Bill Pavelic Forum | Information on William Bill Pavelic

Knoxville News-Sentinel (Tennessee)

March 10, 1995, Friday

O.J. ‘Workbook’ Puts Trial Watchers In The Jury Box

BYLINE: By Doug Mason News-Sentinel entertainment writer

SECTION: DETOURS; Pg. 6

LENGTH: 906 words

“Garbage in, garbage out.”

That’s how defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, in his opening statement at the O.J. Simpson murder trial, described the laboratory process that led to a DNA match between Simpson’s blood and blood found at the murder scene.

The Simpson defense team claims that sloppy police work tainted the blood and makes the DNA match suspect.

The book “Trial of the Century: You Be the Jury,” published in January, be-fore the Simpson trial began, comes up with the same argument and some of the same wording.

“Trial of the Century” is an “interactive guide” to the Simpson trial written by lawyers Robert J. Walton and F. LaGard Smith. It contains questions from the actual questionnaire given to potential jurors, as well as mock trial arguments and testimony for both the defense and the prosecution, a glossary of legal terms and other guides to help trial-watchers better understand the American ju-dicial process.

Smith, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., wonders if Cochran read “Trial of the Century” before preparing his opening statement to the jury. He points out a mock defense statement on page 156:

“Scientific tests are only as good as the people who use them,” the authors have written. “Or to put it another way garbage in, garbage out.”

Despite that word-for-word match, Smith says there is nothing prescient.about the sometimes close similarities between the actual trial and the arguments written for “Trial of the Century.”

“We have a rather fixed body of evidence (in the Simpson trial),” he.says. “There are only so many ways it can be handled. We figured out a logical way, and so did they (the defense and prosecution teams). We pretty much pegged it.”

Smith specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure and trial practice and teaches a course on professional ethics. He is also the author of numer-ous(Christian books, including devotionals and issue books on such hot-button issues as abortion, gay rights and gender roles. He practiced law as a district attorney in Oregon and has taught at Pepperdine for 23 years.
Smith considers “Trial of the Century” to be “up a notch from the hype and sleaze that has been accompanying the trial.”
Still, Smith says he was at first wary about having his name on the book.(Co-author Walton, an Arizona lawyer, has his name featured prominently in raised gold letters on the book’s cover. Smith’s name appears underneath in smaller, plain letters.
“When I was first approached with the idea (for the book), I said the only way I was going to do it was if I was in charge of every word so that there was no chance of hype or sleaze getting in there,” Smith says.

“At the earliest stages I was content to be a ghostwriter When it was fin-ished, and I knew that it was high-class, then I consented to have my name on it. By that time, it got in there in little, tiny letters.”

Smith’s wife has family in Tennessee, and the couple visited the area for several weeks last month. They spent time in Cookeville before moving on to Mur-freesboro, where The News-Sentinel caught up with F. LaGard Smith.

The author says “Trial of the Century” is educational but not astechnical as a law school-level text, and he says it’s “more fun than a normal workbook.

“It tries to involve readers as if they were actually jurors in the trial It takes them through the entire trial, giving opening statements, closing argu-ments, juror instructions, the actual verdict forms the jury will complete,” Smith says.
“The idea is to keep them (readers) from being merely passive couch(potatoes. It involves them in the process so that they can understand the terminology, ob-jections, trial strategies and behind-the-scenes information they wouldn’t nor-mally get.”
Smith has been following the trial and has little good to say about the Simp-son’s so-called “Dream Team” of defense lawyers, the Los Angeles district attor-neys who are prosecuting the case or Judge Lance Ito.

“I give them a D, a C-minus at best,” says Smith, switching to his law- pro-fessor mortar board.

“I teach trial practice. Frankly, I’ve got law students who have done better (than the Simpson trial attorneys) Both sides are just totally lacking in pro-fessionalism, it’s just embarrassing.

“Part of the reason for writing the book is to help understand the criminal justice system in America (but) there’s a better picture in the book than in the real trial. WE wanted to introduce something we were proud of, but there’s not much reason to be proud of this case.”

Smith believes all the participating attorneys have been seduced by the TV camera and the high celebrity profile of the case and that includes Judge Ito.

“(Ito is) wanting to come across as this incredibly fair and impartial ju-rist, which he is. But that doesn’t mean he has to let the defense whine all the time. (The trial) has broken down into a sad debacle.”

Because his book is partially titled “You Be the Jury,” Smith won’t say(whether he considers Simpson guilty or innocent, and he won’t predict the outcome of the trial, except to say that he thinks the jury will be “imminently fair” and will be able to reach a consensus.

“I’ve gone out on a limb personally, and (co-author) Bob Walton disagrees he thinks it will be a hung jury. (But) I think the case will be resolved, either guilty or not guilty.”
cover story

LOAD-DATE: July 31, 1996

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: (Color) Defense attorney Robert Shapiro, left, joins Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clark in a sidebar conversation during O.J. Simpson’s double-murder trial. Associated Press (photo not sent to library) (Color) Trial of the Century O. J. SIMPSON (Color) O.J. Simpson’s defense attorneys Robert Shapiro, left, Johnnie Cochran, second from right, and F. Lee Bailey, right, confer with their private investigator Bill Pavelic, during cross-examination of a Los Ange-les police detective in Los Angeles Criminal Court. Associated Press (photo not sent to library)

COURTS: SOME SAY DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL MAY BE HURT. OTHERS SEE DAMAGE TO THE PRACTICE OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Los Angeles Times
March 5, 1995, Sunday, Home Edition

BYLINE: By HENRY WEINSTEIN and TIM RUTTEN, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 1407 words

“Make the punishment fit the crime” is one of those homey maxims that trips warmly off the tongue. But Friday, when Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito tried to do that after defense lawyers again withheld evidence in O.J. Simpson’s double murder trial, he twisted the case into something that many legal experts say resembles an ethical pretzel.

Although most analysts agree that the first part of Ito’s remedy — $950 fines for attorneys Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. and Carl Douglas — will have little immediate impact, they say the consequences of the other sanctions the judge imposed may be serious for Simpson himself.

“In a very important sense, Judge Ito acted unfairly because he protected the lawyers at their client’s expense,” said defense attorney Marcia Morrissey. Al-ibi witness “Rosa Lopez didn’t fail to provide that tape (of an investigator’s July interview with her). It wasn’t her fault and it wasn’t O.J. Simpson’s either. Yet they are the people being made to suffer by Ito.”

Many defense lawyers also have begun to worry that the picture of the criminal justice system being beamed around the world from Ito’s courtroom may have an extremely damaging impact on the practice of criminal law across the country.

