Simpson’s Chief Attorney May Quit, Sources Say

As Nicole Brown Simpson’s friend and confidant, Faye Resnick, completed a second day of questioning in a New York law office Sunday, sources close to the case said O.J. Simpson’s chief defense counsel, Robert C. Baker, may be preparing to withdraw from the case.

Baker, a well-regarded Santa Monica trial attorney, has expressed frustration, sources say, over not being paid and over the publicity campaign that Simpson has launched against his lawyers’ advice. The wrongful-death suits filed against the former football star by the families and estates of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman are scheduled for trial April 2. If a substitution of attorneys occurs, however, the trial could be delayed for some time.

Baker, who did not travel to New York for Resnick’s deposition, could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Meanwhile, Resnick, the onetime Beverly Hills socialite turned author of sensational memoirs, was back under oath in the Madison Avenue offices of Brown family attorney John Q. Kelly answering questions posed not only by Daniel M. Petrocelli, the lawyer for Goldman’s father, Fred, but also by Daniel Leonard, who along with his partner, F. Lee Bailey, is assisting in Simpson’s defense.

Leonard declined comment as he left the deposition. But according to other participants, Petrocelli’s inquiries elicited a number of potentially significant responses.

Resnick testified, for example that in the month before the murders on June 12, 1994, Simpson telephoned her and threatened “to kill” his ex-wife because he could not bear “the shame and humiliation” that he felt she had inflicted on him by breaking off their relationship for a second time.

In her newly published second book, “Shattered,” Resnick similarly alleges that “about a month before the murders O.J. called me in a tantrum about something--this happened so often that I can’t remember what it was about this time--and again he told me that he would kill Nicole.”

Resnick also testified that at 9 p.m. on the night of the murders, she spoke by phone with Nicole Brown Simpson, who told her that the former football star had tried to call her that evening, but that she had refused to speak with him. That contradicts the account that Simpson gave in his own sworn deposition. He testified that he phoned his ex-wife’s home to speak with their daughter, Sydney, whose dance recital both parents had attended that afternoon.

In another contradiction of Simpson’s testimony under oath, Resnick alleged that she personally observed Simpson using cocaine on two occasions in 1993. Simpson, speaking despite the objection of his own lawyer, flatly denied using any illegal drug in that year.

Resnick’s New York attorney, Leonard M. Marks, confirmed that Resnick gave accounts of Simpson’s alleged threats and drug use, and said that his client also testified that during their June 12 conversation, “Nicole had told her that at the recital Nicole said that she had told O.J. that he had to stay away from her and from her family.”

According to Marks, Resnick “also detailed conversations with Nicole that O.J. used drugs regularly throughout his football career. She swore in her testimony today that Nicole told her that O.J. had pills of every color in a jar he called his Christmas tree.”

Finally, Marks said, Resnick testified that Simpson “threatened to kill Nicole, if she continued her affair with [professional football star] Marcus Allen.”

Petrocelli confirmed that Resnick testified that the relationship with Allen “was resumed shortly before Nicole’s death. . . . We don’t want to go into the details of the testimony. She spoke at length about that subject.”

Resnick’s interrogation is expected to conclude today, but legal experts said Sunday that they were somewhat puzzled by the direction that at least some of it reportedly has taken.

Much of the testimony elicited from Resnick during the first day of questioning, the analysts said, is unlikely to be admitted at trial, since it involves conversations with Nicole Brown Simpson concerning her ex-husband’s conduct and therefore amounts to hearsay.

“It is important to remember,” said Larry R. Feldman, one of California’s leading trial attorneys, “that a deposition can inquire into a much broader range of information than can be admitted at trial. But if Faye Resnick is simply repeating what Nicole Brown and others said to her, that would be inadmissible because it is hearsay. On the other hand, if she actually observed violent incidents involving Simpson, that could be admissible. Testimony concerning O.J.’s state of mind also could be relevant.

“But what I’ve heard so far,” Feldman said, “is pure hearsay. I really don’t get it. I don’t see how they’re going to get this in. My reaction is, this is all very interesting, but I’m not sure what it adds up to. When you’re trying your case in the press, I guess the rules are different.”

Bryan C. Lysaght, a prominent Santa Monica trial attorney, agreed: “Everything that’s been reported about domestic violence so far sounds like hearsay to me, and that makes it inadmissible,” he said. “Faye Resnick’s conversations with Nicole should be just as inadmissible in the civil trial as they were in the criminal case, though any statement Simpson made to Resnick would be an exception to the hearsay rule.

“This is very odd. She can testify to what she saw, to what O.J. said to her, and that’s about it,” Lysaght said.

In a telephone interview Sunday, Petrocelli declined to discuss the issue in detail but said: “I believe that Nicole’s statements to Faye, to others and in her diary are important pieces of evidence, and there are a number of reasons and legal theories for admitting this evidence at trial.”

Goldman reported from New York and Rutten from Los Angeles.