THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : We May Not Know Why, but We’re Going Along for the Ride

Beginning today, the O.J. Simpson trial becomes a battle for the jurors’ minds as the defense and prosecution start their face-to-face persuasion of the 12 men and women who will decide the accused killer’s fate.

In view of this, it seems odd that the attorneys on both sides continue to play to the millions outside the courtroom, to the unappointed, unelected court of public opinion. Prosecution and defense attorneys hold news conferences. Leaks develop from mysterious sources, obviously aimed at influencing the public. Judge Lance A. Ito delivers homilies from the bench on his disdain for the way the media is describing the case.

It’s as though they think the Simpson trial is an election and O.J.’s fate will be decided by popular vote.

Such spinning, or manipulating, of the news made some sense before the jury was selected. Playing to the public meant influencing the pool of prospective jurors.

But now the jury is in place and the situation has changed. The verdict will be rendered by jurors who are sequestered, isolated from the propaganda wars, forbidden to read or watch news of the trial. Why, then, do the key players continue trying to shape the public’s perception of this heavily publicized case?

Legal tactics. A love of the limelight. A hunger for fame. All these are reasons why the spin won’t die during a trial that has gotten more publicity than many wars.

*

A tactical reason may be that the lawyers are trying to influence the judge, who has shown himself to be highly sensitive to what he sees on television and reads.

“Nobody has ever studied the impact of prejudicial publicity on judges,” said Everette E. Dennis, executive director of the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University. “We assume Judge Ito or any other judge is this paragon of impartiality who could not be influenced by anything he has read or heard. Yet here we have a case where the judge has responded with anger, and caustic comments about prejudicial publicity and the behavior of media. Next to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, he’s America’s No. 1 media critic.”

The judge’s future is also a factor. “He’s a young judge in an international focus,” said defense attorney Danny Davis. “He may end up in politics or writing a book.” Or appointed to a higher judicial post.

Another tactical consideration is the Simpson image. If he’s acquitted, the former football great undoubtedly hopes to resume life with something of a reputation intact. His reputation is important in helping him earn a living and defending himself against civil suits that might follow even if he is not convicted.

Simpson certainly doesn’t want to be another Fatty Arbuckle, the 1920s silent film comedian. Although he was found not guilty of murder, his career was destroyed. Simpson’s desire to rehabilitate his name, along with his need for money, may have spurred him to write his book.

Fame, and the benefits of being in the limelight, are also important.

Santa Monica attorney and Court TV commentator Gigi Gordon said lawyers glory in the limelight of a big trial. Many expected either F. Lee Bailey or Robert L. Shapiro to quit the defense’s so called “dream team” after their bitter public quarrel. Instead, they walked arm in arm into the courthouse Thursday. “History won’t remember the guy who leaves an empty chair,” she said on Court TV last week.

When I talked to her later, Gordon told how working on a big trial boosts a lawyer’s career. Gordon noted the experience of Leslie Abramson, who represents Erik Menendez, accused with his brother of murdering their parents.

Abramson’s powerful advocacy for her client made her a star on Court TV, which televised the trial. Afterward, she signed a lucrative book contract and is a commentator on the Simpson trial for ABC. “Leslie Abramson was one of the three best lawyers in the Los Angeles courts, but she was only known locally,” Gordon said. “Only now has she gotten the reputation she deserved.”

For well known defense attorney Bailey, Davis said, “this is his swan song, a bookend for his career.”

The media also has something at stake. Trial coverage has boosted television ratings. And if you do well on a big story, your career is helped. “There is a desire to be on top of this, to break a story,” said Dennis of the Freedom Forum. “There is also a feeling of wanting to do the best job on a story.”

*

Those are the reasons for the continuing news manipulation. But the process can’t take place unless there’s a market for the news.

A leak isn’t worth anything unless somebody broadcasts or publishes it, and nobody will do that if the public isn’t interested. Why is this story so hot that even trivial leaks end up on Page 1 or leading the news on television and radio? Why has it had such “legs” even during dull periods?

The fact is, while many people have many theories, no one can say for sure exactly what is going on. “I don’t know of a case where there has been anything like it,” Dennis said. “There have been celebrated murder cases, but interest wanes. There’s never been a pretrial period like this one.”

All that’s certain about this process is that when the trial ends, judges, lawyers and the media will begin a long period of soul-searching about the experience. Maybe then we’ll get some answers.

Until then, I’m on for the ride, and I don’t know where I’m going.