No Deadline Set on DNA Test Results in Simpson Case : Courts: Ito finds no evidence that delays were intentional. He also suspends jury selection to assess potential impact of new book about Nicole Simpson.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito stunned O.J. Simpson’s defense team Tuesday by declining to set a deadline for the completion of DNA tests, then temporarily halted jury selection because he is concerned about the impact a splashy new book could have on the case.

Although Ito has generally favored prosecutors in the face of repeated defense attempts to suppress evidence and invalidate searches, his ruling on the proposed deadline took many by surprise. In two separate court sessions last week, the judge had expressed his displeasure with the pace of prosecution testing and with its arguments justifying delays.

He had strongly indicated that he would impose some sanction, raising defense hopes that he might rule in that side’s favor this time.

Instead, he found that although there were delays, there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of prosecutors. That clears the way for DNA testing of almost two dozen items--including a bloody glove found outside Simpson’s home--to continue without the threat of a deadline from the judge.

“The defense is sort of stunned and disappointed by the ruling,” Simpson attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. said outside court. “We expected, based upon the judge’s statements last week, perhaps a far different ruling. . . . We can’t explain the ruling.”

Ito had barely resolved that issue before he waded into another. Reacting to a newly released book purporting to detail the last months of Nicole Brown Simpson’s life, the judge ordered a temporary halt to jury selection, sending members of the jury panel home until Thursday. O.J. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to killing his ex-wife and Ronald Lyle Goldman, whose slashed and stabbed bodies were found June 13.

The book, co-authored by a friend of Nicole Simpson’s and a National Enquirer columnist, was released this week. Ito received a copy Tuesday morning and said its publication has raised new concerns about Simpson’s ability to get a fair trial.

Exactly what Ito can do about the book is unclear. But when he spoke to prospective jurors Tuesday afternoon, the judge used his strongest language yet to suggest that he might order the jury sequestered. “Those of you who serve on the case may be de facto incommunicado for a significant period of time,” Ito told prospective jurors during a solemn session.

In the meantime, Ito changed his admonition to the panel. Where previously he had asked the prospective jurors to avoid coverage of the case, he modified that order to insist that they avoid all television and radio broadcasts as well as all newspapers and magazines.

At that point, Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark requested a word with Ito. After a brief discussion with Clark and defense lawyers, Ito turned again to the potential jurors and added: “I neglected to tell you: You are to stay out of bookstores.”

The release of the book--a salacious and in many ways unverifiable account titled “Nicole Brown Simpson: The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted”--was the latest disruption in a jury selection process that has moved haltingly since questioning began last week. The questioning has moved far more slowly than Ito had anticipated and has been stopped twice, once because a prosecutor fell ill and again Tuesday because of Ito’s concerns about the book.

Although some analysts suggested that Ito had overreacted to the book, others said the judge had acted prudently in the face of a complicated problem. “What he’s saying is, ‘Let’s take the most protective measure we can without going to sequestration yet,’ ” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law school professor. “I would say he has his hands full here.”

Even as jury selection has progressed, Ito and the attorneys for both sides have grappled with a host of other issues, the most significant of which was a potential deadline on the completion of DNA tests.

Nearly two dozen blood samples from Simpson’s home and car were at risk after defense attorneys charged that prosecutors had delayed tests to gain a tactical advantage. Despite Ito’s efforts to elicit an explanation from prosecutors, Deputy Dist. Atty. Lisa Kahn struggled last week to offer a rationale for why certain tests were not begun until three months after blood samples were first recovered.

During two hearings last week, Ito appeared displeased. At one point, he warned prosecutors that they were about to lose the argument. That heartened defense attorneys, who believed the judge was about to rule in their favor.

In a three-page ruling, however, Ito reiterated his observation that there were delays in testing but said the defense had failed to produce evidence that the delays were intentional. That came as a great relief to prosecutors, who could have lost significant evidence if Ito had set an early deadline for test results.

“We’re pleased that the judge understood that the people are proceeding in good faith in an expeditious, ethical and scientifically prudent manner while responding to repeated defense motions regarding evidence,” Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said Tuesday.

Led by Barry C. Scheck, a Simpson lawyer who specializes in DNA issues, the defense had argued that Ito could infer bad faith from the delays. But the defense team did not offer direct evidence of misconduct--letters or testimony, for instance, showing that prosecutors had deliberately stalled rather than pressing ahead with testing.

“The mere fact that the prosecution waited until the second week in September does not, standing alone, establish bad faith in the context of the unique facts and circumstances of this case,” Ito ruled. “Both sides are now hurtling towards the evidence presentation phase of this litigation without a clear and precise view as to what the scientific testing of the physical evidence will reveal, and both sides are in this position as a matter of choice.”

Legal experts were generally unsurprised by Ito’s decision, noting that the judge could not impose the sanctions sought by the defense unless he found specific bad faith on the part of prosecutors.

