Goldman’s Comments Anger Judge

The judge in the O.J. Simpson civil trial Friday threatened to impose a “draconian” punishment--presumably a few nights in jail--on Fred Goldman if he continues to speak out in public despite a gag order muzzling most participants in the case.

Goldman held an impromptu news conference during a break in jury selection Friday to defend a fund-raising letter that his family has sent nationwide. On Thursday, he called the “Larry King Live” television show to argue with a book author who theorized that Ronald Goldman may have been caught up in an unsavory underworld, perhaps involving drug dealing, and may have been murdered as a result.

When one of Simpson’s defense lawyers complained about Goldman’s comments, arguing that they may have flouted the gag order, Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki exploded in anger.

“If the parties are going to violate the order, I don’t think monetary sanctions are going to be sufficient,” Fujisaki said, glaring down from the bench. “It’s my intention to seek an appropriate remedy to the situation, which I think is going to be somewhat draconian--and that’s an understatement.”

To punish Goldman, Fujisaki would first have to hold a formal hearing. Penalties for contempt of court can range as high as a fine of $1,000 and five days in jail. Fujisaki did not indicate whether he planned to move against Goldman immediately or whether he was just issuing a warning.

*

Goldman’s attorney, Daniel M. Petrocelli, defended the call to Larry King as the natural reflex of a grieving parent. The author was “on television in effect trashing my client’s murdered son, and my client called in to express his outrage,” Petrocelli said. He added that he had not heard the news conference, but insisted that his client would not knowingly violate the gag order.

It was not clear how talking about his fund-raising efforts would put Goldman at odds with the gag order, which forbids parties from commenting to the press about the evidence or the jurors, and prohibits them from expressing their personal opinions on whether Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.

From the start, the defense team has complained that Goldman’s fund-raising letter could taint potential jurors. And Petrocelli has protested that Simpson’s book and video that proclaim his innocence could be equally prejudicial.

*

To settle the conflict, Fujisaki told both sides that they could probe prospective jurors’ exposure to propaganda about the case. So far, Fujisaki has retained on the panel one woman who said she agreed with her brother’s decision to donate to the Ron Goldman Justice Fund and another woman whose father purchased Simpson’s video, saying they did not appear to be tainted by their brushes with the parties’ pleas.

But the judge’s patience appears to be wearing out.

Fujisaki was particularly irked that a potential juror might have walked by and seen Goldman’s news conference.

“I’ve put a considerable amount of effort into this case,” Fujisaki told the lawyers, “and I don’t want to see it go down the drain because the parties cannot control themselves.”

After that exchange, jury selection resumed. The judge ordered seven candidates--five black women, a white man and a Latino--to remain in the pool for the next round of questioning. He dismissed nine prospects, including a man who said he could not believe that a man could kill the mother of his children and a woman who acknowledged that she could not put aside her animosity toward Simpson to judge the case fairly.