Trial of the Century: Part 2 Civil case starting Tuesday won't be such a

  spectacle

  Richard Price; Jonathan T. Lovitt

  09/16/1996

  USA Today

  FINAL

  Page 01A

  (Copyright 1996)

  SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- When O.J. Simpson's murder trial opened two years

  ago this month, it was the most publicized event of its kind in history. The army

  of media numbered in the thousands, overrunning the courthouse and the

  neighborhood. Reporters and producers swarmed around lawyers, pestered

  witnesses and infuriated Judge Lance Ito, who kept threatening to ``pull the

  plug.''

  He never did, and the bedlam never stopped.

  But now, with the Tuesday start of The Trial of the Century: Part 2, a new judge

  has pulled the plug. And that partly explains the relatively sane atmosphere here

  as Simpson faces civil charges brought by the families of slain Nicole Brown

  Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

  The families contend Simpson knifed to death his ex-wife and her friend outside

  her luxury condo in Brentwood the night of June 12, 1994. They sued despite his

  acquittal last Oct. 3 following a tumultuous trial.

  This time around, Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki has done far more than ban TV and

  radio from the courtroom. He ordered every lawyer and possible witness to

  refrain from talking about the case. He turned down still cameras. He even

  rejected the tradition of a courtroom sketch artist and denied a request for an

  audio feed to the press room across the street. Taken together, the steps were

  extraordinary for a civil case.

  ``Judge Fujisaki is from the Show-Me State (Missouri),'' says criminal lawyer

  Gigi Gordon, a frequent TV commentator during the first trial.

  ``He's going to show everybody there is a way to do it, and there was a way not

  to do it. This is clearly intended to be a statement.''

  Barring reversal (the media has appealed some of Fujisaki's orders), the public

  will never get so much as a peek into the courtroom. They'll never hear a

  witness, in or out of court. They'll never watch a lawyer spin the case on TV as

  defender Johnnie Cochran Jr. or prosecutor Gil Garcetti used to do.

  Many experts argue it was those images that whet the national appetite for

  Simpson the first time around. Without it, they contend, the case loses much of

  its public appeal.

  Court TV, which offered gavel-to-gavel coverage the first time and considers that

  trial its biggest ever, calls the civil version ``just one of 50 trials'' it will cover

  this fall.

  And not just because of the restrictions, says executive vice president Erik

  Sorenson. He says the story simply is weaker. He cites a ``combination of viewer

  burnout and widespread cynicism about the outcome of the first trial.''

  Expect fewer surprises

  It's also more predictable this time around. Witnesses already have given

  depositions laying out the testimony they'll deliver in trial, a standard procedure

  in civil cases. Nothing particularly shocking has turned up so far. Although new

  material could pop up later, the lack of an ongoing surprise element takes some

  of the edge off the story.

  And, of course, the nation has heard most of the case before. DNA and other

  forensic evidence bored people the first time; few would try plowing through it

  twice.

  But there will be differences. Chief among them: In civil court Simpson must

  testify if called, as he will be, or forfeit the case. And there may be a fight about

  how much money Simpson has, because that's what this case is all about. If he

  loses, he wouldn't go to prison. He'd have to pay an unspecified amount.

  Estimates range from $2 million-$100 million.

  His lawyers say Simpson wants to be in the courtroom for the trial's duration.

  But he's also involved in a custody fight for his children in a courtroom 50 miles

  away on Tuesday.

  Guilt or innocence are not at issue in the civil case. It is not a prosecution like

  the criminal trial. It's just a three-way fight among civil combatants: the victims'

  families and Simpson.

  Many find it confusing that Simpson is facing trial at all, given that no citizen

  can be tried twice for the same crime. But that's criminal law, and it doesn't stop

  any party from suing him in civil court.

  And unlike the criminal trial, there's no need to prove anything beyond a

  reasonable doubt. The jury assesses the evidence and decides whose case is more

  convincing, a theory known as ``preponderance of evidence.'' Then they find for

  or against Simpson.

  If jurors find against Simpson, they set the price tag, subject to the judge's

  review. The verdict needn't be unanimous. A 9-3 vote or better seals it, unlike

  the unanimous 12 votes that cleared him the first time.

  Rules of evidences less restrictive

  Expect more evidence. Generally, civil cases let in more evidence because the

  standard for admissibility is less stringent than in a criminal case. Example:

  Judging by pre-trial motions and the depositions, both sides plan more extended

  testimony about Simpson's abuse of his ex-wife.

  The defense may attack the motives of the families, arguing they are driven by

  money. In court motions and depositions, defense lawyers accuse sister

  Dominique Brown of selling pictures of a topless Nicole to tabloids.

  For their part, the families may have a big weapon: their lawyers said in

  depositions that they have pictures purporting to show Simpson wearing the same

  sort of gloves and Bruno Magli shoes as the killer wore. Simpson has denied in

  deposition ever wearing those shoes, or ever wanting to wear them.

