officers “beat the people until their faces [turned] to mush,” Cochran said in court transcripts released Tuesday.

In describing that incident, Cochran said Fuhrman told his interviewer that the officers had “so much blood on their uniforms they [had] to come out and they [had] to spray themselves down with hoses.”

No hard evidence has surfaced so far to suggest that those incidents actually took place, and Clark argued that they reflect the grandiose boasts of an egocentric detective, not an accurate historical rendering of life in the LAPD.

Fuhrman, she said in a transcript of a hearing that was released Tuesday, spends a lot of time “puffing and blowing. I mean, he is really, he postures a lot, judge.”

The interviews, she added, include “a lot of exaggerating for the purpose of a book of fiction.”

That has long been the position of Fuhrman’s attorney, Robert H. Tourtelot, and it was echoed Tuesday by his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano.

“This guy is really stretching things because he wants to be part of this screenplay,” Pellicano said. “This is not him saying these things actually happened.”

According to sources, Police Department officials quietly have begun searching their records to determine whether there are historical incidents that would match the known details of Fuhrman’s account. In particular, officers are trying to determine whether any officers were shot in the Hollenbeck Division during the early 1980s, as Fuhrman allegedly claimed in the interviews.

Despite the searching of records, no such incident has surfaced so far, but one senior officer conceded that Fuhrman’s graphic and detailed descriptions of officers beating suspects, among other things, “gives the impression that all is not right.”

Cmdr. Tim McBride, the department’s official spokesman, also acknowledged that the courtroom revelations have put the LAPD in a difficult position. The department does not have the tapes or transcripts, and yet is being confronted with serious accusations about the conduct of its officers.

“From a P.R. point of view, this is a nightmare,” McBride said. “There are always those who want to--and do--believe the worst. . . . That is damaging to this very fine department.”

Indeed, Cochran said the tapes raised serious questions about LAPD practices and deserved to receive a wide public airing so that the city and nation could evaluate the extent of misconduct in the Police Department.

“The things that have happened in this case are troubling to this community,” he said during the morning court arguments. “What we’re saying is let’s get it out there, let’s lay it out. This is a search for truth. We’re not going to hide this anymore. This court should hear it. This jury should hear it. All of America should hear it.”

Exactly what the public will hear remains in doubt, but Cochran highlighted one section from the former detective’s final interview with Prof. Laura Hart McKinny as evidence of Fuhrman’s glorified self-image.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has downplayed Fuhrman’s importance in a case that involves hundreds of pieces of evidence and scores of witnesses. But Cochran said Fuhrman, who testified that he found a bloody glove behind Simpson’s house in the early hours of June 13, seemed to take a different view.

According to Cochran, whose account was not disputed by prosecutors, Fuhrman said in a July 28, 1994, interview: “I am the key witness in the trial of the century. If I go down, their case goes bye-bye.”

Added Cochran: “That’s what [prosecutors are] faced with, bye-bye. They see their case floating out the window because this is a critical witness in their case. . . . This man has committed perjury. There’s no need to dance around this. He has committed perjury, and that’s the issue.”

Ito’s Possible Conflicts Noted

Ito first learned of some aspects of the tapes’ contents during a session in chambers Monday morning, transcripts of which were released Tuesday. After another closed-door session Tuesday morning, the judge and lawyers returned to open court, where they argued the question of Ito’s possible conflict in a silent, tense courtroom.

Cochran urged the judge to stay with the case, and said the references to York were tangential to the main thrust of the interviews. Defense attorneys only intended to use the tapes to question Fuhrman’s truthfulness and to raise questions about whether he was capable of planting evidence, as the Simpson team has long alleged.

As a result, Cochran, who did not disclose what Fuhrman actually said to disparage York, offered to edit the tapes to delete all references to her, a move he said would prevent Ito from having to step aside.

But prosecutors warned that Ito faced several possible conflicts. Clark said government attorneys may decide to call York to the stand to rebut some of Fuhrman’s assertions. And whether or not York testified, there would certainly be questions about whether Ito’s ruling on the admissibility of the Fuhrman material was in some way influenced by the detective’s derisive comments about the judge’s wife, Clark said.

Despite his reservations about forcing another judge to wade into the volatile issue, Ito said he too was worried about the appearance of a possible conflict.

“I’m concerned,” said Ito, who presided over a heated hearing on the topic Tuesday morning with stern equanimity. “It concerns me because of the argument that this court, in making a ruling on the overall materiality of the tapes, might be motivated to punish Detective Fuhrman for saying these things about the court’s wife . . . or it could be argued in the converse, that the court might not want this kind of stuff to come out and would not want the court’s wife to be embarrassed or to be put through the public spectacle of being part of this trial.”

