Defense Bid to Question Clark, Darden Rejected

A judge refused a request Wednesday by O.J. Simpson’s lawyers to question Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden and other prosecutors from Simpson’s criminal trial, saying their testimony would be irrelevant at the former football star’s upcoming civil trial.

Simpson’s attorneys wanted to question Clark, Darden, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti and Deputy Dist. Atty. Hank Goldberg to demonstrate how prosecutors ignored evidence that could have exonerated Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife and a friend of hers.

But Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki said the thoughts of prosecutors--including those who have written books about the criminal trial--had no bearing on the pending civil case.

“The testimony of the D.A.s based upon their books would be collateral,” Fujisaki said during a pretrial hearing. “They were not witnesses to the crime.”

Fujisaki also barred several other witnesses--including Deputy Coroner Irwin Golden--because the defense failed to disclose their names on time for a discovery order. Golden was widely criticized for the way he conducted the autopsies on victims Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

The civil trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 17. Simpson is being sued by the parents of Goldman and the estate of Nicole Simpson. He was acquitted of murder charges last year.

In related developments Wednesday:

Gov. Pete Wilson signed a law that could allow Nicole Simpson’s diaries--which contained details about alleged physical and verbal abuse--to be entered as evidence in the civil trial.

The law, sponsored by state Assemblyman Bernie Richter (R-Chico), creates an exception to the hearsay evidence rule. It permits certain written or recorded statements of unavailable victims--such as diary entries--to be admitted as evidence in civil or criminal cases. Until now such evidence was not admissible in court. The law was prompted by high-profile cases such as the Simpson murder trial.

Also, the American Civil Liberties Union joined the battle to lift a gag order barring all trial participants from speaking publicly about the civil case.

In a brief filed with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, the ACLU called the gag order unconstitutional, arguing that the measure is “so broad and elusive in scope that it will be impossible . . . for any person covered by the order to speak at all without risking contempt.”

The ACLU’s action follows a similar brief filed last week by several media organizations, including The Times, urging the appeals court to overturn the gag order.

Paul Hoffman, a volunteer ACLU attorney, argued in the 15-page brief that Fujisaki failed to demonstrate how public comments would threaten a fair trial in light of all the information that has been disseminated thus far.

“What information could trial participants impart to the public at this point that could have any significant effect on potential jurors?” the brief asks.

The appeals court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of the week.