Stakes High as Simpson Takes the Stand Today

O.J. Simpson has called himself the most investigated man in America, but the questions aren’t over yet. Today he faces perhaps his most intense interrogation, this time in front of a jury and by a well-prepared attorney who calls him a murderer.

Both sides may find the confrontation grueling. And both are counting on practice and preparation to help them triumph.

At 9 a.m. this morning, attorney Daniel M. Petrocelli is scheduled to call Orenthal James Simpson to the witness stand in a Santa Monica courtroom. For months now, Petrocelli has been crafting his case against Simpson, determined to hold the former football star responsible in civil court for the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Hours upon hours of studying evidence, interviewing witnesses, consulting colleagues and typing up questions for his black three-ring binder will culminate in this moment.

“In many civil suits, the entire fulcrum of the case depends on the plaintiff’s testimony or the defendant’s testimony,” said Santa Monica litigator Brian Lysaght. “This is like talking about a burn victim--the next several hours will be critical.”

On Thursday, Baker signaled that his client may not be quite ready to face the nasty grilling the defense anticipates.

Pointing out that Simpson has spent the past week in an Orange County court fighting for custody of his children in a hearing he termed “relatively traumatic,” Baker asked the judge to postpone Simpson’s testimony until Monday. A weekend off, he said, would “let Mr. Simpson get his head on straight before these lawyers start attacking him.”

Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki denied the request.

No legal expert expects Petrocelli to pull out a smoking gun (or in this case, a bloody knife) in a stunning Perry Mason moment. Even those convinced that Simpson is guilty do not think he will break down and confess.

Instead, they predict that Petrocelli will try to chip away at Simpson’s credibility by tripping him up in contradictions or inconsistencies.

Long before the trial started, Petrocelli’s co-counsel, Peter Gelblum, described the strategy this way: “We should be able to impeach [Simpson] significantly on a number of areas. That leads you to his biggest lie of all, which is, ‘I wasn’t there. I didn’t do it.’ ”

According to Lysaght and several other experienced trial lawyers, each move, each question posed to Simpson is filled with both possibilities and peril.

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said the key task for Petrocelli is to get answers that he can use in his closing argument and to “point out how Simpson’s story contradicts everyone else. You want to show that he’s in a constant state of denial about the cut on his finger, the blood in the foyer of his house and how he beat Nicole.”

Questioning Simpson probably will require a more confrontational and aggressive style than Petrocelli has displayed while questioning friendly witnesses in front of these jurors. Levenson, who has attended much of the civil trial, said Petrocelli could overdo it by being snide or too hostile. She suggested that he utilize the sophisticated approach taken by federal prosecutor Steven D. Clymer when he questioned Stacey Koon, the lead LAPD officer accused of illegally beating Rodney G. King. “In a very low-key manner, Clymer took Koon through some time sequences that just didn’t add up. Koon never knew what was hitting him.”

Conversely, Vincent Bugliosi, a former deputy district attorney perhaps best known for the prosecution of the Manson family, said he saw no problem with Petrocelli taking a very aggressive approach. “This is cross-examination. Cross-examination can be cross.

“After all, the plaintiffs have accused Simpson of killing two people. Who says they’ve got to be dainty? This is not a tea party on the back lawn of a Bel-Air estate.”

For defense lawyer Baker, experts agree that the crucial task is to keep Simpson cool, controlled and charming in a way that seems natural. Several attorneys said the key first step in that process would be to videotape a simulated, blistering cross-examination of Simpson.

Civil attorney Frank Rothman, the former chairman of MGM/UA Entertainment who has represented many entertainment and sports figures, said he uses videotape preparation whenever the client can afford it.

“You critique that tape for eye contact, clothing, why he looked evasive or why he did especially well. Sometimes you can see that the client looked down or looked sideways, that signals evasive. You want to get rid of that problem. It doesn’t take very long for a lawyer to understand and a witness to understand--when he sees it--how body language gives him away.”

Simpson, however, presents a unique challenge for his lawyers, Rothman said.

“Normally, if you’re representing a [celebrity] and they have a generally good reputation, you would say to that witness, ‘Be yourself, you have been able to sell yourself to the public by being yourself. . . . The Bob Hope smile in the courtroom carries you miles.’ ”

Although Simpson was a very popular figure, his reputation has been tarnished since he was accused of murder 2 1/2 years ago. In particular, Rothman noted, the jury has heard that Simpson is a wife-beater.

“If he got on the stand and laughed a lot, tried a lot of eye contact with the jury,” that could backfire, Rothman said. “If I was representing him, I wouldn’t have him looking at the jury, I’d have him looking at the lawyers. . . . He has to be like a banker. . . . He has to answer directly and stop.”

Given Simpson’s tendency to ramble about the case and his life situation, Baker has a formidable task in controlling his client. During his deposition, Simpson frequently gave lengthy answers to questions, talking on and on until his lawyers cut him off. Baker had to remind Simpson several times to listen to the entire question before jumping in with an answer. Moreover, Simpson repeatedly answered questions against his lawyer’s advice, prompting Baker to proclaim at one point: “Am I a potted plant?”

“If you’re O.J.’s lawyer, your biggest problem is trying to rein him in, getting him to answer the questions he is asked rather than giving responses like a politician,” said Miami criminal lawyer Roy Black, who represented William Kennedy Smith in a 1991 rape case. Smith, who testified during the trial, was acquitted.

