Judge Taking High-Profile Simpson Custody Case in Stride

She is presiding over one of the highest-profile custody disputes in the nation. Reporters, photographers and television crews camp outside her courtroom. A gag order has been imposed to prevent details of the proceedings from making the nightly news.

But all that hasn’t fazed Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock, who is treating the trial to determine the fate of O.J. Simpson’s two young children just like any other case, courtroom observers say.

To many in the legal community, the 45-year-old Stock is the ideal jurist for the well-publicized case because of an evenhanded approach and insistence on proper courtroom decorum.

“She’s not going to be wooed or intimidated by the limelight,” said professor Laurie Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law School. “When I heard she had the case, a wave of ease rolled over me. She’ll just do her job. Whatever she decides, she’ll take it very seriously, apply the law and apply good judgment.”

Simpson’s children, Sydney, 11, and Justin, 8, went to live with their maternal grandparents in Dana Point when O.J. Simpson was charged with murdering his ex-wife--their mother--in June 1994. But in October 1995, the former football star was found not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Simpson asked to regain custody of the children. And the grandparents, Louis and Juditha Brown, refused--sparking the legal battle.

Simpson, who has attended the custody trial most days, is simultaneously attempting to fend off a wrongful-death civil lawsuit filed by the Nicole Brown Simpson estate and Goldman’s family. Simpson will resume testifying in that case today in the Santa Monica courthouse.

Judge Stock has handled high-profile custody disputes before, including one in which she awarded a surrogate mother and biological father joint custody of a little girl conceived through artificial insemination. But the judge’s controversial ruling in that 1991 case was reaffirmed by the state Supreme Court three years later.

*

Stock characteristically downplayed the extraordinary circumstances of the surrogacy case, comparing it to any other custody or paternity case. Many expect the judge to have the same attitude in the Simpson case.

Stock declined to be interviewed, but those close to the emotional case say that so far, she has presided with her usual firm but fair hand.

“She’s very sincere and gives equal time to all arguments that are raised,” one courtroom participant said. “She doesn’t rule out of thin air, she makes a decision based on reason. If you have a trial in there and lose, you still think you had your day in court.”

Stock took over the case in October during a week of legal shake-ups in the custody hearings. She was appointed to replace Commissioner Thomas H. Schulte on virtually the same day that Saul Gelbart and Eleanor Stegmeier departed as the attorneys of record for the Browns. An attorney who was working on the civil case, Natasha Roit, and her partner, Eric L. Lagin, now represent the Browns.

Superior Court officials attributed the change of judges to scheduling and said Schulte was not being punished for any decisions he may have made in the Simpson case.

*

With the custody case closed to the public, Stock’s performance in the courtroom has not had to undergo the same intense scrutiny as that of Judge Lance Ito in Simpson’s criminal trial or Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki, who is presiding over the ongoing civil trial in Santa Monica.

But those who know Stock don’t expect public interest to effect her courtroom demeanor--or her final decision.

An example of Stock’s imperturbable nature came early in the custody case when she presided over a particularly stormy preliminary hearing in which Marjorie G. Fuller, the attorney appointed to represent the Simpson children, said the youngsters should be allowed to live with their father, according to a participant in the courtroom. In addition, Fuller reportedly criticized a news conference held days earlier by Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred, who sought the public’s assistance in paying the Browns’ legal fees.

Stock reportedly listened carefully, indicated that she had already read the relevant material and confirmed the trial date.

“She was unflappable,” one courtroom observer said.

The judge’s ability to maintain decorum in her court was never more apparent than during a divorce case several years ago that focused on the custody of a couple’s dog. The husband’s attorney told the judge that he had interviewed the dog to find out which person the dog wanted to live with, said Fullerton attorney Lisa Hughes, who represented the wife. Hughes said she could barely maintain her composure, but not Stock.

“Nancy Stock sat poker-faced,” Hughes said. “You can’t shake her. She’s [an] ice lady when she needs to be, but she is also warm and compassionate.”

Anaheim Hills attorney Ronald E. Lais, who appeared in one court proceeding for the Browns in the custody case, said Stock may run a tight ship, but “is never stuffy. Semiformal, but not stuffy.”

Valedictorian of her class at UC Davis Law School, Stock tried private practice--as a litigator--for about a year, then went to work for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles in 1978.

*

During 12 years as a federal prosecutor, she worked in the criminal division and became chief of the major crimes unit, earning a national reputation as an expert in arson cases.

In 1987, Stock was chosen to head the office’s new branch in Santa Ana, where she worked until being appointed to the bench in 1990 by then-Gov. George Deukmejian. She was appointed to the Family Law Court during her first year on the bench.

Levenson, who worked with Stock for eight years in the U.S. attorney’s office, said her former colleague was widely admired for her ability to juggle a demanding job and a long commute with a family life that includes a husband and two young children.

“For the rest of us women, she was a really good role model,” Levenson said. “She obtained a very prestigious position in the office because she earned it. No one gave her anything.”