Law School Profs Talk O.J.

Harvard Law School yesterday followed the lead of countless bars, beauty parlors and bowling alleys across the nation and leaped into the O.J. Simpson debate full force.

Several distinguished jurists held a raucous, inconclusive discussion of aspects of the case in front of a crowd of mostly first-year law students in Sanders Theatre. The event, titled "O.J. Simpson: Free Press, Fair Trial. A Class in Cyber-Law," drew panelists from a variety of legal backgrounds, from judge to prosecutors and defense attorneys.

The professors were clearly not insensitive to the drama of the case. Moderator Arthur R. Miller, Bruce Bromley professor of law, opened the discussion in a manner worthy of Geraldo at his best.

"A bloody glove, a fake beard, a 911 call, a frozen dessert in the drive-way, DNA testing and a dog barking in the night... "Miller said.

Simpson was arrested this summer and charged with murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Panclists debated the media's role in covering high profile cases and the effect that media coverage has had on the public's view of the trial.

"This case brings to the fore a lot of issues," said panelist Steven Brill, chair and chief executive officer of Court TV. "We hope to focus on the role of scientific evidence in swaying jurors and the Simpson case gives us the opportunity to do that."

The discussion began with the question of whether the justice system is itself on trial because of the extreme media scrutiny on Simpson's case.

But one panelist, Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, said it was not the country's criminal justice system but the national media that is being tried.

"The media engaged in a complete circus and downplayed the important issues of this case," he said.

The panel was split between those who supported media coverage of the courts and those who do not. As the discussion grew heated, panelists frequently interrupted each other and spoke out of turn.

About 20 audience members left the auditorium after the discussion degenerated.

"There was little focus, it wandered for an hour-and-a-half like a hot potato," said Stuart M. Rees, a first-year law student.