Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 2, 1995 TAG: 9502030017
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES LENGTH: Medium
If you dream about killing your wife, does it mean you're going to do it?
The prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial would like jurors to think so. In the latest twist in the sensational case, a friend of Simpson's testified Wednesday that Simpson remarked he had had dreams about killing his ex-wife.
The defense denied the conversation took place.
Prosecutors told the judge testimony about the dreams would provide ``powerful evidence'' of a ``fatal obsession.''
Not so, according to some experts, who say such evidence is shaky legally and scientifically and may be powerful grounds for appeal if Simpson is convicted.
``If we got charged with everything we dreamed about, we'd be in jail most of our lives,'' said psychologist Rosalind Cartwright.
Even if Simpson did have such dreams, they mean only ``that he still had a lot of anger and frustration, and this was one way of safely dispelling it,'' said Cartwright, director of the sleep disorders service at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago.
Dreams let people ``imagine things that we would never do in waking,'' she said. ``We imagine something in this profoundly relaxed state and thereby blow it off. So you can't use that as evidence.''
``The prosecution is trying to create the image of a killing machine,'' said Columbia University law school professor George Fletcher. ``In fact, all of this evidence is ambiguous - it could be interpreted different ways.''
The defense and its scientific experts are likely to attack the significance of the dreams.
``This could be a double-edged sword for the prosecution,'' said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor in Los Angeles. ``The prosecution wants to use it to show Simpson's state of mind. But the defense will say the prosecution is really reaching if they have to use dreams.''
Besides the jury's reaction, there are procedural questions.
``People write murder mysteries every day. Our courts don't hold that against them,'' said Los Angeles defense lawyer Marcia Morrissey. ``In the Woody Allen custody case, were his movies admissible to prove his state of mind? Absolutely not.''
At worst, an appeals court could find that Superior Court Judge Lance Ito goofed when he admitted the testimony, experts said. Such a finding could lead to a reversal on appeal - and a possible new trial - if Simpson is convicted.
``It seems to me a very controversial ruling by the judge and I would even say unwise,'' said Robert Pugsley, a law professor at Southwestern University in Los Angeles.
``I think it's safe to say that we don't usually try people based on dreams,'' but the judge's ruling probably is not grounds for a reversal, Levenson said.
by CNB