Angry Simpson Jury Shuts Down Trial Majority Of Jurors Refuses To Leave Hotel Because Of Judge’s Effort To Transfer Deputies

In an extraordinary expression of discontent that brought the trial of O.J. Simpson to a halt Friday, recalcitrant jurors boycotted the session because they were angry about the judge’s decision to request the transfer of three sheriff’s deputies assigned to monitoring the panel.

According to a spokesman from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 13 of the jurors at first refused to come to court Friday morning, the 101st day of their sequestration. They asked Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito to visit them at their hotel so they could explain their anger - which a sheriff’s deputy said was so fierce that some panelists were crying in the van as they returned to court Thursday evening - but Ito refused.

Instead, the panelists were summoned to the courthouse, where 13 of them arrived wearing black or dark clothing, at least some in an apparent gesture of protest against the transfer of the deputies. Once at the courthouse, a standoff ensued, with the jurors refusing to work and the judge debating whether to let them prevail in their work stoppage.

Eventually, however, Ito blinked, canceling testimony for the day, sending the trial into chaos and raising new fears that this jury will never reach a verdict.

With the testimony of police criminalist Andrea Mazzola on hold, Ito met individually with jurors who asked to speak with him. By the end of the morning session, he had met with seven members. They and their colleagues were then sent back to their hotel for the weekend.

The unusual sessions, which took place behind closed doors, were attended by attorneys for both sides and by a representative of the Sheriff’s Department. The meetings were expected to last at least into the first part of next week and caused Ito to cancel Monday’s testimony as well.

Legal analysts could recall no prior instance in which a jury successfully boycotted a court session, and they agreed that it posed mind-boggling problems for Ito, who must somehow regain the jury’s confidence without ceding his own control of the proceedings.

“He better take three deep breaths and approach things cautiously,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law school professor. “You can threaten them all you want, but they have the power to decide whether this case has a verdict.”

As he left the courthouse, Simpson’s lead trial lawyer, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., expressed amazement at the latest turn in the case, saying: “In 32 years of practice, I’ve never seen anything like this.”

The prospect of a mistrial long has haunted the Simpson case, but Friday’s flurry of activity redoubled concern and raised questions about who is in control of the Simpson trial - the judge or the jury.

“They have exercised the ultimate right, the right not to participate, shutting the process down,” said Robert B. Hirschhorn, a Houston-based jury consultant.

Searching to explain the problem confronting Ito, Hirschhorn and other analysts looked past the normal legal metaphors. Hirschhorn compared the jury uprising to a marital dispute, defense lawyer Barry Levin called the group “a formed community,” attorney Edi M.O. Faal called it a “juror revolt.” And Myrna Raeder, a Southwestern University law professor, likened the dispute to a family fight.

“This is like a huge family squabble,” Raeder said. “It’s almost as if someone needs to bring some parenting skills to this.”

Because of that, analysts commended Ito’s decision to meet privately with the jurors and to let them talk out their unhappiness. But even as the judge and jurors met in his chambers, analysts agreed that the latest developments raised anew the threat of a mistrial.

Although it was difficult to assess whether some jurors meant their clothes to signal their protest or not, four of them came to court dressed in black, and three others were in very bright garb. The balance of the panel was somewhere in between, but a total of 13 wore black or dark clothing of some kind.

The protest capped a week devoted largely to jury concerns. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Ito interviewed jurors individually to follow up on comments by an excused panelist, Jeanette Harris, who said the panel was racially divided and who accused sheriff’s deputies of promoting those problems.

Ito has yet to release transcripts from those sessions, but sources said little that was discussed gave any hint that jurors would react so strongly to the removal of the deputies.

Sources said that the recent interviews showed that most of the jurors were eager to continue their service with the panel and were determined to stay with the trial to its conclusion.