“Quite frankly, this is not a pretty picture,” said Los Angeles defense lawyer Barry Tarlow. “I once worked for the summer in a plant that manufactured ice cream, and I didn’t eat ice cream for a couple of years after that. Something similar is happening to the public in this case.”

Essentially, Ito did two things Friday when he ruled that the defense had failed in its obligation to provide prosecutors with the tape-recorded interview with Lopez, as well as a written report on a conversation with her:

First, he imposed the fines on Cochran and Douglas and reproved them for “a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead both the prosecution and the court.”

Second, Ito said that if the defense chooses to play the videotape of Lopez’s testimony for the jurors, he will tell them that Simpson’s lawyers violated the law and that the jury “may consider the effect of this delay in disclosure, if any, upon the credibility of the witness involved and give to it the weight to which you feel it is entitled.”

Simpson’s lawyers have 10 days in which to ask Ito to reconsider his decision.

In an interview Saturday, Cochran said he was still feeling the sting of Ito’s judicial blow.
“I respect Judge Ito. But in this instance he is dead wrong and terribly unfair — not only to us, but most of all, to O.J. Simpson,” Cochran said.

If Ito’s sanctions stand, said Morrissey and Los Angeles defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff, the judge’s retribution was too lenient in the first instance and so severe in the second that it may threaten Simpson’s right to a fair trial.

“The personal sanctions he imposed on Cochran and Douglas are insignificant,” Morrissey said. “If this trial is a search for the truth, it doesn’t seem fair that Simpson is being made to pay for his lawyers’ mistake.

“The jury needs to make a decision about Lopez’s credibility. The lawyers’ failure to provide the tapes or her prior statements — whatever their reasons — just isn’t relevant to the question of whether Ms. Lopez is a credible witness. So Ito has injected something foreign into the jury’s deliberations, which is how well the defense lawyers have complied with the discovery rules.”

Chaleff agreed. “When the judge says a lawyer has acted with reckless disregard of the truth and the fine is $950, that sends a mixed message,” he said. “If a judge truly believes that a lawyer has lied to him or her, then the sanction should be more severe.

“The ultimate victim of that will be the defendant, because the jury is being told by the court and the prosecutor not to trust his lawyers,” Chaleff said. “And if they don’t trust the lawyers, then they won’t believe their defense. And if they don’t believe the defense, O.J. Simpson will be convicted.”

However, Tarlow and fellow nationally prominent defense lawyer Gerry Spence said they feel Ito’s reproof of Cochran and Douglas may be more damaging than it may first appear.

“Money isn’t the issue here,” Spence said. “This is lollipop money for these lawyers. I’d pay a fortune to delete from the record a judge’s statement that I acted in reckless disregard of the truth. A man’s reputation is worth more than money, and this is a serious blow to Cochran’s reputation.”

Tarlow concurred. ” ‘Mr. Johnnie’ certainly won’t miss $950, but as a criminal defense lawyer all you really have is your reputation. In that light, Ito’s critical comments are extraordinarily harsh. I’d give $100,000 to charity — and I know Johnnie would too — rather than have those things written about me. The judge’s damning words will be with these lawyers for the rest of their lives. That makes this anything but a slap on the wrist.”

Cochran said the defense team is not taking “this sanction lightly.”

“I have practiced law for more than 30 years and Carl for more than 15,” he said. “Neither Carl nor I ever have been sanctioned before. We have lived and built our reputations carefully. They are more important to us than I can say. Integrity means everything to me.”

Cochran went on to point out that Douglas assumed responsibility as the defense team’s “custodian of discovery only on Jan. 2, and I took over as lead counsel from Bob Shapiro shortly after that. We should not be held responsible for things that may have occurred before that time.

“We have never hidden reports or tapes,” Cochran added. “We are being tarred with an unfair brush. Bill Pavelic (the private investigator who interviewed Lopez), worked for Shapiro and his reports went to him. Everything ultimately was transferred to our office, but there are 30,000 documents and hundreds of witnesses.

“We asked Pavelic whether there were any other documents and tapes and he told us there were not. We relied on his word. What am I supposed to do, poly-graph the guy? Pavelic will do a sworn declaration that he never told us about the existence of that tape.”

Cochran also said he is “worried about the partiality with which Judge Ito is treating the prosecutors. But the issue should not be whether Judge Ito is being fair to the lawyers, but whether he is being fair to O.J. Simpson. We may choose to be silent on our own behalf, but unfairness to our client is something we cannot abide.”

San Diego defense attorney Elisabeth Semel agrees that Ito’s proposed admonition is unfair to Simpson.

“The person being punished is the defendant, because the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled is being undermined,” she said. “This instruction lightens the prosecutors’ burden of proof. It gives them a way to assail the credibility of a witness to which they are not entitled.”

But Spence and USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky said Ito’s instruction to the jury could be read without violating Simpson’s 6th Amendment rights to a fair trial.

Last week’s contentious proceedings in the case have left many lawyers worried that the fallout may further damage the image of defense attorneys and com-promise the rights of defendants far outside Ito’s reach.

“What we’re seeing is poor legal work,” Morrissey said. “But I am concerned that the rest of the world thinks this is dishonesty and deceit. If half the public shares that perception, then defense lawyers — and, more important, their clients — have been severely harmed by this.”

Chaleff said “this whole case is sending the wrong message. Every day in that same building prosecutors and defense lawyers are . . . exchanging discovery, following the rules and proceeding in a quiet but effective manner for their side. I hope that this case does not cause future clients to believe that their lawyers should engage in win-at-any-cost tactics.”

Spence mused that “it seems to me that this whole trial is characterized by lawyers playing fast and loose with the truth. If Marcia Clark’s statement to the court Friday before last concerning her child care problems was false, as her estranged husband now says under oath, that also is very troubling. If a judge can’t believe the lawyers, it confirms what people always have suspected — that lawyers cheat and lie.”

* THE SPIN: The televised trial of O.J. Simpson is a boost for Newt Gingrich’s populist visions. B1

LOAD-DATE: March 6, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

CNN

March 3, 1995

SHOW: NEWS 7:19 am ET

GUESTS: LEXIS-NEXIS Related Topics Full Article Related Topics Overview

This document contains no targeted Topics.

BYLINE: ANNE McDERMOTT

SECTION: News; Domestic

LENGTH: 938 words

HIGHLIGHT: Rosa Lopez, a former housekeeper at the house next door to O.J. Simp-son’s, had a rough day on the witness stand yesterday as one prosecutor hammered away at her credibility and memory.

ANDREA ARCENEAUX, Anchor: Yet another day of testimony for a key defense wit-ness in the O.J. Simpson trial.