“Simpson is smart, almost eloquent; he wants to argue the case instead of answering the question,” Black said. “That’s dangerous, because if Simpson strays from the question, he not only appears evasive, he also may open the door to other, potentially damaging questions.

Veteran defense attorney Leslie Abramson said she would make sure that Simpson was prepared to answer tough, even obnoxious questions without becoming angry.

“Petrocelli will hit O.J. with all the negative stuff up front before he can tell his story,” Abramson said. “It’s so important that he not lose his cool, so important that he not sound self-centered, self-aggrandized, self-deluded, all those egocentric things that are probably part of his personality.”

Among the questions attorneys said Simpson should be ready for are: How did he get the deep cut to the knuckle of his left middle finger around the night of the slayings? Why did he have a passport, $10,000 in cash and gun in the Bronco during the freeway chase?

“And if he’s claiming he was chipping golf balls on his front lawn [at the time of the murders] he has to explain how you see the balls in the dark in the frontyard,” Abramson said.

Simpson will be interrogated in a forum that has built-in advantages for the plaintiffs. In a civil case, the plaintiffs can call Simpson as an adverse witness during their case, which enables Petrocelli to ask leading questions and use other techniques to control what the jury hears from the star witness.

Additionally, Petrocelli has the weapon of all Simpson’s previous statements, including the lengthy deposition.

“The best way to impeach a witness in a civil case is from a deposition,” Lysaght said. “Simpson is set in stone from what he said at the deposition. If his story changes from the deposition, Petrocelli should refer jurors to the deposition. If his story doesn’t change, Petrocelli should be trying to show the jurors how the story is inconsistent with reality.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Simpson’s Statements

O.J. Simpson is expected to take the witness stand today for the first time. Although he has never before told his story to jurors, it won’t be the first time he has addressed allegations that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Simpson gave a tape-recorded statement to detectives on the day after the killings. Last winter, he gave a sworn deposition to attorneys in the civil trial. Here is a look some key issues.

THE BLOOD

* Deposition: Said he did not think blood found on driveway, in foyer and in Bronco was his. Had no recollection of dripping blood in those locations. As for drops at crime scene--which analysts said contained genetic markers consistent with his DNA--said he had no idea how blood got there. Added that he often visited ex-wife’s condo, but did not remember ever dripping blood on walkway.

* Statement to Police: Asked about blood drops at house, did remember bleeding on night of murders. “I recall bleeding at my house, and then I went to the Bronco,” he said. “I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play golf and stuff, so there’s always something, nicks and stuff here and there.” Said of blood inside house: “If it’s dripped, it’s what I dripped running around trying to leave” to catch limousine for trip to Chicago.

* Other witnesses: In both the trials, scientists who analyzed blood have testified that it was consistent with Simpson. But defense experts will testify that the DNA analysis was unreliable since the blood was improperly handled.

****

CUTS ON HIS FINGER

* Deposition: On fresh cut on middle finger of left hand upon return from Chicago: “I broke a glass when I was in Chicago, and in the process of cleaning it up I evidently cut my finger.” Said he was not aware of injuries to hand before that. But added that he did notice mysterious dab of blood on pinkie of left hand and small drop on kitchen counter just before leaving for airport.

* Statement to Police: Told detectives he first cut hand “when I was rushing to get out of my house” for trip to Chicago. Then cut it again when he broke glass in Chicago.

* Other witnesses: Expert witness for plaintiffs identified several wounds on Simpson’s left hand--including major one on middle finger--as fingernail gouges inflicted by Goldman or Nicole Simpson during a death struggle.

****

THE ALIBI

* Deposition: Said he was home alone during crucial period when both sides generally agree murders occurred. After McDonald’s run about 9:35 p.m., he said, he looked for specific golf club and practiced a few shots in yard. Was outside house when he called his girlfriend from cellular phone at 10:03. From roughly 10:15 up to 10:40: “I was kind of spacing. I had a book in my lap and my TV was on, so I was just sort of spacing.” Then noticed late hour and jumped in shower. After shower, continued packing--interrupted at around 11 p.m. to go outside to check whether he had put golf shoes in bag on bench near front door. Then returned to bedroom and finished packing. A few minutes later, took bags to waiting limousine downstairs. While driver was loading luggage, realized he had forgotten case and battery pack for cell phone, so walked over to get from Bronco, parked outside gate.

* Statement to Police: Simpson did not describe actions in detail. Said that after daughter’s dance recital ended about 6:30 p.m., he came home and switched cars, getting into Bronco to go to girlfriend’s house. Called her then from cellular phone. When she was not home, he headed back home. Later mentioned going to get burger with Brian “Kato” Kaelin. Overall, he said: “I was basically at home.” Repeatedly told detectives of “rushing around” to get ready. But at another point, said he “leisurely got ready to go” after burger run. One of last things “at the end of the day,” he said, was to grab phone from Bronco--which he said was inside gated compound. Then drove it through gate and off property to park it.

* Other witnesses: Limo driver testified in civil trial he saw dark figure cutting from driveway into front entrance about 10:54 p.m. The figure walked briskly into house; moments later lights went on in previously dark first floor. Plaintiffs contend it was Simpson dashing back from murders and hustling into house to change. Simpson acknowledges figure was him, but said he was simply outside to check whether he had packed golf shoes.