Judge May Bar Key Simpson Defense

O.J. Simpson’s defense lawyers must detail every fact supporting their contention that police planted or contaminated evidence against the former football star--or forfeit their chance to present those theories to jurors, a judge ruled Monday.

With jury selection in Simpson’s civil trial set to start today, the defense must hustle to answer dozens of written questions from the plaintiffs probing its assertion that police badly botched the investigation into the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman and rushed to frame Simpson for the double homicide.

Under civil court rules, both sides are entitled to probe one another’s evidence to prevent surprises at trial; lawyers for Goldman’s father, Fred, have long sought to find out what documents, witnesses or facts the defense will rely on in claiming a frame-up.

Simpson’s attorneys tried to satisfy the Goldman legal team by referring to transcripts of the criminal trial, citing testimony by scientific experts suggesting contamination in the Los Angeles Police Department lab or questionable conduct by police personnel.

But Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki ruled Monday that that response was inadequate. “It’s as good as a non-answer, in my opinion,” he said. “All you did was refer to the first page of every witness’ testimony. That’s hardly sufficient.”

In the criminal trial, Simpson’s lawyers and defense witnesses criticized many LAPD procedures, from covering the bodies with a blanket from Nicole Simpson’s home to letting blood swatches sit in a non-refrigerated truck to allowing a rookie criminalist to collect key evidence. Those blunders and many others, they argued, could have compromised or contaminated the evidence so severely that DNA tests and microscopic comparisons would be meaningless.

As potential proof of conspiracy against Simpson, the criminal defense team cited now-retired LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman’s racist boasts of manufacturing evidence in other cases. Fuhrman, they said, was a racist rogue cop who might have had it in for Simpson. The defense also argued that at least a milliliter of blood was missing from the sample that Simpson gave police--and implied that corrupt cops could have daubed some of that blood in incriminating places, such as in Simpson’s Bronco and on Nicole Simpson’s back gate.

But though their attack on police conduct created a reasonable doubt about Simpson’s guilt in the jurors’ minds, criminal defense lawyers never spelled out exactly who they believed conspired to frame their client--or when and where the skulduggery took place. So far, Simpson’s civil attorneys have been equally vague.

Fred Goldman’s chief attorney, Daniel M. Petrocelli, has gone to court twice to force his opponents to explain their hypothesis more directly. If the defense has concrete proof of a conspiracy, he says, he’s entitled to see it. If not, he plans to argue that it’s all just sinister speculation, far too flimsy to be presented to jurors at trial.

Supporting Petrocelli’s motions to compel more detailed answers, Fujisaki indicated Monday that he was frustrated with the defense’s tactics. At one point, he complained that Simpson’s responses “only serve to confuse the issue” and “are not straightforward.” Later, he said papers that the defense submitted are “not productive of meaningful answers.”

Loyola Law School Dean Laurie Levenson summed up Fujisaki’s warning to the defense as “either produce it or lose it.” Levenson, who attended the hourlong hearing, added: “The nonlegal way to say it is, put up or shut up.”

Fujisaki did grant the defense one victory Monday. He ruled that it does not have to answer more questions from Petrocelli about its contention that the murders may have been linked to Faye Resnick, an admitted cocaine user who lived at Nicole Simpson’s home in the weeks before the killings. Defense lawyers said it is “by no means certain” that they will raise the Resnick connection at trial.

The civil trial officially begins at 8:30 a.m. this morning with hearings on various legal motions. Meanwhile, a clerk in another room will ask potential jurors whether serving on a four-month trial would cause hardship. Those who say no will be called back for further questioning, probably starting Friday.

Simpson’s lead attorney, Robert C. Baker, complained Monday that the Goldman family may be violating a gag order by sending out fund-raising letters that he said “demonize” Simpson. But Fujisaki declined to take up the issue, saying that Baker could quiz prospective jurors about whether they received such letters.