Juror Questioning Begins Slowly in Simpson Case

The judge and lawyers in the O.J. Simpson murder trial began the painstaking process of questioning prospective jurors Wednesday, using the opening session to score subtle propaganda points while searching for evidence of bias among the panelists.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito initiated the hearing by welcoming 84 prospective jurors into his courtroom and briefing them on the law and procedures that will govern the coming trial. With Simpson in the courtroom, Ito read the charges against the football great, stressing for the prospective jurors that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the allegations.

“It is not evidence and should not be considered as such,” Ito said after reading the document charging that Simpson used a knife to murder Ronald Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on June 12. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to those charges; if convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

The initial questioning of the panel suggested that it was diverse in many ways: The group was drawn from across Los Angeles County and includes prospective jurors of various ethnicities. Among the first panelists questioned were a 77-year-old World War II veteran, a 52-year-old employee of the county tax collector and a 35-year-old hardware salesman who listed Ronald Reagan, Debbie Reynolds and Jim Morrison as celebrities he admires.

The initial screening of jurors ended last month when Ito and the lawyers took time out to examine the 79-page questionnaires filled out by each of the more than 300 prospective panelists. The oral questioning that began Wednesday moved slowly: By day’s end, just four of the jurors had been questioned, far fewer than the 20 that Ito had hoped to interview.

Three prospective jurors were dismissed, one after being briefly questioned, the other two by agreement of the two sides based on their answers to the questionnaires. A fourth juror failed to return from a break and was dismissed. The slow pace made some prospective jurors restless. Ito met with attorneys at the end of the day to discuss ways to speed up the process.

He deferred making a decision on whether to revise the process today, but said he would reconsider alternatives at the lunch break if things drag again.

Although the questioning Wednesday yielded little direct evidence of progress, a number of themes emerged that are likely to dominate the coming weeks.

Both sides delicately probed issues of race, for instance, and each touched on the question of how jurors should evaluate the significance of investigative mistakes--Simpson’s lawyers have made clear for months that they intend to hammer on alleged bungles by the Los Angeles Police Department and the coroner’s office.

In addition, the lawyers made the most of their first opportunity to talk to jurors to raise the topic of a hung jury. Simpson’s camp emphasized to prospective jurors that they should vote their conscience even if it means failing to reach a verdict. Prosecutors retorted by reminding the panelists that they should listen to one another and be willing to reconsider their opinions if their fellow jurors make compelling arguments.

Given the enormous publicity that has accompanied the Simpson case, neither side expects to find jurors who are totally ignorant of the murders. Indeed, Ito told prospective jurors in Wednesday’s panel that he would have doubts about anyone who professed ignorance of the case altogether.

“I’m not looking for hermits,” Ito said. “We would be very suspicious of a Rip Van Winkle who just awoke yesterday and had not heard about this case. . . . The issue is: Can you set aside what you have heard?”

From the outset of Wednesday’s hearing, attorneys for both sides were cordial with the panelists, and Simpson stood every time they entered or left the room. As Robert L. Shapiro, one of Simpson’s lead attorneys, introduced himself and the defense team, Simpson stood and said: “Good morning.”

Outside the presence of the panel, however, tempers flared: At one point, Shapiro accused prosecutors of defying Ito, and Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark retorted that it was Shapiro who was violating the court’s direction. Each side asked Ito to punish the other; Ito declined.

That fight, the latest in a series of debates, erupted over the mundane question of whether jury consultants hired by the prosecutors should be required to sit near the prosecution team and be identified to the jury. The consultants sat among jurors in the morning, but after Shapiro complained, their seating was changed and they were introduced.

Only one of the four prospective jurors who was questioned Wednesday was dismissed. That man works for the Sheriff’s Department and among his duties is keeping track of how much money the department has spent on the Simpson trial.

He was allowed to leave after consulting privately with Ito and the attorneys, but three others were carefully questioned in front of the rest of the panel.

First up was the county employee, a 52-year-old Monterey Park woman. During an hourlong interview by the judge and lawyers for each side, that woman repeatedly promised that she could serve fairly and said she had resisted forming impressions about the case despite the deluge of publicity that it has attracted.

The woman, who works in the tax collector’s office, came under especially close questioning by Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of Simpson’s lead attorneys and one of Los Angeles’ most experienced trial lawyers.