After hearing arguments from both sides, Ito contemplated his decision for two hours, then returned, heard short additional arguments and reluctantly concluded that he had no choice but to allow another judge to rule on the Fuhrman issue.

“I suspect I won’t get a Christmas card from the judge who gets this case,” Ito added ruefully.

In fact, Cochran argued that no judge was well-suited to take it, in part because the tapes feature Fuhrman leveling such blazing criticisms at so many different types of people.

“He has no respect for anyone,” said Cochran. “So I’m just pointing out to you that it’s not going to be easy for you. If you want to send it to a woman, he doesn’t like them; if you want to send it to a black, he doesn’t like them; if you want to send it to a Mexican, he doesn’t like them; he doesn’t like Jews, doesn’t like anyone unless they’re white Anglo-Saxon police officers.”

Nevertheless, Ito said he had no option but to give way. At the same time, however, he stressed that he only was yielding so that another judge could consider two issues--whether the tapes or portions of them should be played for the jury and whether York should be allowed to testify.

At that point, prosecutors seemed to surprise Ito by suggesting that once he had relinquished part of the case, he would have to give up all of it.

Ito, a hint of testiness creeping into his voice after his emotional announcement, responded that government lawyers could waive any future conflicts created by his relationship to York. But Clark, in a soft but determined voice, declined to do that, saying she wanted time to confer with her colleagues.

In another hearing, she explained the prosecution’s reservations: “Every issue concerning Mark Fuhrman is an issue that is off-limits for Judge Ito to rule on. That is a large part of the remaining case, not to mention closing arguments and jury instructions.”

Prosecution Moves to Oust Ito

Ito’s decision to bring in another judge, at least to hear the Fuhrman issues, sent attorneys scrambling upstairs, with journalists and spectators hustling along in tow. There, the gathering reassembled in front of Superior Court Judge James Bascue, whose breezy style contrasted with the somber proceeding that had concluded just moments earlier.

At one point, six of Simpson’s lawyers gathered, their heads close together as they discussed an issue. Bascue, presiding judge of the county’s criminal courts, took the opportunity to engage Simpson in some light conversation.

“It looks like a huddle, doesn’t it, Mr. Simpson?” Bascue asked the defendant, dressed in a gray suit and sitting by himself at the defense table.

“Yeah,” Simpson replied. “But I don’t get to play.”

“Not yet,” Bascue said.

In front of Bascue, defense attorneys asked for a brief delay in assigning a new judge because they wanted time to consider their options. Prosecutors countered that time was of the essence. Bascue agreed.

He assigned the case to Superior Court Judge John H. Reid, who waded into the most hotly contested legal issue of the trial with barely any warm-up.

“This is a subject that in all honesty I’ve never had come before me, and never heard of coming before the court,” Reid said of the complicated recusal issues.

Acknowledging that it would take some time to get up to speed, Reid said he was receiving that afternoon the transcripts and tapes relevant to the Fuhrman debate. He added that he hopes to schedule a meeting with the lawyers Friday.

That concluded the session in Reid’s courtroom, and once again, the legal and media horde shuffled back downstairs to Ito’s courtroom. There, Clark addressed Ito again, her tone mild but her words defiant.

“It would appear, based on consultation with everyone, that the only road to take is not to waive any matters . . . and to proceed with a complete recusal from this point forward,” she said.

“You sure you want to do that?” Ito asked.

“This has been the subject of continual and ongoing discussion in the office, your honor,” Clark responded, asking for the night to consider the matter further and to draft a written motion.

Ito, his stewardship of the case in doubt, agreed to the delay and then brought the jury into his courtroom for the first time all day. He apologized profusely for the delay and warned them that it might continue into today. When he cryptically told the panel that the issue was a personal one that could affect his continued oversight of the case, one juror, a middle-aged black man in the front row, slumped forward, resting his cheek in his right hand.

Other members of the panel stared straight ahead, meeting Ito’s gaze as he warmly and genially addressed them.

Outside court, defense attorneys accused their counterparts of orchestrating an unethical and cynical attempt to oust Ito from the case seven months after the jury was sequestered and testimony launched. The reason, according to Simpson’s team: Prosecutors fear they are losing and are willing to try anything to regain the upper hand.

“Today, the wheels came off the wagon of their case,” Cochran said. “And all America saw it.”

Clark and her colleagues saw the matter differently. Noting that the defense brought the Fuhrman tapes forward and pressed the issue even after the prosecution offered to concede that Fuhrman had used the much-disputed racial epithet, Clark accused the Simpson team of intentionally running the case aground.

“The defense has brought this to a head,” she said. “They have played the race card. . . . They have opened Pandora’s box.”

Times staff writer Tim Rutten contributed to this article.