Simpson Factor Is the Big Unknown in Race for D.A.

It is, in the words of both Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti and challenger John Lynch, “that case.”

It, of course, could only be the O.J. Simpson double murder prosecution. And all through the 1996 election season, it has served as the issue at the core of the rancorous race for district attorney.

With election day about a month away, the Simpson case remains the political equivalent of a tiger lurking in the jungle: It’s out there. But what provokes it? And does it have a bite?

Immediately after the primary election, way back in March, Garcetti was quick to acknowledge the vast outrage over the not guilty verdicts in the murder trial--anger that left him with 37% of the vote and confronting the reality that two of three voters preferred someone else.

Of course, that was months ago. But still the Simpson case generates headlines--particularly this week. The one-year anniversary of the verdicts that set Simpson free took place Thursday. The day before, erstwhile star witness, former LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman, pleaded no contest to a felony perjury charge and was sentenced to probation. In addition, two more Simpson trial books just came out.

If voters needed reminders, they are there--and there aplenty. So, according to Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, the veteran political analyst at the Claremont Graduate School, “the question for the fall election is, how intense is that anger?”

The answer, according to Jeffe and other political analysts: No one can say with certainty. No one has a solid feel for whether the election will turn on the Simpson case--for there are still far too many variables in the mix, the most important being the civil wrongful death trial underway in Santa Monica and the prospect that, though muted, it could yet reignite voters’ anger.

Perhaps the main reason that even the analysts do not have a solid hold on the race is that polling data has been inconclusive. Each candidate conducted a poll earlier this summer; each purported to show its man 10 points ahead.

Both polls included questions about the Simpson case; neither camp has released full polling details.

Anger Has Dissipated

On the campaign trail, the public has sometimes brought up Simpson, and sometimes not.

“My sense is that the anger has dissipated,” Jeffe said. “It’s been a long time since the primary. It’s been an even longer time since the O.J. verdict.”

Fuhrman’s plea, she said, could be the sort of button that “will rejuvenate that anger.” But, she added, she did not immediately sense broad outrage. Rather, she said, “I think the public is to some extent saturated with all of this.”

Clearly, however, it is to Lynch’s advantage that the civil trial has begun so close to election day, said Dick Rosengarten, editor of California Political Week.

“I hold to the theory, as a lot of other people do, that the O.J. civil trial is a referendum on Garcetti’s handling of the failed murder prosecution,” Rosengarten said. “That’s the basic premise of the whole thing.”

It’s to Garcetti’s advantage, however, that Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki has imposed a gag order on the participants and barred TV from the courtroom.

“The good news for Gil is that there will not be gavel to gavel coverage,” Jeffe said. “If there had to be a trial, better for him that there’s no TV coverage.”

The slow pace of jury selection could mean that opening statements in the case will be delivered shortly before Nov. 5, election day. That would seem to portend well for Lynch, experts said.

Then again, jury selection may drag on so long that the case may not begin in earnest until after Nov. 5--a bonus for Garcetti.

At any rate, it’s not clear that even the delivery of opening statements and the onset of testimony will produce an impact on the election.

“People have some cognizant recognition, ‘Yes, there’s a Simpson civil something.’ But until there’s a verdict in some form, I don’t think there’s a political critical mass that comes together,” said H. Eric Schockman, a political science professor at USC and author of the recent book “Rethinking Los Angeles.”

In the last race for district attorney, in 1992, voters offered convincing proof that they were fed up with prosecutors losing the big ones--after enduring a string that included the “Twilight Zone” case, the McMartin Preschool molestation trial and the state case of the four Los Angeles police officers charged with beating Rodney G. King.

In the June 1992 primary, then-Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner came in second--behind Garcetti, his former chief deputy. Reiner bowed out of the race before the fall election.

Drawing Contrasts

This past March, Lynch, a political novice who heads the district attorney’s Norwalk branch, capitalized on key endorsements and benefited from the “ABG” vote--”Anyone but Gil”--to secure a second-place finish in the primary. He got 21% of the vote and forced a runoff with Garcetti in November.

It’s tempting, analysts said, to draw a parallel between 1992 and now, to suggest that it’s now Garcetti’s turn to pay for a high-profile loss.

But they cautioned that the parallel fails for two distinct reasons:

* The outcome of the King case prompted riots. The Simpson case did not.

* The riots erupted six weeks before the 1992 primary. By comparison, the not guilty verdicts that set Simpson free will be 13 months old by this fall’s election.

Entering the final weeks of this fall’s campaign, conventional political wisdom holds that Garcetti has every advantage--the power of the incumbency, extraordinary name recognition, a healthy bank account and an endorsement list that includes 60 mayors, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Sheriff Sherman Block.

By comparison, campaign disclosure forms indicate that Lynch has a fraction of the money that Garcetti has collected. His endorsement list is short and features but one marquee name: lawyer and radio talk show host Gloria Allred.

