Jury Picked for Simpson Civil Trial

Seven women and five men were sworn in Thursday to serve as jurors for the O.J. Simpson civil trial--a group dominated by whites but including several panelists who seem receptive to defense arguments that police planted or contaminated evidence.

The jury charged with determining whether Simpson was responsible for the 1994 slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman includes eight whites, two blacks, a Latina and a Jamaican immigrant who described himself as half black, half Asian.

Many analysts have long considered the racial makeup of the panel to be crucial, since national polls--and extensive questioning of jury candidates--indicate that blacks are more likely to support Simpson while whites are more prone to pronounce him a killer. The jury that acquitted Simpson of murder charges in the criminal trial was composed of nine blacks, two whites and one Latino.

But the majority of jurors sworn in Thursday insist they have no firm views. The only four to express even tentative conclusions about Simpson’s culpability are white: Two said the former football star was probably guilty, one said he was probably innocent, and another ventured that he was “possibly guilty and possibly framed” for the nighttime knife attack on South Bundy Drive in Brentwood.

The jurors, who will return Tuesday morning for opening statements, range in age from their late 20s to their 70s, with occupations as diverse as mail carrier, aspiring firefighter and stage manager for a nonprofit theater. They include:

* An elderly white woman, a retired banker, who told lawyers she would not be able to follow technical testimony about DNA blood tests. “It would go over my head,” she told them.

* A soft-spoken Latino woman who recalled seeing a photo of Nicole Brown Simpson’s bruised, puffy face during the criminal trial, and thinking, “That’s a bad relationship.”

* A middle-aged black man who acknowledged that he had been involved in scuffles with an ex-wife. Saying “it takes two to tango,” he suggested that Nicole may have provoked O.J. Simpson into physical confrontations.

During the afternoon session--hours after he had been sworn in as a juror and dismissed until next week’s opening statements--that man returned to the courtroom for a closed-door session with the judge and attorneys. He emerged to take a seat with the alternates in the jury box. There was no official word about the subject of his private conference or about whether his appointment was being challenged.

Court spokeswoman Jerrianne Hayslett would say only that “right now, we’re having jury problems.” She added that “there’s still a 12-person jury”--and since no one else was sworn in, it appeared she was referring to the original panel, including the man who had been summoned to the judge’s chambers.

Tension flared earlier during the jury selection process when the defense called for a mistrial, arguing that the plaintiffs were systematically removing African American candidates from the panel. “It’s absolutely obvious what’s going on here,” defense lawyer Robert Blaiser argued.

Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki, however, ruled that the plaintiffs had valid, nonracial reasons for excusing those particular panelists.

The plaintiffs ended up dismissing six potential jurors, all black, while the defense bumped four, all white. Lawyers from both sides could have exercised additional “peremptory challenges” to excuse objectionable panelists and try to shape the panel more to their liking. But they chose to accept some panelists with unfavorable views, recognizing that in civil cases it only takes a 9-3 vote to win a verdict.

They also retained on the panel a white woman who had bumped into Simpson in a shoe store 10 years ago and chatted with him about which brand of tennis sneakers offered good support. Though she insisted she had an open mind, the woman acknowledged that when she first heard about the slayings, she thought Simpson could not have committed them because he was so personable. She also expressed indignation that “the media and most people convicted Mr. Simpson right from the start and forgot about being innocent until proven guilty.”

As the woman described her shoe-store encounter, Simpson looked up at her and laughed. But over the last few days, he largely has avoided watching the candidates, instead concentrating on reading a draft of his lawyer’s opening statement and reviewing a transcript of his deposition.

Los Angeles attorney Larry Feldman, a respected courtroom litigator, said the defense might have good tactical reasons for keeping Simpson from trying to bond with jurors too soon. “You have to be subtle,” he said. “If the jury thinks you’re trying to curry their favor in a rehearsed manner, they will resent it. This is a long trial--he has plenty of time to make eye contact later on.”

Although many of the attorneys, reporters and analysts involved in the case have focused on race as an obvious flash point, most of the jurors who landed on the panel insisted they did not see the trial or any of its participants in racial terms. A few did, however, acknowledge that they’re concerned that whatever verdict they reach could spark outrage in one community or another.

“If there’s an unpopular verdict, people go crazy and it means loss of life,” said the elderly black woman, a widow whose husband worked as a parole officer. A young white woman, asked if she thought the verdict could affect race relations, answered “maybe.”

Given those nagging fears, Oakland-based civil rights attorney John Burris said: “You wonder what kind of justice you’re going to get. . . . Someone’s going to have to really be a leader on this panel to make sure those concerns don’t prevail.”