Cochran gently reviewed the woman’s answers to the juror questionnaire and used his queries to remind her and the other panelists of their obligations: “You won’t, then, subscribe to the old adage that ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,’ will you?” Cochran asked at one point.

“No, sir,” the woman responded.

And when the woman said she thought she recognized Cochran from the Rodney G. King case, Cochran laughed and told her she had the wrong lawyer: “That’s the first case of mistaken identity in this case,” he said, drawing laughter from the panelists.

Clark also treated the panelist delicately, beginning her questioning by reassuring the woman about her nervousness. “It’s very difficult to talk in front of people,” Clark said.

Through their questioning, Clark and Cochran each subtly attempted to make points on the delicate issue of a hung jury--a possibility that legal experts have publicly speculated about for months.

In his questioning of the first panelist, Cochran asked whether she would be willing to hold out if 11 of her colleagues favored a verdict that she could not honestly support. She said she could hold out under such circumstances. Then, when Clark questioned her, the same woman pledged that she would be willing to listen to her fellow jurors and would not be unwilling to change her mind if they persuaded her that she was wrong.

Deputy Dist. Atty. William W. Hodgman, Clark’s partner in the case, echoed that theme during later questioning of another panelist, suggesting that Cochran had planted the “subliminal message” that a hung jury was desirable and stressing that jurors should try to reach a verdict.

The afternoon session was highlighted by the questioning of a gregarious, balding, 77-year-old retiree who fought hard to win a place on the jury, repeatedly stating he would make an ideal juror.

“I make up my own mind, and I stick to it,” said the man, who repeatedly cited his World War II experience as evidence of his courage and willingness to fight for his beliefs.

In response to one question from Cochran, the man reiterated his independence by asserting: “I’m not one to join a lynch mob at any time.”

“I certainly hope not,” Cochran responded, again prompting laughter from other panelists. “And as I look over at you, I want you to know that you don’t look like a mob guy.”

Although Cochran’s questions were gentle, Hodgman attempted to press the man harder. He raised, for instance, the question of whether the man might be too inflexible to discuss verdicts with other jurors and change his mind if they made important points.

At first, the man flatly refused to answer Hodgman’s question, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss how he might handle deliberations. Then Hodgman posed the question differently and asked how he would handle a situation in his work if he was faced with disagreement.

“I would just eliminate anyone who gave me dissension or who gave me flak,” the man responded. “I want what I want when I want it . . . That’s my way. Take it or leave it.”

“All right, sir,” Hodgman responded. “I think I understand.”

As the day concluded, the two sides were completing their questioning of a 35-year-old ponytailed hardware salesman.

On his questionnaire, that man had expressed considerable reservations about serving on the panel, but Wednesday he said he was ready. Despite skeptical questioning by Clark, he said that although he had not sought the chance to be a juror in the sensational murder case, he was prepared to do his duty.

“I didn’t come looking for this,” he said. “It came looking for me.”

Cochran led that man through a series of questions intended to demonstrate his impartiality and ability to serve well. When the man said he had previously had trouble with law enforcement, for instance, Cochran drew him out, eliciting from him a statement that his troubles were not with the LAPD and that he could therefore be fair in this case.

Prosecutors asked that that man be removed based on his answers, but Ito denied that request. They still could use one of their 20 peremptory challenges to take the man off the jury panel without stating a reason.

As the questioning proceeded, Ito allowed reporters to examine some of the questionnaires that potential jurors still on the panel have filled out. On one, a 68-year-old black man who was not questioned Wednesday wrote an obscure racial slur to refer to Simpson’s acting performances in “Roots” and “Naked Gun 2 1/2.” The same juror wrote “hell yes” when asked if domestic violence was ever justified.

Jury selection resumes at 9 a.m. today, when the court is to take up other matters, including a defense motion seeking information about the source and purpose of news leaks. Simpson’s lawyers have accused the LAPD of leaking at least some of that information, and they have served Cmdr. David J. Gascon, the department’s chief spokesman, with a subpoena ordering him to appear Friday.

A defense source said Tuesday that Simpson’s lawyers also intend to subpoena KNBC reporter Tracie Savage, Police Chief Willie L. Williams and two high-ranking officials of the district attorney’s office.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.