Judge Keeps Ban on Cameras at Simpson Trial

Declaring an obligation to maintain dignity and decorum in the courtroom, a judge banned cameras from the courtroom of the O.J. Simpson civil trial Friday--and ordered all participants in the case to maintain their silence with the press.

In imposing the restrictions, Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki repeatedly cited the media frenzy that engulfed Simpson’s criminal trial. In that case, he said, he watched witnesses and lawyers play to the cameras, and he concluded that the electronic media “significantly diverted and distracted the participants” and “detracted from the integrity of the process.”

Fujisaki’s ruling reflects a growing reluctance among judges to open their courtrooms to cameras, especially in high-profile cases in which provocative sound bites, taken out of context, might sour the public’s perception of the judicial system. Judges did not permit broadcasts from the second prosecution of the Menendez brothers in Los Angeles, the trial of child killer Susan Smith in South Carolina, or the death penalty case in San Jose against the man who killed Polly Klaas.

In urging Fujisaki to add the Simpson civil case to the list of untelevised trials, lead defense attorney Robert C. Baker pointed out that the public’s constitutional right to observe the judicial system traditionally has been satisfied by merely providing seats in open court.

“[For the] 200 years of history we have had without cameras, the civil justice system worked just fine,” he said.

But more recently, judges who have restricted coverage of their courtrooms have faced mounting accusations--even from some of their peers--that they are trying to shield the judicial system from scrutiny.

“The Constitution makes it clear that the public has the right to know what goes on in the courtroom,” said media attorney Kelli Sager, who represented several news organizations, including The Times, in pushing for a televised trial. By barring all electronic coverage in the Simpson case--so far, the judge has even refused to allow print reporters to use tape recorders--Fujisaki “made it impossible for people to see for themselves and hear for themselves what goes on, which is a tragedy,” Sager said.

*

While Fujisaki banned television cameras, newspaper photographers, sketch artists and microphones, the public and press are still allowed to view and report on the proceedings. But access will necessarily be limited: Fujisaki’s courtroom in Santa Monica has only 48 seats, some of which may be occupied by the more than 15 attorneys involved in the case.

Because judges in California have considerable discretion in deciding whether to permit cameras, analysts said Fujisaki was on solid ground in banning all electronic media.

But his second ruling Friday--upholding a sweeping gag order--drew more critical reviews from legal scholars.

Fujisaki’s decree prevents participants in the case from commenting about any witness who could possibly testify and any evidence that might possibly emerge. No one connected with the case, including relatives of murder victims Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, can publicly express their opinions on court proceedings. Nor can they discuss their views on whether O.J. Simpson is a killer.

In all his rulings Friday, Fujisaki handed victories to O.J. Simpson.

In opposing cameras in the courtroom, Simpson reversed his previous stance: He had welcomed television coverage of the criminal case. As one member of his criminal defense team put it: “We wanted the public to see O.J. vindicated.”

Since the acquittals, Simpson has condemned the media for what he viewed as slanted coverage of the trial--but he has also courted publicity, giving television and print interviews and putting out a video telling his story.

With the civil trial just a few weeks away, however, Simpson moved to shut down the media circus that has trailed him overseas and to the golf course and has even tried to squeeze information from closed-door custody hearings about his children. He and his lawyers supported the gag order. They also argued against cameras in the courtroom, saying that the heightened publicity would prejudice the trial against their client.

Members of Simpson’s criminal defense team still insist that televising the first trial did more good than harm. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. has said he believes the cameras “helped probably make everyone more honest.”

And Carl E. Douglas, who also represented Simpson in the criminal trial, said Friday that in general he supports televising trials. “I get a clear sense that judges blame the cameras in the courtroom for the circus-like atmosphere that surrounded the case,” Douglas said. “The two in my mind are not related.”

*

Although Douglas would not comment on Fujisaki’s ruling, he called the trend of judges limiting access “misguided,” saying bans on cameras do little to address root problems of managing high-profile trials.

Harland W. Braun, a defense attorney who has handled numerous high-profile cases, suggested that judges have tried to keep cameras out in part because they fear showcasing the difficulty they have in controlling their courtrooms.

“There’s a fear in the judiciary,” he said, noting that Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito took quite a beating in the media for his perceived inability to take charge of the Simpson criminal trial. Some judges might fear that if they exposed their own weaknesses on television, “they would be run out of town on a rail,” Braun said.

But Fujisaki said he drew quite a different lesson from the criminal trial. He rejected the media’s argument that the cameras objectively and unobtrusively record the public workings of government. Far from being passive observers, he said, TV cameras and even courtroom artists can influence the proceedings and turn a solemn quest for justice into a circus.

Looking down sternly over his wire-rimmed glasses, he added: “History will repeat itself unless the court acts to prevent it.”

Fujisaki’s preventive measures produced a gag order that legal analysts predicted would be very vulnerable to appeal.

Fred Goldman, Ronald’s father, had requested a looser gag order to permit him to continue making speeches about the lessons he drew from the first Simpson trial--including the need to reform the criminal justice system.

The media, too, urged Fujisaki to unmuzzle trial participants, arguing that the most accurate information about the case would come from the lawyers, litigants and witnesses involved.

But Fujisaki briskly turned down all requests to soften his gag order. And he specifically warned Fred Goldman to “abide by the laws and rules” of the court, because the risk of his impassioned comments reaching--and tainting--unsequestered jurors was “extremely high.”

“From the standpoint of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it’s a sad day,” said Paul Hoffman, a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.

News organizations and the ACLU are likely to appeal, attorneys said.

They will also probably challenge Fujisaki’s refusal to release a transcript of an Aug. 13 closed-door session at which he issued the original gag order. When attorney Sager requested a transcript of that event, Fujisaki snapped: “That was an informal conference, not a court proceeding. The court reporter was only there for my convenience, so I would remember what was going on.”

Although substantive matters were discussed at the meeting--including the trial date and the gag order--Fujisaki insisted that it was not a public proceeding so the public does not have a right to review the transcript.

The judge also signaled his intention to clamp down on public review of other developments in the case, even some that occur in open court. He vowed to seal all transcripts of sidebar conferences and evidentiary hearings conducted outside the jury’s presence.

That decision goes well beyond the restrictions judges in other high-profile cases have imposed on the news media.

During jury selection in the volatile federal trial of the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney G. King, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies invited a representative of the media to listen in at sidebar conferences when attorneys discussed their objections to jurors. The designated reporter would then describe the debate to other journalists, out of jurors’ earshot.

And during Simpson’s criminal trial, television cameras were allowed to broadcast nearly every hearing--and often captured the animated gestures from sidebar huddles on tape, although they did not pick up the voices. For the rare hearings ruled off limits to cameras, Ito made other allowances. During jury selection, he arranged a closed-circuit audio feed to a pressroom so reporters could hear prospective jurors being questioned.