Questioning a System That Can’t Find 12 Jurors Out of 300

Once again, I must ask myself the embarrassing question: What am I missing here?

Not to be overly dense about it, but is it really that hard to find 12 people who could serve honorably on a jury for the O.J. Simpson trial? In real-world terms, I’m confident the answer is no, but in the parallel universe in which the Simpson case dwells, the answer apparently is, “Omigod, yes, you have no idea how hard it is.”

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have spoken in concert about the agonizing, painstaking, tortured trek they’re making through jury selection. So daunting is their task that they’re doing everything but giving Rorschach tests to separate the fit from the unfit.

Both sets of attorneys have told Judge Lance Ito they’ve had misgivings about prospective jurors’ honesty in answering their questions. Prosecutor Marcia Clark said at one point she wanted to dismiss the entire jury pool and start all over again.

If what the lawyers are saying is true, then something is awfully amiss in the way we’re picking jurors these days. If the system can’t produce 12 decent jurors out of an original pool of 300 people, the logical comeback would be to say the system needs an overhaul.

My hunch, though, is that finding an impartial jury isn’t nearly as hard as the lawyers are having us believe. The real problem is that both sides aren’t trying to find exemplary jurors; they’re trying to find jurors sympathetic to their side. In the effort to do that, it’s a fair bet that potentially excellent jurors already have been excused.

I’m not playing the naif here. I realize the Simpson case is not your average case in which jurors show up to decide the fate of a total unknown accused of a crime they had heard nothing about. Cases like that have an implied purity in that jurors start with a blank slate toward both crime and defendant.

Obviously, that won’t happen in the Simpson trial, and let’s hope not. Let’s hope they don’t settle on even a single juror who has heard nothing about this case. Such a juror would be in such a dubious state of awareness as to render him or her useless during the trial.

The attorneys and the judge know that, as well, and they’re not looking for the juror-in-the-cave. But what may be happening is that their questioning is tying up prospective jurors in such knots that the lawyers sense people are lying. The truth may be that people aren’t lying, but just being wary in the face of questions that they know are meant to plumb their psyches.

For example, when a prosecutor or defense attorney asks, “Do you think the police are usually correct when they make an arrest,” potential jurors may honestly believe that but be hesitant to say so for fear that the answer may make them sound pro-prosecution and, as a result, get them kicked off the jury.

Here are a couple questions from the Simpson jury questionnaires:

1. “Have you ever been sufficiently frustrated within a domestic relationship that you considered violence?”

2. “How big a problem do you think racial discrimination against African Americans is in Southern California?”

No wonder some jurors appear to be squirming while answering.

I suppose there’s a method to the questions, but I can’t help but think the winnowing process contributes to the problem of finding good jurors.

I admit to a bit of newly acquired bias about jury selection. I was called for jury duty earlier this year and was quickly dismissed on one of the prosecutor’s permitted discretionary rejections.

The case was miniature compared to the Simpson trial, but I know for a fact I would have been a good juror. I’d pay attention to testimony, have no preconceived notions about the outcome and then say my piece during deliberations. If the guy did it, I’d vote guilty. If they couldn’t prove it, I’d vote not guilty.

I’m sure the juror who took my place was fine, but it bothered me that the system had spit out someone who not only wanted to serve but who would take the public trust seriously.

As for the upcoming Simpson trial, I have the growing sense that everyone, from the judge on down through the lawyers and media commentators, is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom.

I’ve arrived at that by asking what seems to me a simple, common-sense question: Do I know people who, in spite of their vast awareness of the Simpson case, could be impartial jurors? Could they go into court, even if harboring a feeling Simpson is guilty, and acquit him based on what they heard in court? Or, if they now believe he didn’t commit the crimes, could they be swayed by overwhelming evidence and vote for conviction?

Call me stupid, but I can easily think of a number of people who could do those things without thinking of a book deal afterward.

Are the lawyers telling us they can’t find 12 discerning and fair-minded citizens in Los Angeles, or are they simply asking all the wrong questions?

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.