For most of the campaign, the challenger’s strategy has been blunt and simple. In an attempt to turn Garcetti’s traditional advantages of incumbency and name recognition into a political liability, Lynch has relentlessly criticized Garcetti over the Simpson case.

Lynch says Garcetti is more interested in “prosecution by press conference” than in winning big cases. Lynch has been especially critical of the TV appearances Garcetti made to discuss the Simpson case, particularly those in the first days after the ex-football star’s arrest, contending that those appearances were inappropriate and unseemly.

If elected, Lynch has vowed, he would not comment on pending cases.

Lynch has also been critical of tactical decisions in the murder trial, saying that it should not have been moved downtown from Santa Monica.

And, Lynch said all summer long, the ultimate measure of an elected district attorney are the cases he personally gets involved in--the “signature cases,” he called them, contending that they present the true test of management, responsibility and accountability.

“Mr. Garcetti certainly would have taken credit if they’d been successful,” Lynch campaign manager Rick Taylor said. “No question. But for some reason he doesn’t want to share in any of the blame.”

In response to Lynch’s strategy, Garcetti has taken to calling the challenger “Johnny One-Note.”

Being district attorney, Garcetti has said, is “much more than any one case.” He touts specialized prosecution units and crime prevention programs and asserts that the gut issue in the election is who will make Los Angeles County safer.

“The real story here and the story we have to communicate as well is John Lynch’s complete inability to talk about anything other than Simpson,” Garcetti campaign manager Matt Middlebrook said.

“Without the Simpson case, Mr. Lynch’s candidacy would be a joke.”

Identity Problems

In recent days, comments from political experts and anecdotal nuggets from the campaign trail have suggested that Lynch’s aggressive focus on the Simpson case may well have run its course.

“This ‘Johnny One-Note,’ in the end it might stick,” Jeffe said. “Voters don’t respond to a one-issue campaign. Voters are more sophisticated than that.”

“I’m beginning to have some doubts about Lynch’s ability to raise money,” Rosengarten said. “Nobody knows who the hell he is. That’s the key problem for Lynch. While this election is also a referendum on Garcetti’s handling of O.J., still people like to know who they’re voting for,” and without money Lynch cannot buy TV time to tell voters who he is.

Taylor said that Lynch will have raised enough money to be on TV for 10 to 14 days near election day.

Meanwhile, at an August debate between Garcetti and Lynch in the San Fernando Valley, the event ended with the moderator holding six questions from the audience about the Simpson case that did not get asked--because time had run out.

By contrast, at a debate two weeks ago in Inglewood, not one question from the crowd involved the Simpson case. “Let’s move on to talk about things that are relevant,” community activist Leonard Ross said afterward. “O.J. is done. Now let’s go.”

One possible reason for the difference, analysts said, is that the Inglewood audience was predominantly African American while the crowd in the Valley in August was mostly white--and polls have suggested that whites were the angriest with the verdict in the criminal case.

Another possibility is that the passage of another month has served to dull the anger over the verdicts.

Whichever, the Lynch campaign seems to be widening its message even as it hammers away on the Simpson case.

On Sept. 19, Allred trooped to the Santa Monica courthouse, where the civil trial is being held, to deliver her endorsement of Lynch--the candidate standing immediately behind her while the TV cameras whirred.

Campaign Finances

In an interview in recent days, however, campaign manager Taylor said the race “is much more than O.J. Simpson.”

Instead, he said, “it’s about integrity and trust, the integrity of Mr. Garcetti as D.A. and the trust of his front-line deputies in him.”

On Wednesday, Lynch stood in front of the Criminal Courts Building to demand that Garcetti return $170,000 donated to his 1992 campaign by Guess, as well as $50,000 donated in 1995 by Guess co-founder Georges Marciano. He contends that such sums create the appearance of impropriety.

The timing, however, proved awkward. Only a few reporters showed up because Fuhrman’s case was being heard upstairs.

That night, in a plebiscite conducted by the non-union Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys, the front-line deputies endorsed Garcetti by a vote of 303 to 269.

The $220,000 in contributions has been properly recorded and disclosed to election officials. And Middlebrook, Garcetti’s campaign manager, responded that Lynch has a conflict of interest for taking $50 and $100 checks from fellow deputies. Lynch has conceded that, if elected, he would recuse himself from handling disciplinary issues.

Middlebrook also said he doubted that Lynch’s campaign is shifting gears. “He’s only [saying] that to kill time until the next time he can talk about O.J. Simpson. John Lynch is in this race because of O.J. Simpson and he’s running because of O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson might as well be John Lynch’s campaign manager.”

Rosengarten, however, said it is intriguing to hear Lynch deliver a broader message. The Simpson case, he said, had been “the only thing propping Lynch up.”

Thanks for the advice, Taylor said wryly: “No matter how many pundits there are out there, the bottom line is, as we say in sports radio: scoreboard, baby!”