BOB CAIN, Anchor: We get an update and a look at the trial ahead from CNN corre-spondent Marc Watts, joining us now from Los Angeles.

MARC WATTS, Correspondent: Bob, Andrea, good morning. Ms. Lopez had hoped to be in El Salvador a week ago, but the defense witness will be back on the witness stand today in Los Angeles, undergoing more tough cross examination. Yesterday, prosecutor Christopher Darden hammered away at her testimony. CNN’s Anne McDer-mott has the story.

ANNE McDERMOTT, National Correspondent: Even Rosa Lopez seemed to sense that this was not going to be a good day for her.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Are you glad to be here today?

ROSA LOPEZ, Defense Witness: No, sir.

ANNE McDERMOTT: And within minutes, prosecutor Christopher Darden was on the at-tack.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you ever tell anyone that you hated Nicole?

ROSA LOPEZ: I didn’t say that I hated her, I said that I didn’t like her.

ANNE McDERMOTT: And that was because, she said, Nicole Brown Simpson slapped the Simpson housekeeper, Lopez’s friend. Darden also asked her about a conversation she had with a former employer shortly after Nicole Brown Simpson and a friend were killed.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Isn’t it true that you told her, ‘O.J. Simpson is a great guy, and I’ll testify to anything, anytime.’

ROSA LOPEZ: I don’t remember.

ANNE McDERMOTT: Darden suggested that such a statement would be difficult to forget.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Ms. Lopez this is supposed to be the murder case of the cen-tury-

ANNE McDERMOTT: Then there was another statement Lopez seemed to have no memory of.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Isn’t it true that you told Sylvia Garrero [sp] that if she would say that she saw the Bronco, that she could also get paid $5000.

ROSA LOPEZ: I don’t remember having said that, sir.

ANNE McDERMOTT: Darden also attacked Lopez’s memory of when she saw O.J. Simp-son’s Bronco in front of his house. Earlier this housekeeper to Simpson’s next door neighbors agreed with a defense investigator that she saw the Bronco there about 10:15 or 10:20 at night, the time when prosecutors said Simpson was off killing his ex-wife and her friend. But under Darden’s questioning, she sug-gested the investigator, Bill Pavelic, got it wrong.

ROSA LOPEZ: All I said was that it was after 10:00.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So you don’t know how long after 10:00.

ROSA LOPEZ: No, sir.

ANNE McDERMOTT: Darden asked her more questions about that interview with the investigator.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you did not agree with all the times that Mr. Bill Pavelic said, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: Maybe he didn’t understand me.

ANNE McDERMOTT: Prosecutors have accused investigator Pavelic of coaching her, and Darden, at one point, also accused Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran, of doing the same thing in court. Darden gave two examples of this alleged activ-ity.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You never saw Mr. Cochran make a motion like this, with his hands?

ROSA LOPEZ: No, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you ever see Mr. Cochran make a gesture like this, dur-ing the testimony?

ROSA LOPEZ: No, sir.

Judge LANCE ITO: Indicating a third base coach saying ’slide.’

ANNE McDERMOTT: Cochran angrily protested and Judge Lance Ito said he saw no evidence of wrong-doing. Meanwhile Darden hammered away at Lopez’s credibility. Didn’t she recall telling a television reporter she heard voices on the night of the killings? She said no, then was shown this video tape [video tape clip] - Lopez said she was saying she heard noises, not voices. At times, Darden ques-tioned Lopez calmly, sometimes angrily and sometimes even with a kind of hilar-ity. One such moment occurred when he asked Lopez what she talked about with the defense attorneys during a break.

ROSA LOPEZ: We talked about my always telling the truth, sir. That’s what I’m saying now sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [guffaw - he laughs]

judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden, that was totally inappropriate-

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: That was unavoidable and I apologize to the court.

Judge LANCE ITO: You’re admonished Mr. Darden, please.

ANNE McDERMOTT: Anne McDermott, CNN, Los Angeles.

MARC WATTS: The children of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson light candles each morning in front of a picture of their slain mother, that according to De-nise Brown, Nicole’s sister. Denise says she has assembled a shrine to her sis-ter which includes a large portrait in order to help Simpson’s children deal with the tragedy.

DENISE BROWN, Nicole Brown Simpson’s Sister: They know their mommy’s dead, you know. But we keep her alive, we have pictures all over the place, we light can-dles for her, we say our prayers every night, God Bless Mommy, you know, and God Bless Daddy.

MARC WATTS: The Simpson children, Sydney and Justin, ages nine and six, are staying with Denise Brown at her parents home in California. And our coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial begins a little earlier than usual today. We’ll start things up at 11:45 a.m. Eastern, 8:45 Pacific. Rosa Lopez returns to the wit-ness stand. And that’s going to do it for this hour from Los Angeles.

The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distri-bution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.

LOAD-DATE: March 3, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Transcript # 16-3

