Tag Archives: Gil Garcetti

Where Have You Been, Gil Garcetti?

Former L.A. District Attorney Gil Garcetti has been encased in an impenetrable 20-plus year bubble or has dementia.

Simpson’s lawyers telling him to stop taking his arthritis medicine so his knuckles would swell, making the gloves difficult to get on was widely discussed, at least by members of the media, for months after the trial.

Yet the news is replete with sensational headlines these days about Garcetti not knowing about such a thing until he saw the FX Crime Story melodrama and about these startling “new details” in the case as the “news” media sinks further and further into grabbing readers and viewers at any cost muck.

 

Advertisements

DA Criticizes Clark, But Gave Her Bonus

Gil Garcetti, who served as Los Angeles County District Attorney from 1992-2000 and oversaw the charging and prosecution of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, said in an interview last week that he didn’t pick Marcia Clark to prosecute Simpson and, in fact, didn’t even want her to do so.

Clark, Garcetti said, made mistakes, ignored the prosecution’s jury consultant’s advice and that the case suffered from being tried downtown instead of in Santa Monica which was the jurisdiction where the murders were committed.

I found Garcetti’s assertions surprising and, frankly, rather specious.

First, Garcetti was THE District Attorney. He was the boss, the head of the District Attorney’s Office. So if he didn’t pick Marcia Clark to prosecute Simpson, who did? If he didn’t want her, why didn’t he tell her no, if she said she wanted the job?

Second, if she made mistakes, didn’t Garcetti bear at least some responsibility? He was head of the office. The trial was nearly 10 months long. If he saw his deputy make mistakes or didn’t agree with her strategy in this most visible trial in the world and whose outcome would reflect on him and his office, and could possibly affect his re-election in 1996, shouldn’t he have spoken to her, stopped her or possibly replaced her?

Third, is Garcetti blaming Marcia Clark for the case being tried downtown instead of Santa Monica? Garcetti’s the one who filed the charges downtown and did so in June of 1994. There was wide speculation, both in the media and privately, that in doing so the D.A. had made a big mistake.

I don’t know why Clark didn’t listen to her jury consultant, but it was obvious to me that she didn’t. What I don’t understand is why Garcetti is now criticizing her for that. Whether or not he was micromanaging the trial, which was alleged often during those nearly 10 months, surely he had an eye on things enough to realize that she wasn’t using the expertise of the consultant his office had hired and was paying for (with taxpayer money). Did he have such a complete hands-off policy that he provided no oversight or direction.

And if Clark did do such a lousy job, why did he give her a nearly $15,000 bonus right after the case was over — a move that angered a large number of Clark’s fellow deputy district attorneys.

Maybe he intended the bonus to be an incentive to do better, given how poorly she performed.

His treatment of a deputy D.A. who had a solid record of wins and successfully prosecuted Lyle and Erik Menendez in the retrial in which they were charged with murdering their parents (and are now serving life sentences), seems to have been proof that Garcetti didn’t reward great performance. Instead of giving Menendez prosecutor David Conn a bonus, Garcetti demoted him from the downtown major crimes unit to an outlying office in Norwalk.

Or did someone else, not the man who was supposed to be in charge of the entire Los Angeles County district attorney operation, give or approve giving Clark a bonus and exile one of his best prosecutors of heinous criminals (Menendez brothers, cocaine dealing TV star Dan Haggerty, serial killer Bill Bradford and Cotton Club murderers) to the suburban city of Norwalk?

I really do find Garcetti’s criticism of Clark wanting.

Tapes Fallout Continues

A conflict concern.

Was it a ploy for mistrial?

Prosecution blinked.

8/17/95

Marcia Clark threatened to move to recuse Ito over the issue of his wife being a subject of the Fuhrman tapes, but waited over night. Suspicion was she was testing public opinion to see if the public would be against recusal and causing a mistrial.  When she said she decided not to file the motion, Ito and I both said she blinked. No one wanted to have to start that marathon all over again. My guess is that D.A. Gil Garcetti, who was elected to his office, said no to recusing Ito because public uproar would have almost guaranteed he wouldn’t have been re-elected.

Here She Is

Ever wonder what happened to the 1995 O.J. Simpson prosecutor who lost that case, received a generous bonus from her boss, Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, anyway, then quit her job, received a multi-million dollar advance from a publisher to tell her version of why and how she lost the Simpson case, then showed up on a TV tabloid magazine show as a legal commentator?

She’s been writing fiction.

Marcia Clark’s Killer Ambition, the third in a series of legal thrillers featuring Los Angeles Special Trials Prosecutor Rachel Knight — possibly patterned after herself? –has been released by publisher Mulholland Books. http://www.mulhollandbooks.com/thekilling/

Her book tour is including a June 18 event in Darien, Connecticut, sponsored by Women Who Launch and Over 40 Females. http://www.norwalkplus.com/nwk/information/nwsnwk/publish/News_1/O-J-Simpson-Prosecutor-Turned-Author-Marcia-Clark-to-Speak-to-Ladies-Who-Launch-and-Over-40-Females_np_20259.shtml

The most intriguing line in the story announcing Clark’s visit is this: “Over 40 Females™ is a leading networking platform for women over 40 and combines education with pampering at every event.”

Makes me want to go. Not for whatever the pampering is. Folks who know me know that the pampering gene is missing from my DNA. But just out of curiosity.