Judge Reduces Simpson Jury Pool

Acknowledging that it will be tough to find 20 Los Angeles County citizens completely neutral on the O.J. Simpson trial, a judge launched the second phase of jury selection Friday by excusing only those candidates with serious prejudicial bias.

He kept several panelists who indicated strong opinions about the case, including one woman who said she was 90% sure Simpson is guilty of killing his ex-wife and Ronald Lyle Goldman. A man suspicious of a police cover-up in the case also made it to the next stage, as did a man who found it tough to believe a single murderer could have carried out the slayings.

In fact, Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki made it clear he would retain just about anybody who promised they could set aside their preconceptions and decide the case solely on the evidence presented to them at trial.

*

Most vowed to do just that. “In my mind, my feelings are that the score is zero-zero,” one man said. “It’s a new playing field, is the way I think of it,” a woman agreed.

Simpson, appearing in court for the first time during his civil case, did not attempt to greet the jurors or catch their eyes, as he had during the criminal trial. But he watched the proceedings attentively, sometimes nodding his head, sometimes leaning over to whisper with his lawyers or his sister, Shirley Baker, who sat in the first row of the audience.

A few seats over, Fred Goldman assessed the jurors with his legal team. Like Simpson, he showed little reaction to the panelists, even though some ripped into him personally. But Goldman did jot notes on the candidates, passing some folded slips of paper to his wife, Patti, and daughter, Kim.

A few dozen hecklers greeted the parties on their way into court, including several anti-Simpson protesters shouting “DNA! DNA!” and one hollering, “O.J. is a murderer!” Inside the courthouse, sheriff’s deputies stepped up security measures. They directed Simpson and all attorneys, as well as journalists, through a metal detector and bag search before allowing them into Fujisaki’s Department Q.

Of the 19 jurors processed Friday, Fujisaki dismissed nine, including one who described Goldman as “greedy” and out for “money, money and more money,” and another who said he thought Goldman was vindictive and had an “obsession to get . . . O.J.” Several were excused without even being questioned, as both the defense and the plaintiffs agreed that their written answers to a lengthy questionnaire revealed entrenched bias.

*

Fujisaki ordered 10 candidates on to the next phase--a general questionnaire about their attitudes toward domestic violence, racism, celebrity and other topics. That group included three black men and a black woman. Polls have consistently shown that blacks are far more likely to think Simpson innocent and to believe the defense theory that a racist officer framed him, and Baker has served notice that he is monitoring the jury pool’s demographics.

When the session opened Friday, Fujisaki warned the lawyers not to try to sway panelists their way, saying “now is not the time to indoctrinate the jurors.” But Baker did manage to slip in a bit of advocacy.

Adopting a more informal, conversational style of questioning than the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Baker leaned against the railing of the jury box or put his hands in his pockets in a relaxed manner, instead of standing stiffly at the podium. At one point, emphasizing his contention that Simpson’s flight from arrest in no way indicated guilt, he loaded his voice with sarcasm and asked a skeptical candidate: “[You thought] he was running from police at 35 mph?” Later, he emphasized that the plaintiffs, not the defense, have the burden of proof, saying: “Mr. Simpson has nothing to prove. Nothing to prove.”

*

Jurors who made the cut Friday included a young white woman who seemed disturbed at the domestic violence that marred the 17-year relationship between O.J. and Nicole Simpson, and another who said she thought Simpson showed “bad taste” when he made a video proclaiming his innocence. “To make money from a bad situation, I really don’t agree with,” she said.

Civil attorney Deborah David, who often handles cases in Santa Monica, said she was not surprised by Fujisaki’s attempt to keep as many people as possible on the panel. Alarmed by a shortage of jurors, she said, judges often try to give candidates the benefit of the doubt. “If people say, ‘Yes, I can put aside my opinion that he’s a murderer or that he’s the greatest football player in the history of America,’ they probably will not be excused,” David said.