TYPE: Package

United Press International

March 2, 1995, Thursday, BC cycle

BYLINE: BY TERRI VERMEULEN
SECTION: Domestic News
LENGTH: 1094 words

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES, March 2

O.J. Simpson’s key alibi witness testified Thursday that she is not exactly sure what time she saw the football legend’s Ford Bronco outside his mansion the night his ex-wife and her friend were killed. Under cross-examination by prose-cutor Christopher Darden, defense witness Rosa Lopez said she told Simpson’s private investigator, Bill Pavelic, she had seen the Bronco ‘’after 10 p.m.,'’ and Pavelic suggested other times she might have seen the vehicle. The time frame is critical because prosecutors contend Simpson drove the Bronco to the home of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, about 10:15 p.m., killed her and her friend, Ronald Goldman, and returned home in time to catch a late flight to Chicago. Simpson, 47, has pleaded ‘’absolutely, 100 percent innocent'’ to two counts of first-degree murder for the June 12, 1994 stabbing and slashing deaths. If convicted, the National Football League Hall-of- Famer could spend the rest of his life in prison without possibility of parole. Lopez’s testimony is inconsistent with lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran’s opening statements to the jury, in which he told the panel that Lopez saw the white Bronco at 10:15 p.m. Darden pounced on the inconsistencies, asking Lopez whether Pavelic was ‘’the first one to suggest 10:15 or 10:20′’ was the time she had seen the Bronco. ‘’If that’s what he’s saying, that’s fine,'’ Lopez said. Under relent-less grilling, Lopez said she gave Pavelic times that she had seen the Bronco and that he suggested other times. ‘’You did not agree with all the times that Mr. Pavelic said, correct?'’ Darden asked Lopez. ‘’Maybe he didn’t understand me,'’ Lopez responded through a Spanish interpreter. Lopez, a Salvadoran native, spoke to Pavelic in English, but has said she prefers to speak Spanish. Earlier this week, prosecutors contended Lopez was ‘’coached into stating what the de-fense wanted to hear'’ during a tape-recorded interview with Pavelic. Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clark said Lopez was ‘’handed a script'’ before the July 29, 1994 interview and ‘’basically coached and told what to say through ever bend and turn.'’ In court Thursday, Darden accused Cochran of giving Lopez hand signals or cues as she testified — an accusation Cochran flatly denied. In an intense day of cross-examination, Lopez contradicted herself numerous times. When asked whether she had difficulty remembering dates and times, Lopez responded, ‘’If I don’t have it written down, how can I remember?'’ Moments later, Lopez refuted Darden’s suggestion that she would not be able to remember dates and times if she had not written them down. There were other contradic-tions involving visits to attorneys’ offices, unemployment forms, her address, her name and her age. Superior Court Judge Lance Ito is allowing Lopez to tes-tify out of the jury’s presence because she claimed she wanted to flee the coun-try because she is terrified by the media. Her videotaped testimony will be available to be shown to the jury during the defense’s case if she carries out her threat to leave for El Salvador. A hostile Lopez, who had been gently ques-tioned by Cochran, responded to many of Darden’s queries by answering, ‘’I don’t know,'’ ‘’I don’t remember'’ or ‘’If you say so.'’ Lopez said she did not remem-ber whether she told a former employer, ‘’O.J. Simpson is a great guy and I’ll testify to anything, anytime.'’ Darden also asked Lopez if she remembered her former employer, Sylvianne Walker, asking her if she believed Simpson committed the murders. ‘’And isn’t it true that you responded? ‘Oh no, senora. He had somebody do it for him.”’ Darden asked Lopez. ‘’No sir, I don’t remember hav-ing said that to the lady,'’ Lopez said. Lopez also denied that she was offered $5,000 to sell her story to the National Enquirer tabloid or to testify in Simp-son’s trial. Lopez also said she did not remember ever telling one of her friends, Sylvia Guerra, she could get paid $5,000 for saying she saw Simpson’s Bronco at the curb of his mansion the night of the killings. Prosecutors also grilled Lopez about why she did not inform police about seeing the Bronco the night of the killings, though there were dozens of police officers in front of the house the next day. ‘’If no one comes to me, I’m not going to go looking for somebody,'’ Lopez said. ‘’I am not going to go looking for the police to in-form them.'’ Lopez has maintained that police detective Mark Fuhrman came to her house the morning after the killings and told her that he would send investiga-tors back to interview her — something she contends never happened. Lopez ad-mitted she disliked Simpson’s ex-wife because Nicole Simpson once slapped the Simpson’s housekeeper, Michele Abourdram. ‘’We are friends, we are both house-keepers and we earn our living by the sweat of our brow,'’ Lopez said of Abourdram. Simpson’s legal team maintained outside court that Lopez, the only alibi witness mentioned in the defense’s opening statements, is a ‘’believable witness.'’ ‘’I think that she’s believable and credible on all of the important issues, and you can’t touch her on that,'’ Cochran told reporters. But legal experts said prosecutors were able to call serious question to Lopez’s credibil-ity. Southwestern University Law School professor Robert Pugsley said he be-lieves the prosecution made a ‘’major dent in the defense’s alibi'’ by showing Lopez was uncertain about what time she had seen Simpson’s Bronco. ‘’I think that Rosa Lopez’s effectiveness as an alibi witness for O. J. Simpson has been effectively demolished,'’ Pugsley said. ‘’There are too many inconsistencies, too many ‘’I don’t remembers'’ when it was convenient to do that.'’ ‘’They now know they have a serious problem on their hands. They promised this woman to the jurors in opening statements. I think today was a stinging defeat for the de-fense, and they know it.'’ In a development outside court, Simpson’s lawyers ap-pealed to the public to turn over photographs and videos of the murder scene during the first few hours of the investigation, saying they may ‘’be of great importance in reaching the truth.'’ The defense asked anyone with such material to call them and offered to buy any items that ‘’may be helpful.'’ The football legend’s legal team has accused police and the coroner’s office of bungling the investigation, contaminating evidence and failing to perform necessary tests.

LOAD-DATE: March 3, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

CBS News Transcripts

March 02, 1995, Thursday

SHOW: EYE TO EYE WITH CONNIE CHUNG (9:00 PM ET) 

O.J. Simpson: On Trial; Rosa Lopez Takes Stand For Videotaped Testimony

ANCHORS: CONNIE CHUNG

LENGTH: 977 words

CONNIE CHUNG, host:

In the O.J.  Simpson trial this week, an alibi witness took the stand and took some heat–a lot of it.  By this afternoon, her story, her credibility and a key part of the Simpson defense were all beginning to crumble.  It began Monday in videotaped testimony that the jury may not see for months.  Defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran posed a question to which he, and a lot of other people, already knew the answer.

O.J.  SIMPSON: ON TRIAL

(Footage from courtroom; questioning and answers for Rosa Lopez are translated throughout)

Mr.  JOHNNIE COCHRAN (Defense Attorney): And while you were out there, out on Rockingham, did you ever have occasion to see any cars parked?

Ms.  ROSA LOPEZ (Witness): There was a white car, a Bronco.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) With those words, Rosa Lopez, a housekeeper working next door to O.J.  Simpson’s house, laid the groundwork for the defense’s best hope to provide Simpson with an alibi.

Ms.  LOPEZ: Over here, right here.

(Footage of Bronco being towed; Simpson home; photo of Nicole Brown Simpson)

CHUNG: (Voiceover) Lopez testified that O.J.  Simpson’s white Bronco was parked outside his home at the time the prosecution said the murders took place.

Mr.  CHRIS DARDEN (Prosecutor): You understand that today you are under oath?

Ms.  LOPEZ: Yes.

(Footage of courtroom)

CHUNG: (Voiceover) Today, with prosecutor Christopher Darden’s cross-examination, began another sort of trial, a trial of Rosa Lopez’s memory and ultimately her credibility.

Mr.  DARDEN: Well, what month was this?

Ms.  LOPEZ: I don’t remember, sir.

Mr.  DARDEN: Do you have a hard time remembering dates?

Ms.  LOPEZ: No, sir.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) Darden fought to rip Lopez’s story apart, suggesting that she was coached by Simpson team investigator Bill Pavelic.

Mr.  DARDEN: You would give times and he would give other times, correct?

