ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, February 6, 1997 TAG: 9702060035
SECTION: NATL/INTL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: SANTA MONICA, CALIF.
SOURCE: Associated Press
EXPERTS CONTEND that no appellate court would dare to overturn the civil verdict in the Simpson case, despite the defense's ammunition.
The judge at O.J. Simpson's civil trial gave him plenty of ammunition for a possible appeal. But will a higher court dare to overturn the verdict? Not likely, say the experts.
``I would be surprised by an appellate court reversal in this case, because of the O.J. factor,'' said Loyola University Law School Dean Laurie Levenson. ``You would need two judges on appeal to say, `I vote for O.J.,' and those are judges that will have to face re-election.''
Simpson's lawyers haven't said whether they will appeal, but legal pundits have seen a wealth of errors on the part of Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki that could be grounds for reversal. And virtually all of his most controversial rulings went against the defense:
* Allowing testimony about a failed lie-detector test and a call from ``Nicole'' to a battered-women's shelter.
* Alleged jury misconduct.
* A ban on testimony by Mark Fuhrman, the former detective the defense accused of a racist plot to frame Simpson.
* Allowing an undated letter from Nicole Brown Simpson accusing her ex-husband of beating her.
Even the size of the jury's compensatory damage award of $8.5 million to the family of Ronald Goldman could be grounds for appeal.
``This case is likely to be before the courts for years to come,'' Lance Ito, the judge at Simpson's murder trial, told the Pasadena Star-News.
One obstacle for Simpson: The Goldman and Brown families can start seizing his bank accounts and auctioning off his property even during the appeals process unless Simpson posts a bond equal to 150 percent of the verdict.
Worse, even those who believe the law is on Simpson's side during the appeals stage don't give him much chance of success.
``If this were Jones vs. Smith, it would be terrific grounds for a reversal,'' said Harvard Law professor and appellate specialist Alan Dershowitz, who worked for Simpson at his murder trial. ``But in this case, the names of the parties mean more than the legal issues.''
Of all the errors, the experts said the most egregious was the admission of testimony about an unauthenticated phone call to a battered women's shelter from a woman named Nicole. The woman complained that her famous husband was stalking her.
Fujisaki tried to correct the error by telling the jury later not to assume the call came from Nicole Simpson and not to accept it for the truth of what was said.
In a similar move, he first allowed testimony - inadmissible in criminal court - that Simpson took and flunked a lie detector test, then told the jury not to consider it.
Levenson said instructing jurors to forget such testimony ``is like telling them to forget the big purple elephant in the jury box. It's impossible.''
The defense wanted to introduce testimony from Fuhrman that blew open the criminal trial. But Fujisaki accepted the plaintiffs' argument that the defense was calling him only to discredit him - an impermissible reason to call a witness.
``Keeping out the Fuhrman evidence changed the dynamics of the trial,'' Levenson said. ``It was a lot easier to put the LAPD on trial with Fuhrman as the poster boy.''
Some of the rulings by Fujisaki during and before trial clearly constituted ``gross'' legal error, said Peter Arenella, a law professor at UCLA. But he said an appeals court may find them to be ``harmless error'' because the weight of evidence against Simpson supported the jury's verdict.
LENGTH: Medium: 72 linesby CNB