Yesterday a juror in the ongoing Las Vegas trial of O. J. Simpson asked a question of a witness before he was excused from the stand. The witness was the lead investigator in the case. On cross-examination, O. J.'s attorney had hammered the detective about whether or not he looked into the ownership of the property that O. J. allegedly stole. The detective repeatedly "admitted" that he had not. Several times the witness tried to explain that the actual ownership of property taken in a theft is irrelevant. The defense attorney cut him off each time.

The juror question, in so many words, was, "Do you normally look into the ownership of the property involved in a theft?" The detective answered, "No."

If I were the Simpson defense team, I would take this as a clear signal that at least one juror understands very well that it is theft even if you are recovering your "own stuff" from someone who is illegally in possession of them. The defense team would do well to drop this blatant appeal for the jury to nullify the theft charges simply because one item was a photograph of his deceased mother. The jury knows this is irrelevant. That's why the juror asked that question--to send a message to the defense.

So, looking again at the rhetoric of this situation, I would say that the defense has established that the defendant had an emotional attachment to the property and that it wasn't a theft for value. Fine. Move on. The jury will be much more receptive to the defense's contention that O. J. was set up. The ownership issue will better resonate for the jury in that context.

If it was entrapment, isn't the issue of recovering your own property by force irrelevant? (I don't know. I'm not a lawyer; but as a juror I would be wondering about this. Will the judge instruct the jury on entrapment?)

If I were sitting in that jury box, I would be very bored and irritated at everyone involved. I would have resented the judge's admonitions that she would "get me" if I ended up on camera after the trial. After all, isn't she the one who permitted the cameras in the courtroom and even conducted my voir dire in front of the cameras?

I would be very irritated that she said the trial had to be short so that she could take a cruise in October. After all, the jurors have missed work, possibly lost income, and didn't have cruise tickets in hand when they came to court--or they would have been excused.

And, frankly, while some people may find the judge's demeanor refreshingly "no-nonsense," I find her shrill. She seems to be posturing for the cameras. (In fact, I hear she may have been a TV crime reporter at one time.)

I would also be very irritated at the prosecution for over-charging the defendants. As early as the first witness (Bruce Fromong) it must have been apparent to the jury that less than five minutes in his own hotel room did not constitute being kidnapped--and that the prosecution's "tapes" of the incident were very unclear about the presence or absence of weapons.

We shall see, of course.