Ms.  LOPEZ: If you say so, sir.

Mr.  DARDEN: But I’m asking you, ma’am.  Is that correct?

Ms.  LOPEZ: It is correct.

Mr.  DARDEN: Did Mr.  Pavelic tell you or mention to you first that you saw the Bronco at 10:15 or 10:20?

Ms.  LOPEZ: All I said was that it was after 10.

Mr.  DARDEN: And so you don’t know how long after 10?

Ms.  LOPEZ: No, sir.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) Rosa Lopez’s ability to account for time became the issue of the day.  CBS News consultant trial lawyer Gerald Lefcourt.

Mr.  GERALD LEFCOURT (Attorney): What’s crucial and her whole purpose…

(Footage of Lopez)

Mr.  LEFCOURT: (Voiceover) …is to put that Bronco there between 10 and 11:00.

And if she says that she saw it there and it was just sometime after 10 and she doesn’t remember, well, then it could be quite a bit after 10 and something closer to 11, in which case her whole value as a witness really goes down the drain.

(Footage of Michael Knox)

Mr.  MICHAEL KNOX (Former Juror): I’m not supposed to say anything.  I’ve been…

Unidentified Reporter: What was it like being on…

Mr.  KNOX: …ordered not to say anything.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) But the real shock this week may have come yesterday, words from Michael Knox, who was dismissed from the jury.  He gave reporters insight into what the jury may really be thinking.

Mr.  KNOX: …because I think that the prosecution has laid a pretty strong case so far.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) The African-American male was replaced by a middle-aged white woman.

(Footage from courtroom)

Unidentified Woman: Juror number 353, please have a seat in seat number 12.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) Once again, the issue of race moved center stage in Judge Ito’s courtroom.

Mr.  LEFCOURT: The truth is–is that people of color are more likely to question four white detectives when there are allegations of racism against one or more of them than would white people, and that is simply a reality in America.

Judge LANCE ITO (Los Angeles Superior Court): All right, Ms.  Lopez, could–would you take the witness stand again, please?

(Footage from courtroom)

CHUNG: (Voiceover) This afternoon, prosecutors resumed their attack.  Rosa Lopez was shown a news report in which she contradicted her story.

Ms.  LOPEZ: (From news story) I don’t know what time.

Mr.  DARDEN: When you told a reporter that you heard voices, didn’t you tell him that you didn’t know what time it was that you heard the voice?

Mr.  LOPEZ: (Not translated) Si, senior.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) And when Darden wasn’t attacking Lopez, he was taking on Johnnie Cochran, accusing him of coaching Lopez.

Mr.  COCHRAN: I would never, ever do anything like that.

CHUNG: (Voiceover) The judge and the prosecution accepted Cochran’s explanation, that he was only signaling the court reporter.  But the prosecution kept it up, ultimately suggesting Lopez’s story was for sale. She denied it.

Ms.  LOPEZ: No, sir.

CHUNG: There may be one more victim in the Simpson case: motherhood. Marcia Clark’s estranged husband has filed for custody of the couple’s two young sons.  He blames the Simpson trial for keeping Clark away from her children.  Clark, who says her children are more important than anything, recently asked for more financial support, citing increased child-care costs and the expense of having to dress for national television.

(Footage of Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller)

Announcer: (Voiceover) When we come back…

RUSS MITCHELL: Is it true that you actually wrote “Hound Dog” in eight minutes?

(Footage of record label; Leiber and Stoller)

Announcer: (Voiceover) …their Elvis hit sold seven million copies.  Now Leiber and Stoller take the EYE TO EYE challenge.

MITCHELL: If I gave you eight to 10 minutes right now to write a song…

Mr.  JERRY LEIBER (Songwriter): All right.  Here we go.  One, two, shuffle, two, three, four–(singing) Baby, I like the way you look from your ankle to your knee…

LOAD-DATE: March 02, 1995, Thursday

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Profile

Los Angeles Times
March 1, 1995, Wednesday, Home Edition

NEWS ANALYSIS;
SIMPSON’S FATE MAY RIDE ON DEFENSE TEAM’S CREDIBILITY;
TRIAL: ATMOSPHERE CREATED BY FAILURES TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE COULD BE REFLECTED IN JUDGE’S RULINGS, EXPERTS SAY.

BYLINE: By HENRY WEINSTEIN and TIM RUTTEN, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 1286 words

By failing to provide key evidence to the opposition, O.J. Simpson’s fractured defense team has further jeopardized its credibility with Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito. The ultimate loser, a wide array of legal experts predict, could be Simpson himself.

“This could be a turning point of the case,” said Wyoming defense lawyer Gerry Spence. “If a judge doesn’t believe a lawyer, he reflects that all through the trial, consciously or unconsciously. It will be reflected in his rulings on the evidence and in his instructions to the jury.”

Ito already has punished defense lawyers once for violating California’s so-called reciprocal discovery laws, which require each side in a criminal case to swap evidence and witness statements.

The prosecution has demanded additional sanctions for this week’s violations, which involve failure to turn over a tape-recorded interview with alibi witness Rosa Lopez and a written statement. Ito may rule on that request today.

To date, Ito has given defense lawyers considerable leeway in presenting their case. But many legal experts believe the judge, confronted with a second apparent violation of the laws governing the sharing of evidence, may no longer be so understanding.

“Whenever a judge believes that the lawyers on one side haven’t been honest with him, it can’t help but affect his view of any future issues that turn on their credibility,” said Los Angeles defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff. “Those sorts of issues will come up again in this trial.”

Simpson’s lawyers — primarily team leader Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. and his partner Carl Douglas — have maintained that their violations of discovery statutes were innocent mistakes rather than willful acts, as alleged by lead prosecutor Marcia Clark.

However, defense lawyer Albert De Blanc Jr. said the defense’s conduct amounts to “sandbagging, whether intentional or negligent.”

San Diego defense lawyer Elisabeth A. Semel said she expects Ito to levy new sanctions against Simpson’s lawyers. But she cautioned that “the judge has to be very careful that in any order he crafts to punish the lawyers, he doesn’t punish the defendant in a way that interferes with his 6th Amendment rights to a fair trial.”

Washington, D.C., defense lawyer Greta Van Susteren echoed that sentiment. “Whatever Judge Ito does, the people who should pay the piper are the lawyers, not O.J. Simpson. The dangerous thing about a sanction is that it normally affects the defendant.”

In this instance, Ito may deem the discovery violations particularly severe because there are discrepancies between the information the defense initially handed over and that which was withheld.