“Apparently he didn’t find that, and as frustrated as he was about the delays, he could not impose a cutoff unless he found evidence of deliberate bad faith,” said Gerald Chaleff, a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney. “Absent a showing of bad faith, there really is no sanction.”

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella agreed. Without direct evidence of misconduct by prosecutors, the defense was left to argue that Ito should base his ruling simply on an inference, he said. And that fell short, Arenella added, because the delays arguably were as inconvenient to prosecutors as they were to defense attorneys because they mean that both sides are forced to prepare without a full set of scientific results.

Although the ruling was the day’s most important substantive development, the uproar surrounding the release of the book delayed the proceedings and caused Simpson’s lawyers to publicly state that they believed their client’s right to a fair trial was in jeopardy.

“The proceedings today have left a very dark cloud over our system of justice,” said Robert L. Shapiro, one of Simpson’s lead attorneys. “I have been concerned for a very long time about whether O.J. Simpson would have a very difficult time getting a fair trial based on all the media attention. Events of today have convinced me O.J. Simpson cannot get a fair trial, and it concerns us greatly because so much effort has been put into this by both sides.”

The book--co-written by National Enquirer columnist Mike Walker and Faye D. Resnick, a friend of Nicole Simpson’s--hit bookstores this week amid great fanfare. Ito directed his clerk to secure a copy so that he could review it and determine whether any adjustments needed to be made to jury selection as a result of its publication.

After reviewing the book Tuesday morning, Ito addressed prospective jurors after the lunch break. Although he did not name the book, Ito told members of the panel that it “has caused the court deep concern about Mr. Simpson’s ability to get a fair trial.”

Resnick’s book is replete with allegations against O.J. Simpson, many of them based on what she said were private conversations with his ex-wife. Resnick repeatedly states that she believes O.J. Simpson is responsible for the June 12 murders.

At one point, Resnick writes that Nicole Simpson told her, “O.J. loves me so much he’s going to kill me . . . and get away with it.”

Resnick also said that the former football star told her in April, while Nicole Simpson was trying to distance herself from her ex-husband: “If she’s with another man, I’ll kill her. You tell her she’d better play her role and look like my wife.”

Despite those and other inflammatory passages, Resnick’s co-author, Walker, acknowledged at a news conference hawking the book that it contains no “smoking gun” information about the murders.

“Does it influence the trial?” Walker asked in response to a question. “I can’t imagine with the billions of words that have been spoken about this case it can have an undue influence.”

The book contains a description of an alleged June 12, 1994, argument between O.J. Simpson and his ex-wife that, if true, would appear to contradict a statement he gave to police. In that statement, Simpson said he had not spoken with his ex-wife at their daughter’s ballet recital, which took place hours before the murders.

Resnick, who acknowledges she was in drug rehabilitation at the time of the murders, writes that Nicole Simpson called her that evening and told her of an argument at the recital. That account, however, is contradicted by comments made by members of Nicole Simpson’s family. They have said Simpson would not speak to his ex-wife at the event.

In the book, Resnick says she met with prosecutor Clark shortly after the killings and that Clark asked her to make a statement. Regarding the matter, Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said, “I am confident that the defendant and the people can and will have a fair trial.” At the news conference Tuesday, Walker said his co-author has not been asked to testify but has been asked to sign a sworn statement, which she has not yet done.

Resnick has been out of public view for months but plans to emerge with a flourish this week. She has scheduled several television appearances, and Geraldo Rivera read aloud from her book on his show Tuesday.

According to a news release, the publishers already have contracts to sell 750,000 copies of the $14.95 book to bookstores. A local company has released a two-cassette abridged version of the book, read aloud by Resnick, which is selling for $16.95.

The B. Dalton Bookseller store in Downtown Los Angeles reported brisk sales Tuesday, with more than half its inventory being sold by early afternoon. One of the early copies went to one of Ito’s law clerks, and the scores of journalists covering the trial scooped up more during the lunch hour.

Walker said at the news conference that part of the proceeds from the book would go to a fund to finance the college educations of O.J. and Nicole Simpson’s children, Sydney, who turned 9 Monday, and Justin, who is 6. He declined to say what percentage of the proceeds it would be.

But Denise Brown, Nicole Brown’s older sister, said the book’s publishers had not approached her or, to her knowledge, other members of her family about establishing a trust fund for the children.

“That is a lie,” she said, while declining to comment on the substance of the book. “We don’t know anything about that. I don’t have a clue about that and don’t know what the fund entails.”

Juditha Brown, Nicole’s mother, said the family had purchased a copy of the book and was planning to look through it Tuesday night. Without having read it, she was reluctant to comment on the book’s contents. She said she has been angered by some of the accounts she has heard but would not elaborate.

She also said she does not know how close her daughter was to Resnick. “I know they were friends at the end, but maybe only for a year or six months,” she said.

Times staff writers Henry Weinstein and Rebecca Trounson contributed to this story.

* STUDENTS AS JURORS: Students at Monroe High in the San Fernando Valley conduct a mock jury selection. B3