Simpson-Brown Homicide: 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.

Lawyers for both sides will work hard to winnow out jurors whose attitudes might make them less willing to be sympathetic to their case -- a herculean task in the Simpson trial. From racism to spouse abuse to sexual jealousy to celebrity excess, the trial hits many of the nation's hot buttons, any of which could tilt the way a person views the world. Potential jurors must fill out extensive questionnaires, engineered by the country's top jury consultants to uncover everything from the experiences that have shaped their lives and attitudes on such issues as interracial marriage and violence in sports to their preconceived notions about the case.

Both the defense and the prosecution realize that finding responsible jurors who claim to know nothing about Simpson would be almost impossible: His name has been mentioned by the media more than 15,000 times since he took his ride on a Los Angeles freeway. "If knowledge were the issue, you'd be left with the bubble boy and 11 monks on the jury," says Jonathan Turley, a criminal-law professor at George Washington University in Washington. "But bias is the primary question here. Can you get a jury that has followed this case and is unbiased?" Not if jury consultants are worth the roughly $400 million they generate in business each year. Both teams are using jury consultants to help identify the right biases for their clients -- or, more precisely, to avoid jurors with the wrong biases. Consultants familiar with the case say Simpson would be well served by middle-aged male jurors -- polls show that African-Americans in this category are the most sympathetic to Simpson -- who remember the Juice from his football glory days. Jurors who are distrustful of authority might also be sympathetic; if they are African-American, all the better.

Most important, the defense team is looking for jurors who appreciate the concept of reasonable doubt, upon which Simpson's entire defense is based. One way to find such people, says jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn, may be to ask, "What would you do if there were a $5 discrepancy between your checkbook balance and your bank statement?" "Those who blow off the five bucks will blow off 5 percent, and along with it reasonable doubt," Hirschhorn says. Jurors who are disturbed by the missing $5, however, are more likely to appreciate what reasonable doubt means. The prosecutors, meantime, are seeking jurors who have little doubt about the power of science and statistics. Without eyewitnesses or a murder weapon, the prosecution's case will hinge on circumstantial and scientific evidence like DNA. For them, ideal jurors are well-educated, detail- or math-oriented men and women -- preferably white. Most important are a grasp of probability and respect for authority in various forms, including scientists, police officers and even computers -- expected to be used to illustrate both scientific findings and the prosecution's theory of the crime.