In a July 29 report by defense investigator Bill Pavelic, there is a reference indicating that Sylvia Guerra, a housekeeper who works near Simpson’s Brentwood estate and is an acquaintance of Lopez, could corroborate Lopez’s statements.

But in the subsequent Aug. 18 report of a Lopez interview by Pavelic and another investigator, there is no reference to Guerra. This is the statement that was originally provided to prosecutors. The defense only turned over the July statement on Monday.

“It suggests that the defense is trying to hide something,” Van Susteren said. “How can they say that was accidental?”
Van Susteren said she found implausible the defense’s initial explanation that Guerra’s name had been left out of the August statement because she was an illegal immigrant Lopez had asked them to protect. “The defense is not in the business of protecting an illegal immigrant, they’re in the business of protecting their client’s rights.”

Some analysts said they doubt that defense team members deliberately withheld evidence from the prosecution — especially since Ito had warned them in the trial’s opening days about failing to reveal information to the opposition.

Attorney Marcia Morrissey, for one, said she believes the apparent violations of evidence-sharing rules resulted from poor communication among the attorneys and their staffs.

“It doesn’t have the appearance of a cover-up,” she said. “It has the appear-ance of sloppiness — investigators who aren’t talking to the lawyers and lawyers not talking to the other lawyers.”

For months, sources close to the defense camp say, attorneys Shapiro and Cochran have been harshly critical of each other behind the scenes, hampering communication at a time when they should be working closely together because of the case’s relatively swift pace.

“There is no question that there is great personal animosity between Bob Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran,” said a source close to the defense, who asked not to be identified. “Their relationship is just terrible. For that reason, I’m inclined to think that this failure to provide discovery was not intentional.”

As recently as January, sources say, the defense’s voluminous files were removed from Shapiro’s office and provided to Cochran as he cemented control over the case. “This was a pretty traumatic event for Bob, since it essentially ratified his loss of control over the case,” the source said.

The interviews with Lopez were conducted by Pavelic, a private detective hired by Shapiro, and were among the documents shipped to Cochran’s office, “so they may very well have gone unnoticed until the last moment,” the defense source said.
Relations between Simpson’s two high-profile lawyers has become so soured, according to other sources, that Shapiro is frequently absent from crucial defense strategy meetings — including one in which the content of Cochran’s opening statement was discussed. In the course of that statement, Cochran revealed that his side planned to call more than a dozen witnesses and introduce addi-tional evidence of which the prosecution previously had been unaware. Lopez was one of those witnesses.

Still other observers seeking to explain the defense’s laxity on discovery issues say that the bad blood between the lawyers has been complicated by the unprecedented rush with which the case has been brought to trial.

“I suspect that the mess you’re looking at now is the product of a confluence of bad blood and excessive speed,” said an attorney who knows both Cochran and Shapiro well. “There is a tension — constant tension — between them, often expressed, that undoubtedly impedes the kind of coordination a case like this requires.”

Well-informed sources say that tension has been exacerbated recently over attempts to alter the payment of fees to defense lawyers. Simpson’s financial arrangements with his defense attorneys differ from the normal arrangement under which most criminal defendants pay their lawyers before trial, usually in a lump sum or several large payments.

Simpson’s lawyers are being paid in much smaller increments because, as one source put it: “O.J. has assets, but he has a cash-flow problem.” He has declined, for example, to sell his Brentwood estate to raise money for his defense. As a consequence, his attorneys are being paid from other business income, including the proceeds from his best-selling book, “I Want to Tell You.”

Recently, Simpson’s longtime personal lawyer, Leroy (Skip) Taft, and friend Robert Kardashian reportedly have sought to readjust the dispersal of that income so more money can go to Bailey, who has taken an active part in cross-examining prosecution witnesses, and less to Shapiro, whose role has diminished. That attempt reportedly has engendered additional dissension within the so-called “Dream Team.”

The retainer agreements between Simpson and his defense lawyers were drawn up by Larry R. Feldman, one of California’s leading trial attorneys. Tuesday, he was unavailable for comment on the matter.

LOAD-DATE: March 2, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

TYPE: Analysis

The Boston Herald

March 1, 1995 Wednesday SECOND EDITION

Ito slams O.J. team for hiding key tape

BYLINE: By Helen Kennedy

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 001

LENGTH: 675 words

A 12-minute audiotape that the O.J. Simpson defense team first said didn’t exist - and then produced - touched off an acrimonious daylong debate that an-gered the judge and prompted prosecutors to call for sanctions.

Prosecutors accused the defense of hiding the tape - a July 29 recording in English of Simpson’s star witness Rosa Lopez telling a different story - because it is so damaging to their most crucial witness.

“This is the most egregious violation I’ve ever seen in my practice,” said prosecutor Marcia Clark, who was granted a delay to prepare the cross-examination.

The delay - which Judge Lance A. Ito took pains to blame on the defense - adds to the discomfort of the sequestered jurors, who sat in their hotel yester-day watching “The Flintstones” for the third time.

Also taking the brunt of the delay was Lopez herself, who told the judge she has been honest and made a pitiful plea to be allowed to go home to El Salvador.

“I’m very sick, sir,” said Lopez, who wore the same blue dress she appeared in the day before.

“I don’t eat during the day. I’m not sleeping very well. This is not my fault to work close to Mr. Simpson. It’s not my fault to have seen and to have heard,” she said. “I’m very tired. I want to go rest. I don’t want any more questions.”

But Ito told her to come back tomorrow morning and ordered Simpson’s lawyers to pay for her hotel room as part of their punishment.

In a calm, sure voice, Lopez testified Monday that she saw Simpson’s white Bronco parked at his home several times on the night of June 12, including about 10:15 p.m., when prosecutors say Simpson was two miles away murdering his ex-wife.

Clark charged yesterday that Lopez is being carefully “coached” by the de-fense.

She accused the defense of deliberately hiding a written statement and audio-tape opez made July 29 because both contain “glaring” inconsistencies with the Aug. 18 statement that was given to prosecutors.

For example:
On July 29, Lopez said another Brentwood housekeeper, Sylvia Guerra, had coffee at Lopez’s house June 12 and also saw Simpson’s Bronco. Clark said Guerra will testify that Lopez was lying. Guerra was not mentioned in the August state-ment or by Lopez on the stand.

On the July tape - but not in the written statement - Lopez also said she heard Simpson talking to another man at 10 p.m. That strong alibi testimony was also not repeated in the later statement or on the stand.

“We’re talking huge inconsistencies,” Clark said.

The July 29 statement was given to prosecutors Monday, when defense attorneys Johnnie Cochran Jr. and Carl Douglas blamed the lateness on a “harmless over-sight.”
Both strongly denied that any other notes or tapes existed.

