In the end, the prosecution and defense have only a limited ability to shape the jury. Lawyers can dismiss jurors in two ways: through a "strike," which allows them to dismiss a juror without cause, or through a "challenge," where the lawyer must show that the juror is too biased to judge the evidence fairly. Strikes in this case are limited to 20 by each side, and challenges based on race or gender are illegal. But jury consultants try to bend these rules: One way they attempt to eliminate blacks from juries, for example, is to try to expose through indirect questioning a distrustful attitude toward the police. While each side will have to accept jurors with whom they are dissatisfied, having even one juror biased toward the defense can be a huge advantage, says Stephen Adler, author of The Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom. Since a conviction requires unanimity, the defense needs only one person who maintains a reasonable doubt, and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" results in a defense victory.
Research into the minds of potential jurors has been going on since Simpson was arrested: Consultants have been conducting mock trials, focus groups, phone surveys and other research to see where both legal teams might run into problems with public perceptions. Likewise, probing the psyches and responses of those jurors who are selected will continue until a verdict is handed down. Consultants seeking clues to the minds of jurors have been known to watch their body language in court, check out which organizations they belong to, even read the bumper stickers on their cars, go through their trash and examine how well their lawns are tended -- which indicates attention to detail, respect for authority. A neighborhood-watch sticker on the door, for instance, might signal an anticrime attitude that would be a plus for the prosecution. As the trial progresses, both sides will be using shadow juries who will watch the proceedings on television, armed with meters or computer keypads to record their reactions to every word. Lawyers' opening statements and juryside manner will be scrutinized as well. Jury appeal can pay off big in court: In a 1992 National Law Journal poll, 20 percent of those asked said their verdicts were influenced by their opinions of the lawyers.
The influence of jurors' perceptions on the attorneys trying the Simpson case has not been neglected by either side. Not long after lead prosecutor Marcia Clark was critiqued in focus groups as "aggressive" and "pushy," she appeared to soften her appearance, control her often wagging finger and respond more calmly to courtroom provocations from the defense. Simpson's lead lawyer, Robert Shapiro, characterized in that same focus group as "smooth" and "sharp," always places a comforting hand on the back of a colleague, or on his distraught client, during an on-camera conference.
Shapiro also has been especially careful with the press (and thus potential jurors) to downplay the competition among the massively egoed legal thoroughbreds on the defense team, which includes prominent black trial lawyer Johnnie Cochran and appellate star Alan Dershowitz. A personal friend of Simpson's, Cochran is expected to take the leading courtroom role during the trial -- a decision for which Shapiro will take credit.
Despite the maneuvering, most jurors take their jobs seriously and rely heavily on the evidence, says Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former prosecutor. But how much evidence will be admitted is unclear. While Ito ruled last week that evidence including a bloody glove and several blood samples that were gathered at Simpson's house by police without a warrant would be admissible, the fate of other crucial pieces of evidence remains undecided.
A big hurdle for jurors is understanding the complexity of one of the most significant pieces of evidence: the tests involving DNA. The battle over the admissibility of DNA evidence, which, among other things, is said to show a match between Simpson's blood and blood found at the crime scene, is expected to take place before opening arguments and could last up to a month, according to prosecutors. Ito already has indicated in court papers that he intends to admit DNA evidence. What will ultimately be at issue, experts say, is the way the probability of a match between a sample and the general population is stated. Conservative scientists state the odds as 1 in several hundred thousand, a number that leaves greater room for doubt and appeals to defense lawyers. Less conservative scientists state the odds as closer to 1 in a million, a figure more pleasing to the prosecution. The defense is expected to win this one.
As for the presumption of innocence, many observers say Simpson, with his wealth and celebrity, has done more to breathe life into that concept than any defendant in years -- not to mention level the legal playing field in a case that will be watched obsessively by millions. "From the police investigating him to the public, we're all waiting for the piece of evidence that will set him free," says Harland Braun, a prominent Los Angeles criminal-defense attorney. "Everyone wants him to be innocent." While Simpson's fame and money alone will not garner him an acquittal, they will alter the balance of power that is traditionally skewed toward the state. Prosecutors, who can draw on big police departments, teams of investigators and lawyers to prepare their cases, have success rates of more than 90 percent at trial in most jurisdictions. The typical murder defendant has little money and is represented by an underpaid, overworked public defender with no budget for extra investigators and scientific tests. And few judges ever preside over a case half as celebrated as the Simpson case, where every twist and turn is dissected and second-guessed by an army of legal commentators with an audience of millions. Simpson, with his high profile, expensive lawyers, forensics experts and investigators, is prepared to take on all of them. "Everyone is concluding that the high degree of scrutiny given to every aspect of this case is special treatment or celebrity justice," says Turley. "The problem is not the O.J. case but that most cases are not afforded the same standard of care."
I must agree with the writer on his findings.