How O.J. Received the Verdict

The trial is over. O.J. Simpson has gotten away with murder. Even after weeks of evidence leaks, legal bickering and saturation media coverage of everything from DNA results to a porn star’s pillow talk, there is still plenty of intrigue left in the so-called greatest murder mystery of the last half century. O.J. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to charges that he killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a case that has riveted Americans with its mix of wealth, race, celebrity, science, obsessive love and domestic violence. The trial is scheduled to begin this week in Los Angeles, and many critical questions remain. Who will sit on the jury that decides his fate? Will mounting DNA evidence tying Simpson to the crime scene and testimony about his alleged dark side as a jealous lover and womanizing wife batterer be admissible? Will the Los Angeles Police Department end up on trial once again for racism and incompetence? Most important, will Simpson, arguably the most scrutinized defendant in recent history, get a fair trial?

The answer to that question will depend on many things. Both prosecutors and defenders are keenly aware that a verdict can be swayed by the jurors’ perceptions of the attorneys trying the case, their attitudes toward authority and understanding of the complexities of law and science, and, increasingly, by pretrial publicity.

Indeed, Judge Lance Ito, outraged by a local news station’s reporting of “evidence” denied by the prosecution and defense, is considering a ban of all media from the courthouse. As a result of such factors, both sides of the case are throwing an army of workers into a struggle to tilt the scales of justice ever so slightly in their favor. That battle is scheduled to start this week, as hundreds of potential jurors begin the extensive, untelevised screening process that will winnow a pool of roughly 1,000 Los Angelenos — 20 times the usual number — to a panel of 12 jurors and four alternates. One major question Judge Ito must resolve is whether to sequester the jury to keep members from being exposed to coverage that is expected to be enormous. Already, hundreds of potential jurors reportedly have declared that being cut off from the world for what could be months is a “hardship.” A decision by Ito that the jury need not be confined could give a boost to Simpson, who experts say would be at less risk if jurors sneak a peak at “Hard Copy” than if they are separated from family and friends for so long that they would do almost anything to go home — including be more flexible during deliberations to reach a verdict more quickly.