“There are no notes that haven’t been turned over. There are no tape re-cordings,” Douglas said.

Cochran scornfully dismissed the prosecution complaints, saying: “Judge, they’re always crying and complaining.”

Ito - appearing incredulous - confronted Cochran with the transcript of Ito asking defense investigator Zvonco “Bill” Pavelic if there were “any other notes, reports or statements relating to Lopez.”
Pavelic said: “other than the two (typed) statements, no.”

But after Ito - at Clark’s urging - unwillingly placed Bill Pavelic under oath, Bill Pavelic admitted he had a tape of the July 29 interview.

Cochran tried to explain it by saying the judge’s original question was not specific enough. Ito shook his head and laughed in apparent disbelief.

Both sides have been punished by the judge for withholding materials, but Ito specifically warned Douglas last month to locate every tape and note and to make sure they were all turned over to prosecutors.

Douglas apparently dodged a perjury accusation when Bill Pavelic told Ito that Douglas never knew there was a tape.

The controversy over the tape produced another first for the Simpson trial: Clark lost her tongue.

“I find this unbelievable,” she said, sputtering into silence.

“I’m speechless,” she finally said, then she laughed: “I know that tells you something.”

LOAD-DATE: March 01, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Los Angeles Times
March 1, 1995, Wednesday, Home Edition

BYLINE: By JIM NEWTON and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 2343 words

The potentially crucial testimony of Rosa Lopez, a housekeeper who could bol-ster O.J. Simpson’s alibi but whose credibility is in question, was interrupted Tuesday by disclosure of the contents of a tape-recording that prosecutors say casts new doubt on Lopez’s truthfulness.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, who has won Lopez’s repeated assurances that she will not leave the country until her testimony is completed, extracted yet another promise of cooperation from her Tuesday afternoon. But Lopez has grown increasingly assertive in the courtroom, and her latest pledge was deliv-ered grudgingly and conditionally.

“I am very tired,” she told the judge. “I want to rest, sir. I don’t want any more questions.”

With that, Lopez wheeled and started to leave the courtroom, even though Ito had indicated that he wanted her to continue her special examination until the end of the day. Ito called her back and asked her whether she understood his or-der that she was to return Thursday for more testimony.

She said she did, and Ito allowed her to leave for the day, canceling the re-mainder of the session while the jury and alternates whiled away the afternoon at their hotel — where they probably will remain for the rest of the week.

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Simpson’s lead trial attorney, is expected to resume his questioning of Lopez on Thursday morning, to be followed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden’s cross-examination, a session that could last all day.

In part, the lengthy arguments and questioning reflect the potentially great significance of Lopez’s testimony. She is the only witness to emerge so far who claims to be able to support Simpson’s alibi in the June 12 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, to which Simpson has pleaded not guilty.

Lopez testified Monday that she saw Simpson’s vehicle outside his house shortly after 10 p.m. on June 12, roughly the time that prosecutors believe the murders were committed.

If true, that would cast grave doubt on the prosecution’s theory that Simpson committed the murders, then drove from the murder scene to his Brentwood estate in his Ford Bronco, which would account for bloodstains found inside that vehicle.

By contrast, if prosecutors can show that Lopez is lying, it would deprive the defense of Simpson’s only known alibi witness and could make the defense team appear desperate in its efforts to defend the former football star.

With the stakes so high over Lopez’s testimony, Ito has been unusually accom-modating of her in the face of her threats to leave the country and become un-available to testify. Some legal experts were particularly surprised to see Ito call off Tuesday’s session early just because Lopez said she was too tired to continue.

“This was so bizarre,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinksy. “When was the last time you saw a witness say to the judge, ‘I’m tired, I’m not answering any more questions,’ and leave the courtroom? Imagine if (Los Angeles Police De-tective) Mark Fuhrman said at 3 o’clock on a Tuesday, ‘I’m tired, I’m not testi-fying any more today.’ ”

Chemerinksy added: “She is a material witness. She doesn’t get to dictate the court schedule.”

Lopez’s truthfulness has been the central preoccupation of the Simpson trial since she took the stand Friday, asking for permission to be questioned as soon as possible so that she could leave the country for her native El Salvador. In her initial appearance, prosecutors leaped on a number of inconsistencies in her claims that she was preparing to leave and not return.

Since then, they have accused Lopez of telling different stories about her observations on the night of the murders, and they have contended that the de-fense team coached her answers and covered up discrepancies by failing to turn over reports and tapes until the last minute.

Just before Lopez took the stand Monday, defense attorneys turned over a statement given to their investigator July 29 but not previously shared with the prosecution. Prosecutors were angered by the late disclosure, but defense lawyer Carl A. Douglas promised that the report marked the last of their material re-lated to Lopez, who lived and worked next door to O.J. Simpson.

But that assurance was contradicted by their own private investigator, former Los Angeles Police Detective Bill Pavelic. Called into court at the end of the day, Pavelic revealed that he had a tape-recording of a July 29 interview with her.

Prosecutors were furious to learn of that tape so late in the process, and their anger was stoked again Tuesday after listening to the tape for the first time.

“I have never heard anything like that,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark after listening to the 15-minute cassette. “I have never heard a witness basi-cally coached and told what to say through every bend and turn.”

In court Tuesday, Clark pointed out two of what she said were many inconsis-tencies between the tape-recorded statement and later reports or testimony: Con-trary to the investigator’s report of the interview, Lopez did not mention on the tape an acquaintance named “Sylvia” who could support her recollections; also contrary to Lopez’s testimony Monday, she claimed on the tape to have heard Simpson’s voice across the fence about 10 p.m., about when the murders were al-legedly being committed.

Throughout both statements and the transcript of the tape-recording — copies of which were obtained by The Times — Lopez never wavers on the central point of her testimony, however: that she saw Simpson’s Ford Bronco outside his house about 8:30 p.m. on June 12 and that it did not appear to have been moved before the next morning, when she saw it in the same position.

When she testified Monday, Lopez said she heard Simpson’s voice from next door, but she placed the time at about 11 p.m., when Simpson was meeting a lim-ousine that took him to the airport. Lopez, who testified that she had been looking at her bedside clock throughout the evening, never said she had seen or heard Simpson about 10 p.m., when she said she went outside.

In addition, copies of the two statements prepared by Pavelic reveal that they are substantially the same, but there are discrepancies as well. Most sig-nificantly, in the report of the July interview, Lopez never explicitly refers to seeing Simpson’s vehicle outside his house about 10:15 p.m. She merely states that it did not appear to have been moved between about 8:30 p.m. that night and the next morning.

