The world gets a look at the case against O.J. Simpson -- and the that will defend him
by Betsy Streisand
______________________________________
It is not even a sure bet for trial yet, and already the O.J. Simpson case seems destined to become a courtroom classic. The Leopold-Loeb murder case and the Scopes "monkey trial" highlighted the cultural clashes in post-World War I America; the Alger Hiss perjury and Rosenberg spy trials exposed the ideological tensions of post-World War II America; the Chicago Seven and Patty Hearst trials showcased the generational divide of the 1960s. And now comes O.J. Simpson's case to reveal the excesses of American celebrity culture near the turn of the millennium -- with its saturation coverage, its checkbook-toting tabloid media and its made-for-television, made-by-television characters. The Case of the '90s will test the fairness of the criminal justice system in unique ways. It will also show the high-tech, futuristic course crime solving has taken.
All this will occur before a global forum anxious to judge whether O.J. Simpson brutally stabbed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman to death. The first stages of what might be lengthy preliminary hearings highlighted some of the biggest issues:
Science Super Bowl. The high-tech search for and analysis of evidence will likely dominate this case, since no eyewitnesses have emerged. There are more than 100 pieces of evidence already in hand, ranging from hair follicles to bloody gloves -- and including a mysterious envelope unexpectedly produced by the defense on Friday and held under seal by the court. Police continue to comb every conceivable source, from vacant lots to airplane lavatory tanks, for more. No murder weapon had been found by the end of last week, but prosecutors led by Marcia Clark claimed they had the next best thing: testimony that Simpson had bought a 15-inch stiletto six weeks before the killing.
The trial's real star witness, though, is likely to be DNA tests of blood found at the murder scene and also, reportedly, at O.J. Simpson's home and in his Ford Bronco. If those tests appear to link Simpson to the crime scene, his defense team, led by Robert Shapiro, will almost certainly challenge their validity at every turn. Not only do experts disagree on the reliability of DNA fingerprinting, as it is known, but courts are divided on how it can be used as evidence (story, Page 29).
Criminal procedure. Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell will rule this week on whether Los Angeles detectives blew it when they scaled the fence at Simpson's house the morning after the murders and searched the grounds without a warrant. (They got one six hours later.) Shapiro filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered during that search, and some legal experts say that's a big risk: If he loses the motion, he will have no second chance to have the evidence suppressed at trial. But Shapiro just may win. Despite the crucial nature of the evidence, which includes all manner of bloodstains, judges have repeatedly shown themselves willing to toss potential proof if it has been acquired improperly. Expect many more motions by Shapiro challenging evidence, evidence gathering and evidence analysis. It's a way for him to get his objections on the record, so that even if the first rulings go against him, he can challenge them on appeal.
Checkbook journalism. One of the first prosecution witnesses, cutlery-store employee Jose Camacho, was challenged by Shapiro because he had sold his story to the National Enquirer for $12,700. Camacho described how he sold the stiletto to Simpson. Shapiro argued that Camacho's testimony should be dismissed because he stood to gain from it financially. The same issue is likely to arise in connection with other witnesses who have sold their stories. In fact, one top jury consultant said there are grounds to fear that some jurors at a trial might calculate that a guilty verdict would be worth more to those bidding for their stories after trial than finding Simpson not guilty.
Media-feeding frenzy. Beyond the unsavory tactics tabloid reporters use to get some of their Simpson-related stories, the widespread interest in the case by the mainstream media will also play a big role in the courtroom drama. In a legal sense, the issue will be most acute if and when a jury is selected. The search for unbiased jurors could become excruciatingly lengthy. But the case also will be a prime example of what defense attorney Shapiro describes as a public-relations confrontation. As he has written: "The lawyer's role as a spokesperson may be equally important to the outcome of the case as the skills of an advocate in the courtroom."
Made-for-television lawyers. Prosecutor Marcia Clark's aggressiveness is getting high ratings. But she may have more to learn about life in the spotlight. At several points last week, she seemed visibly angered by Shapiro's tactics -- in contrast with her rival's unflappable cool. Although she has prosecuted some big cases, her time on camera doesn't come close to that of Shapiro. And she also bears the burden of a district attorney's office with a reputation for bungling.
Meanwhile, if Shapiro's every move seems calculated for the cameras, that's because it is -- from his consoling gestures to Simpson during rough moments in court to his chin-up posture at press briefings (looking down at a microphone, he has written, makes you appear dazed on camera). This is a man who not only has thought about the long lens of the camera but has defended a string of celebrities -- including rocker Rod Stewart, ex-L.A. Dodger Darryl Strawberry and Christian Brando, son of the famous actor. "Bob Shapiro understands the role of the media better than a lot of other lawyers, even those who handle very high-profile cases," says Janet Levine, a criminal defense lawyer who has worked with him.
Shapiro detailed that "understanding" in early 1993 in a lengthy article aimed at telling criminal lawyers how to manipulate the press. Its title: "Using the Media to Your Advantage." Written after the Brando case, it could just as easily serve as a manual for Simpson's media defense. The overall message is simple: Lawyers should assume their clients are presumed guilty and should attempt to make "inroads into the [public's] mind-set that `if the press reported it, it must be true.'" Court the press and don't overestimate reporters' understanding of the law. And most of all: "Come up with phrases that you believe in, repeat them continuously and they will be repeated by the media. After a while that repetition almost becomes a fact, that is your ultimate goal."
"Honorable man." Shapiro's scrupulous spin control extends to his own image as well. The 51-year-old son of a factory worker and father of two boys is universally well liked and respected in the legal community by lawyers on both sides of cases. "Lawyers are like beauty queens. They look each other over with a jaundiced eye," says Paul Caruso, a longtime Beverly Hills trial lawyer who has known Shapiro for years. "Bob Shapiro has a reputation for being an honorable man whose word can be trusted."
He is quite unlike the stereotypically flamboyant and confrontational attorneys so often associated with celebrities. "Shapiro is very relaxed. He takes everything in stride," says Howard Weitzman, another celebrity defense attorney who, citing other commitments, stepped down from the Simpson case after just three days. Shapiro typically saves his aggression for the heavy bag, which he has been pummeling on a regular basis since he started taking boxing lessons a year ago. His wife, Linnell, is an avid kick boxer.
But he can be ferocious. When a local reporter quoted an anonymous criminal lawyer as calling Shapiro a courtroom "lightweight" without the experience to handle a double-murder trial, Shapiro went ballistic. He called in a rage and demanded that the reporter take down the home phone numbers of several lawyers and judges who could attest to
