ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, November 22, 1996 TAG: 9611220060
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: SANTA MONICA, CALIF.
SOURCE: SHARON WAXMAN THE WASHINGTON POST
For more than two years, O.J. Simpson has inhabited the lives of American citizens. O.J. on the run. O.J. silent. Accused. Acquitted. O.J. indignant. Self-righteous. Reborn. He has spoken in a book, on a $29.95 video and in carefully chosen interviews.
But never in a courtroom. Never, that is, until now.
The civil case brought by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman may well be regarded as the denouement of the lengthy, real-life drama that began with the grisly double murder June 12, 1994. But the stakes are very different, because Simpson's finances, not his freedom, are at risk.
For many Americans transfixed by the criminal trial, the anticipated climax never happened. O.J. Simpson never had to answer prosecutors' questions before a jury and a nationwide audience. Crucial questions remained unresolved.
Ironically, now that Simpson will attempt to make his case before a jury - during testimony at a Santa Monica courthouse beginning today - the rest of the country will neither see nor hear it. All cameras and recording equipment have been barred from the courtroom; even journalists listening to the proceedings in an annex may not tape what they hear. Secondhand reports and artists' sketches must suffice.
Up to now, the public has not missed much that it did not already know. The civil trial has been a shorter, more focused version of the nine-month criminal proceeding. Same witnesses, same charts, same photos, same 911 tapes. And without live images to feed the media maw, most people have got on with their lives.
Still, there is a sense of unfinished business about this trial. More than a year after the former football star's acquittal, millions of people still feel passionately about the case that plunged the nation into a debate over race, class, celebrity and justice in modern society. More than ever, a majority of Americans - including a growing number of blacks, though still a minority - believe Simpson is guilty. A recent CNN-USA Today poll found that 57 percent of those surveyed believe that the jury erred in acquitting Simpson of murder, compared with 44 percent in October 1995. Among blacks, 62 percent now believe the jury was right, down from 78 percent a year ago.
``It's rare that the American public has its face rubbed in a major public controversy, and then a majority of the public is appalled at the result,'' said Jeffrey Toobin, author of ``The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson,'' one of a slew of books about the criminal trial. ``This case is like religion in the strength with which people hold their views, in their unwillingness to hear the other side. People believe what they believe.''
But there has always been one missing element: O.J. Simpson under oath.
Under the direction of a strict, no-nonsense judge, Hiroshi Fujisaki, testimony in the civil case has moved along at a breakneck pace, with more than 20 witnesses testifying since the trial began Oct. 24. Fujisaki has ruled out speculative attacks on the Los Angeles Police Department, barred testimony by perjured ex-policeman Mark Fuhrman, and warned the defense against raising unproven theories about conspiracies or planted evidence.
The plaintiffs' attorneys, who are suing for unspecified damages on behalf of the victims' families, have learned from their predecessors' mistakes. No more mind-numbing detail about DNA; just the essence of what it showed. No more exhaustive questioning of every witness on every conceivable subject. Instead, they have limited problematic witnesses to discussions that are relatively clear and conflict-free.
Detective Philip Vannatter - grilled for five days during the criminal trial and accused of planting evidence - was on and off the stand in 30 minutes to testify about blood vials. Criminalist Dennis Fung, who squirmed on the stand for nine days at the murder trial over sloppy police procedures, was questioned for little more than an hour. Plaintiffs' lawyers have anticipated trouble spots, such as asking a former executive of the Aris Isotoner company, which made the killer's gloves, why the leather had shrunk and stiffened. If the defense demonstrates that the gloves do not fit Simpson's hands, an explanation has been registered in advance.
``The plaintiffs have been going to school on every mistake made by the prosecution in the criminal trial,'' said Peter Arenella, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
There have been a few new elements as well, none to Simpson's benefit. Forensic pathologist Werner Spitz testified that the cuts on Simpson's left hand could have been fingernail gouge marks inflicted by either victim. (Simpson has maintained that he cut his hand as he was rushing to catch a plane to Chicago on the night of the murders, and also that he cut himself on a broken drinking glass in his Chicago hotel room.)
Brian ``Kato'' Kaelin testified that three thumps he heard outside his bedroom at Simpson's estate on the night of the murders sounded like ``someone falling back behind my bedroom wall,'' and not, as he said at the criminal trial, like an earthquake. Plaintiffs' attorneys have tightened the time frame, saying the killings occurred about 20 minutes later than was estimated by criminal prosecutors, which corresponds more closely with noises heard by witnesses.
But evidentiary details may be less important than another major difference at this trial: The Santa Monica courtroom - the lawyers, the observers and, most important, the jury - is predominantly and conspicuously white and upscale. The jury includes one black, one Hispanic and one person of mixed race. The downtown Los Angeles jury that acquitted Simpson after less than four hours of deliberation was mostly black. And the standard of proof is very different: Only nine of 12 jurors must find that a ``preponderance'' of evidence indicates guilt to impose a financial penalty, a burden of proof far lighter than ``beyond a reasonable doubt.''
All this underscores why Simpson's appearance today could be the trial's most important moment.
``O.J. taking the stand can wipe out everything before it, or after it. It's a pivotal moment,'' said Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson, who is attending the trial. ``If he can explain everything away, then I'm sure he can sway the jurors. If he loses his cool on that stand or sounds evasive, that may seal the plaintiffs' case.''
But for the public, long denied this moment of truth, the point is mainly to hear it from the man himself, in a situation that he cannot control.
LENGTH: Long : 112 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: AP. O.J. Simpson is greeted by well-wishers Thursday inby CNBOrange County, where he's involved in a child-custody battle.