When they rose to take their oath, the 12 jurors looked somewhat awed--and slightly daunted. Whispering and smiling to one another, they filed out of the courtroom shortly before noon, after Fujisaki warned them to refrain from talking or learning about any aspect of the case. Fujisaki then moved on to selecting eight alternates, telling the candidates there was a good chance they would be called upon to join the jury.

During the criminal trial, 10 alternates replaced jurors who were sick or were disqualified for various reasons. Although the civil trial jury is not sequestered as the criminal jury was, the trial is expected to last at least four months, and Fujisaki said some of the regular jurors might be forced to bow out.

Meanwhile, other developments in the Simpson case unfolded outside the courtroom.

Plaintiff Fred Goldman announced he will quit his marketing job to take a $100,000-a-year post with the Safe Streets Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based organization dedicated to reforming the criminal justice system and implementing harsher sentencing laws.

And the California Bar Assn. disclosed it has opened a preliminary investigation into whether Simpson’s longtime friend and lawyer Robert Kardashian violated attorney-client confidentiality laws.

The bar did not say what precipitated the investigation, but legal experts believe it stems from Kardashian’s acknowledged role as a key source for the new book “American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defense,” and from statements Kardashian made during an interview on ABC television last week.

During the interview with Barbara Walters, Kardashian acknowledged that Simpson had failed a polygraph examination months before the criminal trial; said the defense removed a nude photo of Simpson’s girlfriend Paula Barbieri and put up a poster of a black girl in Simpson’s house before the jury visited; and said several members of the defense team--including lead attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.--had doubts about Simpson’s innocence, primarily because of the DNA evidence.

Loyola Law School Dean Laurie Levenson said all those statements appeared to violate the California statute that reads: “It is the duty of an attorney . . . to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”

“I think it is fair to say that Mr. Kardashian has met neither the letter nor the spirit of that law,” Levenson said.

Kardashian’s lawyer, Janet Levine, said she was “trying to find out what, if any, allegations have been made at this time.”

Times staff writers Duke Helfand and Henry Weinstein contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Simpson Jury

Twelve people were sworn in Thursday as jurors in the O.J. Simpson civil trial. Eight alternate jurors still must be selected.

SEAT 1: Jamaican immigrant in his 20s, half black, half Asian. Letter carrier. Bachelor’s degree from Cal State State Fresno. No opinion about the case. “I never really got wrapped up in it,” he said.

SEAT 2: White woman in her 70s. Thinks Simpson is “probably not guilty.” Thought it was “peculiar” that the bloody glove did not fit Simpson, and said there was not enough evidence to convict him. Said she would not be able to understand DNA.

SEAT 3: White man in his 30s. Studying to be a firefighter. Has taken both sides of the case in discussions with his family. “If there was any opinion I had at all,” he said, “it was just a worry for the children now that they no longer have a mother.”

SEAT 4: White woman in her 20s or 30s. Store manager. Had vague impression that evidence might have been tampered with. Said she was concerned the verdict could affect race relations in the country, but promised to judge fairly and “not worry about what the nation would think.”

SEAT 5: White woman in her 30s. Stage manager for a nonprofit theater. Said Simpson was “probably guilty, but who knows.” A police conspiracy to frame him was “unlikely, but anything’s possible.” Heard some evidence was mishandled.

SEAT 6: Latina in her 40s. Police investigation was “not too thorough . . . you kept hearing that people were sloppy.” Called relationship between O.J. and Nicole Simpson “dysfunctional.” No other opinions.

SEAT 7: Black woman in her 60s. Has been victim of several crimes--two robberies and a car theft. Asked about her attitude toward police, she said: “I still trust them.” Not convinced of Simpson’s innocence, but said: “Mr. Simpson is a human being and you wonder if he could commit such a horrible crime.”

SEAT 8: White man in his 40s or 50s. Stopped watching criminal trial early on because “there were other things in the world.” Thought police gave Simpson preferential treatment by following him from a distance throughout the slow-speed Bronco chase.

SEAT 9: Black man in his 50s. Served 20 years in the military. Used to get in shoving matches with ex-wife and girlfriend. Believes police covered something up. Thought Denise Brown’s testimony was inaccurate. Said Nicole Simpson might have initiated fights with O.J. Simpson.

SEAT 10: White woman in 50s. Called evidence “muddy,” with “a lot of empty spaces.” Complained that in criminal trial, “the defense never came up with anything positive. I expected more. Everything seemed to be guesswork, not facts.”

SEAT 11: White woman in 30s. Lives near Bundy Drive. Said Simpson was “possibly guilty and possibly framed.” Asked about police planting evidence, she responded: “I believe anything is possible.”

SEAT 12: White man in 50s. Father was a police officer. At first, thought “a man like [Simpson] wouldn’t do something like that.” Did not see any “definite evidence” pointing toward Simpson, but concluded he was probably guilty “because there didn’t seem to be any other answer.”