The Virginian-Pilot
                             THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Sunday, October 23, 1994               TAG: 9410210053
SECTION: DAILY BREAK              PAGE: E1   EDITION: FINAL 
SOURCE: BY JON FRANK, STAFF WRITER 
                                             LENGTH: Long  :  184 lines

O.J. TRIAL A PRIMER ON LONG ARM OF LAW

A YEAR AGO, if you had asked 10 passers-by on the street the meaning of voir dire, chances are you would have gotten as many blank stares. If you were lucky.

But today, your chances of getting a correct response - voir dire is a legal term for the questioning of potential jurors by the judge and attorneys in a case - are probably much better.

That may be because of O.J. Simpson.

The media's coverage of the Simpson murder case has been criticized for many things, and much of the criticism has been justified. Who would deny that the media have created a circus atmosphere in Los Angeles, been guilty of inaccurate reporting and poisoned the jury pool with saturation coverage?

But coverage of the Simpson tragedy also has a plus side. It's been a crash course in law for the common man.

According to Court TV's Gregg Jarrett, the O.J. Simpson case is responsible for teaching many average Joes some of the finer points of our system of justice.

``People have learned volumes,'' Jarrett said recently during a telephone interview. ``I don't care why people tune in. Whether it is for purely voyeuristic reasons or simply to be entertained, or because they are just curious about the evidence. It doesn't matter. People who have the opportunity to tune in and watch, along the way they get educated.''

For instance, Jarrett says, it is because of Simpson that many people know, possibly for the first time, what an arraignment is. That's where Simpson told the court he was 100 percent innocent of the murder charges being read against him.

Another example, says Jarrett, is the Simpson preliminary hearing. Viewers learned that it is not some meaningless pre-trial exercise. Instead, it is one of two ways to certify charges against a defendant so he or she can be scheduled for trial.

A preliminary hearing is filled not with formalities, as many people heretofore thought, but with what the prosecution believes to be meaningful evidence. Not always all the evidence but enough to show probable cause. In fact, most of what the public knows definitely about the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman is attributable to what they heard being presented during coverage of the preliminary hearing.

And then there's voir dire, which is under way in the Simpson trial. His attorneys and Los Angeles prosecutors are painstakingly attempting to winnow to 12 the more than 300 people being interviewed as potential jurors. It is tedious, exacting work that some observers think may be the key to whether Simpson is acquitted or convicted of charges that he stabbed his wife and her friend Goldman to death the night of June 12.

Jarrett, 39, is an anchor at Court TV who has been a lawyer for 15 years and a reporter for 12. He has spent much of the past three months in Los Angeles covering Simpson-related court proceedings since Simpson was arrested in June.

He says that although there have been other recent court cases that have informed the public about the workings of American jurisprudence - the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith and Lorena Bobbitt's mutilation case come to mind - never has the American public been bombarded on a daily basis with the legal terms and phrases that normally are restricted to the marble and hardwood courtrooms of this country's criminal justice system. Never before has the minutiae of the legal system been spotlighted and dramatized like this.

It has been an important moment in the sun for the branch of government that may be the most mysterious for the average man, Jarrett says.

``The justice system is for everyone, not just judges and lawyers,'' he said. ``The law pervades life, yet it is the least understood branch of government.''

What keeps the Simpson case from being the perfect learning tool for legal instruction is the very thing that helps make the case so compelling - O.J.'s fame, image and, most of all, wealth. His resources, especially financial, are allowing Simpson much more leeway in obtaining a ``fair trial'' than the ordinary defendant would get, Jarrett says.

For instance, jury consultants have been made to seem like a common, frequently used method of helping to select potential jurors. But in reality, jury consultants are a luxury, a very expensive luxury, that most defendants would never be able to afford.

Simpson also has hired for his defense team one of the nation's foremost forensic evidence experts - pathologist Dr. Henry Lee, a kind of for-hire ``Quincy'' - who could prove crucial to the defense team if Simpson is acquitted. Lee and other forensic experts do not come cheaply and would not be a part of most defense teams, Jarrett said.

But these aberrations may end up spurring debate and could help to improve the legal system, he adds.

``It does need fixing,'' Jarrett said. ``Equal justice under the law is a goal that has never been met. People with money get more equality under the law. More fairness. People with money do better and that is not right. That is not fair.''

