High Profile Jurist

Another Simpson trial, another Japanese American judge

By Bert Eljera

First, there's their ethnicity. Both are Japanese Americans. What were the chances that judges of the same ethnic group would preside over what many legal experts call the "Trial of the Century?"

Given the prominence and volatility of the "race card" in the Simpson case, it seems incredible that another Asian American judge would have what some regard as the misfortune of running a trial in which his own ethnicity could be called into question.

But the fact that Fujisaki is Japanese American-which was incidental in his selection-may actually be good to help smash the stereotypes about Asian Americans, according to a University of San Diego law professor.

"Having another Japanese American judge on the Simpson case who has a different style and manner of running his courtroom may illuminate the fact that not all Japanese Americans are alike," said Professor Cynthia Lee. "People may be disabused of some of the stereotypes that were wrongly attributed to Judge Ito during the first trial."

A Superior Court judge for 16 years, Fujisaki, 60, has a reputation as a no-nonsense judge in his tenure on the bench. A UCLA law school graduate, Fujisaki quit private practice in 1974 to become a Municipal Court commissioner in the Santa Monica judicial district. He then served as a Municipal Court judge in Los Angeles County from 1977 to 1980 when he was appointed to the Superior Court by Gov. Jerry Brown. He was elected in 1982 and re-elected in 1988.

In a decision that drew praise from legal circles, earlier this month Fujisaki banned television cameras, and issued a sweeping gag order that would prevent lawyers on both sides from discussing the case outside of the courtroom.

The spectacle of lawyers putting their spin on the daily court proceedings was a staple of the televised trial under Ito. Moreover, media pundits provided accounts of the "winners" and "losers" each day, as if the murder trial was a sporting event.

The jury selection that began this week in the civil trial offered another glimpse of Fujisaki's judicial temperament.

Fujisaki has assembled a jury pool of about 4,000 Los Angeles residents, compared with about 1,000 in the criminal trial. While Ito had been lenient in excusing prospective jurors, Fujisaki has been tough.

When a prospective juror asked to be excused because he had a pulled muscle, Fujisaki said, he too, had a pulled muscle before-and that did not prevent him from doing his work.

One of the concerns during the first trial was that the jury pool was so badly depleted after several jurors were excused for hardship or otherwise dismissed that it was no longer representative of the community. Later, due to attrition and more dismissals, there was fear a complete jury would not be around to complete the trial.

In addition, the jury of mostly African Americans became an issue when it returned a not-guilty verdict, with some legal experts saying it was unlikely that such a jury would convict a hero in the black community.

However, the jurors who have come out to discuss the verdict and write books about their experiences, said the prosecution failed to prove Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that they had no option but to declare him innocent.

In the civil trial, the issue is about money; in the criminal case, constitutional-rights issues were involved.

"There is broader discretion for the judge in a civil case than there is in a criminal case," Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson told the Associated Press.

"In the criminal case, the judge constantly has to worry about the defendant's constitutional rights and potential loss of liberty."

That is why it would be unfair to criticize Ito for allowing lawyers broad leeway in expounding on their positions, other legal experts say.

In giving defense lawyers and prosecutors time to develop their case, Ito was perceived to be extending the trial needlessly.

Last week, Fujisaki spent less than two hours in making decisions about nearly 40 motions, rarely stopping to let lawyers say a word.

"He has put this case on the rocket docket," said Myrna Rader, a law professor at Southwestern University. "This is beyond fast track."

Simpson is being sued by the relatives of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, who claimed the former football star was responsible for their deaths and should pay financial damages.

The plaintiffs must show evidence why Simpson may have wanted to kill his ex-wife and her friend.

Just as in the first trial, Simpson claims that he is innocent and that he is a victim of a frame-up by racist police officers who planted "evidence" against him.

How Fujisaki will handle witness testimonies from both sides and how much time and leeway he will give them will be keys to the outcome of the case.