PERSPECTIVES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE : A Celebrity Case Is the Wrong Inspiration for Reform : Public disgust is fixated on the unique sideshow elements while the system’s serious failings beg for attention.

Every day, I hear people say that the Simpson trial is an embarrassment to the legal system. I hear this from judges, lawyers, law students and people in the grocery store. One of the prosecutors, Christopher Darden, publicly declared that all involved in the case have been tarnished by it.

Frankly, I find these assessments baffling, even after the events of this week. In so many ways, the Simpson trial is the legal system at its very best. Excellent prosecutors carefully presented a vast array of often sophisticated evidence and excellent defense attorneys subjected it to rigorous cross-examination. An always conscientious, highly intelligent judge has presided. Both the state and the defendant have received as fair a trial as any human system can possibly provide.

Yet the almost universal reaction to the Simpson trial is not praise but shame. Why, and what will it mean for the future?

The ultimate danger of the public’s disgust with the Simpson trial is that it will fuel efforts to change the legal system and that these will be misdirected because the case is truly unique. Also, reforms inspired by the Simpson case are likely to be misguided because much of the criticism focuses on minor issues and not the real problems facing the criminal justice system.

For example, some of the criticism of the Simpson trial has nothing to do with what has gone on in the courtroom, but instead is about the media circus surrounding it. To understate the obvious, the case has received more media coverage and publicity than any other in American history. The coverage at times has been excessive, in poor taste and erroneous. Yet in general, the coverage has been very responsible. Nonetheless, it is clear that people are unhappy with the media’s performance, and when they decry the Simpson trial they often fail to separate the event itself from the way in which it has been covered.

Some aspects of the public’s dissatisfaction with the trial are quite justified. The unprofessional personal attacks among the attorneys breed distaste for lawyers and the legal system. The case also reveals the sad reality that a millionaire can get better representation by hiring the best lawyers and specialists that the rest of us can’t afford. Money buys advantages in every facet of society, but it is disquieting to see this in a system that is supposed to provide justice for all on a level playing field.

Unfortunately, other lessons--wrong ones--are being drawn from the Simpson case. It already has inspired legislation that unconstitutionally limits speech by witnesses and jurors. It has caused efforts to restrict the ability of attorneys to speak to the press. It is partially responsible for proposals to allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. Yet none of these so-called reforms deals with real problems or the serious failings in the legal system.

Indeed, my greatest fear is that the Simpson case has taught a very incomplete lesson and has masked the important issues in the criminal justice system: overcrowded dockets; overworked, underfinanced prosecutors and public defenders; a system where equal justice, especially for the poor, all too often is lacking. The ultimate embarrassment for the legal system will be if the Simpson case diverts attention from these problems and makes essential reforms less likely.