Mistrial Bid Rejected in Simpson Case

O.J. Simpson’s lawyers Monday lost their latest bid to scuttle his civil trial, as the judge rejected their argument that a juror he ousted last week could have turned the panel against Simpson.

Shouting at Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki across the courtroom, his face red with anger, lead defense attorney Robert C. Baker repeatedly demanded a mistrial. He argued that Simpson is entitled to a fresh start because former juror Rosemary Caraway--who was dismissed for failing to disclose that her daughter works for county prosecutors--could have poisoned her fellow jurors’ attitudes toward the case.

Caraway was bumped from the panel Friday, after participating in 14 hours of deliberations. “We haven’t a clue . . . what she said in that room,” Baker said, gesturing toward the deliberation room where jurors worked Monday. He pleaded with the judge to, at the very least, let him interview jurors to find out whether they have been tainted by Caraway’s comments during deliberations.

Fujisaki brusquely turned him down, but said Baker could ask the jurors about Caraway after the verdict.

The judge has dismissed at least half a dozen defense requests for a mistrial since jury selection began in September. On Monday, Fujisaki stood by his decision to excuse Caraway, appoint an alternate in her place and instruct the remaining jurors to begin deliberations from scratch.

Those deliberations continued for nearly six hours Monday. Before leaving, jurors asked to have some testimony read aloud this morning. The court did not disclose what testimony they want to hear.

Since Caraway was dismissed, the panel has deliberated for about 11 hours, trying to decide whether Simpson is responsible for the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Just outside the deliberation room, meanwhile, the attorneys engaged in a fierce debate about Caraway, who was the only black woman on the jury panel before her dismissal.

Lead plaintiff attorney Daniel M. Petrocelli characterized Caraway as “an honest and conscientious juror,” and speculated that she accidentally overlooked the section on the jury questionnaire asking whether any friends or relatives work for the district attorney’s office.

Baker, however, lambasted Caraway as a devious conniver who deliberately concealed her daughter’s ties to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, which unsuccessfully prosecuted Simpson on double murder charges in 1995. He contended that Caraway wrote “district attorney’s office” next to a question asking whether anyone close to her has a legal education--then crossed those words out with thick ink lines.

“This is a direct, deliberate attempt to mislead, and I think it’s an outrage,” Baker said.

The jury questionnaire has not been made public.

Baker also alleged that Catherine Caraway worked for two former Simpson prosecutors, Christopher A. Darden and William Hodgman. And he suggested that both daughter and mother may have had dinner with Darden during the civil trial.

“[Rosemary Caraway] is obviously well-connected to the D.A.’s office,” Baker said.

*

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the office, said the juror’s daughter may have worked for Darden eight or more years ago when she was part of the secretarial pool for the Special Investigations Division. She never worked for Hodgman, Gibbons said, although she now shares an office with him. (Hodgman was transferred to that office last month.)

As for the dinner, Darden has said that he attended a celebration for Catherine Caraway when she was promoted out of his division years ago, but he does not recall whether Rosemary Caraway was there.

When word of Catherine Caraway’s job came up last week--in the form of a letter from her supervisor to the judge--the plaintiffs argued to keep Rosemary Caraway on the jury. But Monday, Petrocelli said the plaintiffs actually considered her a pro-defense juror. Caraway indicated on her questionnaire that she distrusted DNA evidence and had some concerns about police handling of the bloody murder gloves, Petrocelli said. The plaintiffs fought to keep her, he said, only “because we wanted this case to get to a verdict.”

Baker disputed that analysis, however, saying that if Caraway could conceal her ties to the prosecutor’s office, she could lie about her views on the case to fool the lawyers into pegging her as a pro-Simpson vote.