[EDITOR'S NOTE: A week before the start of the Simpson wrongful-death trial, defense lawyer Robert Shapiro, who represented O.J. Simpson in the double murder trial, joined Court TV on America Online's Center Stage. Anchor Dan Abrams acted as moderator as Robert Shapiro took questions from the audience. The following is a transcript of that Sept. 9, 1996 event.]
CourtTV: Hello everyone. We are ready to start. Robert Shapiro and Dan Abrams are on stage. Dan covered the first trial from LA. and he's going back there for the civil trial. What is the latest, Dan?
Dan Abrams: The civil trial is expected to begin on Tuesday with motions. That is a week from Tuesday. And on Wednesday Sept. 18 Jury selection begins. Now lets welcome Robert Shapiro.
Robert Shapiro: Thank you very much. And welcome to all the people on the Internet. First, I would like to apologize for having to cancel the interview two months ago when it was scheduled. I was on my book tour with "Search For Justice." And I was at a book signing in Birmingham, Alabama that ran about an hour and a half late and I promise Steve Brill, the president of Court TV, that I would reschedule at his convenience.
Dan Abrams: Bob, I think a lot of people would like to know if you are still involved with the Simpson civil case.
Robert Shapiro: No, I ended my representation of O. J. Simpson when the verdict was reached in the criminal trial.
Dan Abrams: Now we will take questions from the audience.
Question: What will Dr. Henry Lee's position in the second trial be?
Robert Shapiro: Since I am not involved in the second trial, I do not know if he will be called as a witness.
Dan Abrams: Well, we expect that he will be called in a videotaped deposition -- but what he said remains a mystery.
Question: Mr. Shapiro, what is your opinion of Nicole Brown's diary?
Robert Shapiro: The diary was not admissible evidence in the criminal trial since there was no way to authenticate it as being her true thoughts.
Dan Abrams: But if it had been, would it have been devastating?
Robert Shapiro: It achieves no purpose to speculate as to how the jury might have viewed the diary. It certainly was very sympathetic.
Question: Did O.J. take a polygraph test at your request, and if so, what did he score?
Robert Shapiro: The rules of professional conduct in California as a result of the O. J. Simpson Case prohibit lawyers from commenting on anything that would materially affect the outcome of a trial. I adhere strictly to that rule. Therefore, it's a subject that I cannot comment on.
Question: We know that you were upset with the analogy of Fuhrman and Hitler. But what has the rest of the team's reaction been?
Robert Shapiro: It's been my policy not to comment on the thoughts of other lawyers on the defense. I think my position has been made abundantly clear.
Question: What was the experience like writing the book?
Robert Shapiro: Writing a book is a difficult and trying experience. There are tremendous limitations placed on lawyers because of the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. There were many experiences that personally affected my wife and children that were most difficult to relate to the reader.
Dan Abrams: You talk about relationships. . . do you still talk to any other members of the defense?
Robert Shapiro: I speak frequently with Alan Dershowitz. I spoke with Gerry Uelman a week and a half ago. I talked with Bob Blasier last month. I traded phone calls recently with Barry Scheck. The only person on the defense team that I will not speak with is Mr. Bailey.
Question: Mr. Shapiro, Have you read Christopher Darden's book? If so what comment(s) do you have?
Robert Shapiro: Christopher wrote a book primarily about his life that I found quite interesting. He's clearly a quite angry man and that comes across strongly.
Dan Abrams: Do you think he had any right to be angry?
Robert Shapiro: Certainly he had a right to be angry.
Question: Hi from Chicago. Mr. Robert Shapiro, what lesson, if any, did we learn from the Simpson trial?
Robert Shapiro: [Laughter.] We don't have enough time to get into all the lessons. We saw for the first time how the American system of justice really works -- that the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt are a big part of our liberty and freedom. It also taught America that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Question: Hi Robert, how did it feel to be the lawyer of the most controversial case in the world?
Robert Shapiro: From a personal standpoint, it had an effect on my wife and children. The fact that I did not take another case for nearly two years, that I devoted all my time to this trial, makes it a personal experience that I would not want to duplicate. From a professional standpoint, however, it was an experience I would not have wanted to miss.
Dan Abrams: So if you had to decide, would you do it again . . . ?
Robert Shapiro: If the decision was left solely to me, I would. If my wife and children were involved in the decision, clearly I would not.
Question: What do you think of the judge in this case. Folks say this will be his last trial. Will that make a difference?
Robert Shapiro: I think Judge Ito did a very good job under extremely difficult circumstances. We had 11 lawyers for this case. The prosecution had in excess of 40. And Judge Ito had a staff of three law students. Many of the issues in this case were raised for the first time. He was the first one to arrive at the courthouse and the last one to leave. He researched and drafted all of his own opinions. He kept together a jury that was on the verge of mutiny and allowed a verdict to be reached.
Question: If you feel like your client is truly guilty, do you feel you still have an obligation to represent him/her till the verdict?
Robert Shapiro: First, it is not a lawyer's role to determine guilt or innocence. That is up to the judge or the jury. Very few cases are like the O. J. Simpson Case -- a classic "Who Done It." Most cases are based on facts that are not disputed. In the majority of cases ,if two people got into a fight and one person died, the facts might not be in dispute. But the crime that was committed may vary -- from an assault, to an assault with an intent to do bodily harm, to a first degree murder (if it was premeditated). Clearly, if a person died, it could also be a case of self defense. These are questions for juries, not for lawyers.
Dan Abrams: But to follow up, if a client tells you "I did it but get me off." What should a lawyer do?
Robert Shapiro: I recently defended a person who came to my office and told me he killed his wife and dumped her body on the highway. I immediately advised him to surrender to the police. The case was tried and the testimony revealed that this man had been in a relationship where his wife decided to have sex with another man -- while he watched. After a period of time, he found his wife having sex with this man, and as a result, he pulled a gun in anger and shot his wife. Psychiatric testimony showed that he had diminished capacity. And even though he felt he was guilty of murder, he was convicted of manslaughter.
Dan Abrams: So any time someone says, "I did it," he or she is mentally infirm?
Robert Shapiro: No, definitely not. The question is one of degree. The person is saying he is responsible for the act that caused the death. But the trier of fact is the one who decides whether it's first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or self defense.
Question: You said the prosecution over-tried its case. How would you have prosecuted the Simpson case if you were in Marcia Clark's shoes?
Robert Shapiro: First, I would not have brought the charges until the investigation was completed. One week after the murders, the prosecution announced that O. J. Simpson was the sole murderer. [The prosecution went on to say that it ] would not be surprised if somewhere down the line he would have admitted his guilt and used the Menendez defense before any DNA evidence was analyzed.
Dan Abrams: We are going to wrap and have Hank Goldberg in a few minutes. But what about during the trial? What would you have done differently if you were the prosecutor?
Robert Shapiro: Well, clearly the glove demonstration was something that no experienced lawyer would have done in front of a jury. Also, the prosecution bored the jury on the forensic evidence. Rather than qualifying a witness as an expert and asking for an opinion of the results, they tried to explain to a lay jury the science that was nearly impossible to understand. They did this again with the coroner, where they spent eight days of court testimony establishing that two people died of knife wounds. When you bore a jury, you lose a jury.
Dan Abrams: Well we will have prosecutor Hank Goldberg to respond but I really want to thank Robert Shapiro for joining us.
