THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT  
              Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Wednesday, April 3, 1996               TAG: 9604030549
SECTION: LOCAL                    PAGE: B1   EDITION: FINAL 
TYPE: Column 
SOURCE: Guy Friddell 
                                             LENGTH: Medium:   57 lines

AN ATTORNEY FOR SIMPSON STATES HIS CASE IN U.VA. TALK

Especially intriguing about criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz's recent speech at the University of Virginia was the reaction of the 300-plus crowd in Newcomb Hall.

In discussing the trial of O.J. Simpson, Dershowitz asked how his listeners would vote if they believed that a defendant was guilty, but also that the defendant had been framed by police. More than half the audience members raised their hands to signify a vote for acquittal.

That attitude in a university community is surprising. I'd expect such a vote might go the other way among savants with a reputation for reasoned objectivity.

Dershowitz said he didn't write ``Reasonable Doubt'' to persuade readers that Simpson was innocent. Rather, he wanted to explain to readers, many of whom believe that Simpson is guilty, why he felt the jury had to acquit him.

``I did not come away from the trial persuaded that Simpson was innocent,'' he said. ``I came away persuaded that I could not know for sure, that there was so much lying by the police and tampering with the evidence that it was probably destroyed forever.''

One result of the Simpson case may be police reform, he said. In pursuit of justice, many police have acted as if it were OK to lie or manipulate evidence if that meant a person they thought was guilty would be convicted, he said.

``For too long now the police have been our designated liars,'' Dershowitz said. ``One positive effect of the Simpson case is that even police chiefs now recognize the bad results of police lying.''

But many find evidence against Simpson overwhelming. They feel a verdict of guilty would have demonstrated that a wealthy celebrity could be subject to the same justice as would the most ordinary of us.

But then, a guilty verdict would have raised cries of racism.

It is like trying to work through a bramble patch without being scratched. Nancy Loevinger's account of Dershowitz's speech in ``Inside UVA,'' a publication for faculty and staff, is of a clarity that relieves one of having to read the book.

To a question, Dershowitz replied: ``I always knew that if fascism came to America, it would wear a cowboy hat. Pat Buchanan is the face of populist American fascism. Buchanan has developed a code of racism and anti-semitism. The message is clear. If you want to hear it, you can hear it, while Buchanan can say to the media - `I didn't say anything.' ''

Dershowitz is appalled so many candidates try to tear down separation of church and state. ``Fundamentalism has no place in the political life of America. People can believe what they want - that is their business,'' he said. ``But once you make me say your prayers in our schools, once you tell me that I am a second-class citizen in your Christian or Islamic or Jewish community, then it becomes my business.'' by CNB