Another element that may come up for debate, especially if the Simpson case produces a hung jury, is the requirement that criminal juries must reach a unanimous decision to convict. Jarrett says that if the Simpson jury is hung, there may be calls to adopt the civil-case model for juries. In many states, civil cases only require nine of 12 or 10 of 12 jurors to agree in order to reach a binding decision.

``In this day and age, it may be too tough to get 12 people to agree on anything,'' Jarrett said.

Despite the obvious benefits for society, all the media attention in the Simpson case is worrying some people more than it is educating them. Among them is Judge Lance Ito, the judge in the Simpson case. Ito is threatening to remove cameras from the courtroom because of the threat they may pose to Simpson's fair trial privilege.

That would be a grave mistake, Jarrett believes.

``The camera in the courtroom is the solution, not the problem,'' explained Jarrett, who said that Ito is expected to rule on Nov. 7. ``The problem is the false reports, the misinformation, and the leaks. . . . The camera in the courtroom is the one mechanism to keep all other cameras and reporters honest. That camera is the antidote to all the ills of reporting.''

Finally there is Ito's very unusual decision this week to restrict press access to the voir dire jury selection process thereby creating a conflict between two constitutional rights - the public's right to know, guaranteed in the First Amendment, and O.J.'s right to a fair trial, guaranteed in the Sixth. Ito went so far as to cancel voir dire for one day while he assessed the impact of Faye Resnick's sensationalized biography of Nicole Brown Simpson. The book was published this week and is highly critical of O.J., reporting that he threatened to kill his wife shortly before she was murdered. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo

ASSOCIATED PRESS

DNA evidence, like that taken from a bloody glove found at the crime

scene, has become a household word. In November, a hearing will

determine whether DNA evidence is admissible in the case.

Graphic

LEGALESE LEARNED FROM SIMPSON CASE

Voir Dire - Literally it means to tell the truth, but in reality

it is the questioning of jurors to determine their biases and

prejudices. Court TV's Gregg Jarrett says the strategy during voir

dire is not to weed out biased people but to ``weed them into'' the

jury. ``The defense attorneys are looking for people who like

O.J.,'' Jarrett said. ``They would love to have 12 people who watch

football and think O.J. is charming. The other side wants people who

abhor domestic violence and don't particularly like professional

sports.''

Arraignments - O.J. actually had two. In municipal court, right

after his arrest, he appeared dazed, Jarrett said. ``He asked the

judge if she could start all over again when she read the charges

against him.'' It was during his arraignment in state court that he

entered his 100 percent not guilty plea.

Preliminary Hearing - Another important thing people learned from

the media coverage of Simpson's preliminary hearing, Jarrett said,

is that prosecutors don't have to plead their case beyond a

reasonable doubt at this phase of the criminal justice system.

``There only has to be enough evidence to bind the defendant over to

trial. Probable cause is a pretty low standard.''

Grand Jury - The other way to certify charges against a defendant

and bring him or her to trial. The grand jury in Los Angeles was

ordered to cease its inquiry into the charges against Simpson by a

judge. Speculation about the evidence was running rampant, and all

grand jury proceedings are closed. So by ordering a preliminary

hearing, the judge guaranteed more public access to the evidence and

probably guaranteed less speculation.

The Fourth Amendment - Simpson's attorneys argued,

unsuccessfully, that police illegally searched Simpson's property

when much of the evidence, including the bloody glove, was seized.

``More Americans now know what the Fourth Amendment is all about,''

Jarrett said. ``It is the right to be secure in your home from

unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Kelly-Frye DNA Hearing - This will be held in November for two

weeks to determine if DNA evidence will be admissible. ``It is a

standard long-established where prosecutors must prove that DNA

testing is sufficiently accepted in the scientific community and is

reliable enough that the court will accept it,'' Jarrett said. In

California there have been 78 cases where prosecutors have tried to

get DNA allowed. They have been successful in 75.

Daubert Standard - A new court case that could make it easier to

get DNA evidence admitted. The California Supreme Court heard

arguments on Aug. 30 and has 90 days to issue a ruling. If the court

accepts the standard, it will replace Kelly-Frye, which could impact

the Simpson case.

Opening Statements - This is the way both sides get to lay out

their basic beliefs, and they are a key part to any trial. They will

be an especially crucial element in the Simpson case because, after

so much pre-trial publicity, communicating key points to the jury

will be all important.

Circumstantial Evidence - The entire case against O.J. is

circumstantial because the only eyewitness to the murders was a dog.

How convincing this evidence can be made to appear to the jury will

go a long way toward deciding Simpson's fate.

by CNB