  There may be new witnesses. Paula Barbieri, Simpson's girlfriend at the time of

  the killings, said in her deposition that she broke up with him that morning. Faye

  Resnick, one of Nicole's best friends, may testify. Simpson friends Ron and Cora

  Fischman and Robert Kardashian are expected to take the stand.

  A.C. Cowlings, who drove the white Bronco in the famous slow-speed chase,

  will be subpoenaed. But he's expected to avoid some questioning by invoking his

  Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did in his deposition.

  Retired detective Mark Fuhrman also took the Fifth in his deposition. Don't count

  on him testifying about discovering the glove or his use of the ``N-word.''

  Some old witnesses will have new stories. Brian ``Kato'' Kaelin, Simpson's

  one-time house guest, insisted during the criminal trial that Simpson wasn't

  particularly unnerved the night of the murders. In his deposition this time, he

  said Simpson was extremely upset that night.

  Less sensational coverage

  The role of expert commentators changes for this trial, too. They won't be nearly

  as useful as during the criminal trial. Then, every would-be expert could watch

  the case at home. This time, they'll ``know no more than the average citizen,''

  says Bob Sims, news director for KNX all-news radio.

  Last time, Sims upped his ratings with gavel to gavel coverage and expert

  reports. This time he'll rotate two reporters through their courtroom seat and offer

  straight news accounts.

  ``I think it'll still be interesting,'' he says, ``but obviously it will be a different

  kind of an audience, and the coverage will be much less sensational or

  entertaining than the first time -- closer to the legal coverage you'd find in Britain

  or Canada.''

  Which is exactly what many critics wanted last time around.

  Although the media was scalded for overkill the first time and went through

  much soul-searching later, many top media managers deny that has prompted the

  relative restraint this time. They say it's a matter of news value.

  ``Look, it's a re-trial of sorts,'' says Lane Vernardos, vice president of hard news

  for CBS. ``That reduces interest. Even if there were pictures, I don't think it

  would be as riveting as it was the first time.''

  Media will still be there

  None of this is to suggest that the media is ignoring the case. When Simpson is

  forced to take the stand -- a moment expected to generate the greatest public

  interest (aside, perhaps, from the verdict) -- most organizations will be in place.

  Press centers have popped up around the courthouse, with each company paying

  an average of $1,400 for 41/2 months (the expected length of trial) for shared

  space at the Doubletree Inn. The networks have brought in their trailers, parked

  at the Rand Corp. think tank across the street.

  Much smaller than the original ``Camp O.J.'' during the first trial, it's been

  dubbed ``Camp O.J. By The Sea.''

  A few vendors also are showing up to hawk Simpson memorabilia. At the

  criminal trial, they found a big market among the thousands of curiosity-seekers

  who drifted by daily.

  And everyone will be depending on 40 media seats in the courtroom, rotating

  people in and out at each break so they can do hourly reports or, in some cases,

  nightly broadcasts.

  How much will the world care? Probably less so than last time. But as that trial

  showed, all matters regarding Simpson seem to defy prediction.

  ``There will be differences in the coverage, but the press is not going away

  because America's interest isn't going away, says Loyola University Law

  School's Laurie Levenson. But, she adds, ``They won't have as much to report.''

  Contributing: Gale Holland

  TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE

  O.J. CIVIL TRIAL AT-A-GLANCE

  THE CASE: The estate of Nichole Brown Simpson and the family of Ron

  Goldman sued O.J. Simpson, saying he caused the ``wrongful deaths'' of his

  estranged wife and her friend by stabbing them to death on June 27, 1994. Trial

  begins Tuesday.

  THE JUDGE: Hiroshi Fijisaki

  SIMPSON: Expected to be in court, but is not required to be. If called, he must

  testify.

  RULES: No TV cameras, still cameras, tape recorders or sketch artists will be in

  the courtroom. Lawyers and witnesses have been ordered not to talk about the

  case in public.

  EVIDENCE: Unlike the criminal trial, which required proof ``beyond a

  reasonable doubt,'' the burden of proof is a ``preponderance of evidence'' or

  which side has the most convincing case. Certain heresay evidence will be

  admissible, such as Nichole Simpson's diary and details about her and Simpson's

  stormy marriage.

  VERDICT: Jurors don't have to be unanimous: only 9 of 12 have to agree. If

  they find against Simpson, the judgement will be money, not jail.

  PHOTO, Color, H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY ; PHOTO, Color, Dan Madden,

  AP; PHOTO, Color, Fred Prouser, Reuters; PHOTO, Color, Monika Graff, AP;

  PHOTO, Color, Mark Wilson, AP; Caption: O.J. Simpson Fujisaki: Clamps lid

  on proceedings. Cowling: Expected to plead the 5th. Resnick: Nicole's close

  friend. Kaelin: Testimony may be different.