In the July statement, Pavelic wrote: “Ms. Lopez stated that at approximately (10:15 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.), she took her dog for a walk and five minutes later she returned to her residence.”

The next notation in the July 29 report refers to hearing Simpson’s voice at about 11 p.m.

But in the Aug. 18 report, Pavelic added a sentence with a more specific ac-count of Lopez’s observations while walking the dog: “During this time,” Pavelic wrote, “Ms. Lopez again observed O.J. Simpson’s Bronco to be parked in the same position near the Rockingham gate.”

The later report, with its more helpful version of Lopez’s testimony, was the only document shared with prosecutors before the day that Lopez took the stand.

A transcript of the tape-recording of the July interview, however, backs the defense’s contention that Lopez has all along maintained that the car was parked outside at that time.

According to the transcript, which also was obtained by The Times, Pavelic asked Lopez: “So you take your dog for a walk about 10:15?

“10:15,” she responded.

“10:30, OK.” Pavelic said.

“Yeah,” Lopez said.

“Now, when you took your dog for a walk, could you still see the Bronco out-side?” Pavelic asked.

“Yes, yes,” she answered.

“The Bronco was in the same position?” the investigator continued.

“Same position, with the tires going out,” Lopez answered.

That transcript could strengthen Lopez’s credibility and head off prosecution arguments that she only remembered seeing the car in the second interview. The transcript does, however, suggest that Lopez, who speaks little English, was led through her answers by Pavelic, often merely answering yes or no as Pavelic posed detailed questions.

The July report also refers to “Sylvia,” a witness who Lopez allegedly told the investigator also saw Simpson’s Ford Bronco parked outside the house that evening. That would corroborate Lopez’s account, but prosecutors say that Sylvia Guerra disputes Lopez’s version and is prepared to testify.

Defense attorneys say the references to Sylvia, whose name does not appear in the transcript of the tape, were deleted from the Aug. 18 report at Lopez’s re-quest because Sylvia, who is in the country illegally, did not want to be con-tacted by authorities.

Rarely at a loss for words, Clark was reduced to sputtering with anger about the late disclosure of those reports and the tape, which she said warranted se-vere sanctions against the defense for misconduct.

“To hear this tape was, was just, I’m speechless,” she said, shaking her head. “I’m speechless. To think that there was, I’m speechless. . . . I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Cochran accused Clark of overreacting to the tape’s contents and said the tape shows that Lopez was “entirely consistent,” not the coached liar that prosecutors portray her to be.

Although Cochran conceded that there were differences in the details of the reports written by Pavelic a few weeks apart, he downplayed the significance of the differences and noted that the reports were done in the investigator’s words. Only the tape is Lopez’s verbatim account, he said, adding that he is confident that it will not undermine the witness’s credibility with the jury.

“Let’s play it for the jury,” Cochran said.

Cochran said he too was surprised to learn of the existence of the tape in court Monday, and Pavelic told Ito that he had not told any of the attorneys about the tape before Monday’s hearing. Ito, however, seemed to doubt Pavelic’s truthfulness, noting that he got slightly different answers about the existence of additional reports or notes concerning Lopez before and after placing Pavelic under oath.

Although Ito acknowledged that he had not at first questioned Pavelic spe-cifically about a tape-recording, Pavelic had not volunteered that information either, and Ito accused the investigator of not responding in the spirit of the question — which was intended to determine whether additional information ex-isted.

Ito has asked lawyers and investigators to be in court today so that he can question them about compliance with state evidence-sharing laws. Prosecutors have asked that the defense be punished for withholding documents, reports, notes and other materials related to Lopez and to defense experts mentioned by Cochran in his opening statement.

Although few experts predict that Ito will resolve all the remaining evidence questions today, the session offers him an opportunity to grapple with the issue and to avoid wasting the day entirely.

Although Lopez is scheduled to continue her interrupted testimony Thursday, her respect for Ito and even his apologies have not softened her apparent deter-mination to leave for El Salvador.

After Tuesday’s session, she appeared bitterly disappointed that she would not be able to leave today, as she had hoped. When the hearing concluded, she sat down on the edge of a hallway bench in the courthouse, buried her head in her hands and wept. She was comforted by Simpson’s friend Robert Kardashian and by various members of Simpson’s family.

The sight of the well-known figures hunched over the crying woman attracted a crowd of gawkers, and after a few minutes, the small contingent headed back into the courtroom. Lopez was allowed to leave the building by a special exit, avoid-ing the crowds of reporters and camera operators who have set up camp outside every day.

In another development Tuesday, a transcript released by the court offered the first official confirmation of the interest that the judge and lawyers have taken in allegations regarding one of the jurors, a 46-year-old African American man whom prosecutors want ousted from the panel. The Times reported last week that Ito had tentatively decided to excuse that juror because of a past incident of domestic abuse involving him that he did not disclose on his extensive juror questionnaire.

The lawyers have declined to comment on allegations of juror misconduct, say-ing Ito has asked them not to. But in the transcript of the discussion of Lo-pez’s testimony, Ito refers to the juror by his number and says, “We’ll worry about (him) and this other problem probably not until Wednesday.”

Prosecutors have been particularly concerned about that juror — who wore a San Francisco 49ers cap during a recent jury field trip and who paused over pho-tographs of Simpson at the former football player’s house despite Ito’s admoni-tion to jurors to ignore the pictures.

The prolonged arguing over Lopez’s testimony has left the jury out of court for several days and has delayed the long-anticipated appearance on the witness stand of Detective Fuhrman.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles Police Department sources confirmed that Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman had asked the department’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate two allegations against the detective: that he had once possessed Nazi paraphernalia and that he had commented on Nicole Simpson’s anatomy and possibly suggested that he had had a relationship with her.

Police sources said those allegations were determined to be unfounded, how-ever, and that their conclusions have been shared with the district attorney’s office.

Fuhrman’s background has been the subject of intense scrutiny for months, and his lawyer, Robert Tourtelot, wrote to the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Tuesday asking for an investigation into how some of the detective’s personnel records had landed in the hands of journalists. There was no immediate response.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this article.

LOAD-DATE: March 2, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Photo, (Southland Edition, A11) O.J. Simpson is surrounded Tuesday by attorneys Robert Kardashian, Robert L. Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey. Pool Photo; Photo, (Orange County Edition, A3) Former Los Angeles Police Detective Bill Pavelic answers questions about tape that surfaced Tuesday and angered and sur-prised prosecutors. Associated Press; Photo, COLOR, (Orange County Edition, A1) Housekeeper Rosa Lopez KEN LUBAS / Los Angeles Times