‘Unflappable’ Jurist Presides Over Simpson Custody Trial

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, 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 even-handed approach and insistence on proper courtroom decorum.

“Nancy is just not someone who would be affected by the celebrity nature of the case,” said former colleague Richard Drooyan, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office. “She will work hard, make sure she makes the right decision and will not be influenced in any way by any of the extraneous matters.”

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, the children’s mother, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in June 1994. Simpson was acquitted in October 1995. Simpson has asked to regain custody of the children, but the grandparents, Louis and Juditha Brown, have 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 in a 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. The judge’s controversial ruling in that 1991 case raised some eyebrows in legal circles at the time but was reaffirmed by the state Supreme Court three years later.

After her ruling in the surrogacy case, Stock downplayed the extraordinary circumstances of it, likening 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 for this article. But those close to the emotional case say that so far, Stock 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 in the custody case.

Superior Court officials attributed the change of judges to scheduling and said Schulte was not being punished for any decisions he may have made early on 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 in the case to have an impact on the judge’s courtroom demeanor or her final decision.

“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.”

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 they should be allowed to live with their father, according to a participant in the courtroom. Fuller also reportedly blasted a press conference held days earlier by Gloria Allred, a well-known Los Angeles attorney who had sought the public’s assistance in paying the Browns’ legal fees.

Stock listened carefully, calmly 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, remembered Fullerton attorney Lisa Hughes, who represented the wife. Hughes said she could barely maintain her composure during the episode, but not Stock.

“Nancy Stock sat poker-faced,” Hughes said. “You can’t shake her. She’s 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 the courtroom “is never stuffy. Semi-formal, but not stuffy.”

Valedictorian of her class at UC Davis law school, Stock practiced commercial litigation for about a year, then went to work for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles in 1978.

According to several people who worked with her there, Stock’s 12 years as a federal prosecutor were impressive. She worked in the criminal division where she became chief of the major crimes division. Stock handled many high-profile cases and earned a national reputation as an expert in arson cases.

“She was an outstanding trial lawyer when she was with our office,” Drooyan said. “She handled many significant, complex cases. She was a very articulate, poised, thorough prosecutor.”

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 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.”