NEWS ANALYSIS : Simpson Case Leaks May Be a Source of Embarrassment : Courts: Police, prosecutors, media face scrutiny today as Ito hears defense bid to discover who released information.

Aggressive legal maneuvers by O.J. Simpson’s defense team to probe “the source and purpose” of leaks in the double murder case may not get to the bottom of how controversial stories were generated, but it could prove embarrassing to the police, the district attorney’s office, some members of the media and perhaps even the defense team.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito has scheduled a hearing for this afternoon on a defense request that he move to identify media sources and take action to repair harm allegedly done to its client.

Among Ito’s options are launching an investigation, requiring police officers or attorneys to testify under oath or sign affidavits about their dealings with the press, granting the defense special courtroom privileges--such as more challenges of potential jurors--or taking the highly unlikely steps of excluding evidence or dismissing charges because of prejudicial publicity. He also could issue a gag order.

Or he could do nothing.

“This is a very aggressive attack by the defense,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. “This could open up lives and destroy careers without having any legal significance to the case.

“The theme of the defense from the beginning has been to keep the attention away from O.J. Simpson and put the other side on trial so that by the time the jury hears the case, they’ll tend not to believe anything the police say,” Levenson said.

“This could be . . . embarrassing to a lot of people.”

This week, the defense subpoenaed Cmdr. David J. Gascon, who is the Police Department’s chief spokesman, and also summoned to court KNBC reporter Tracie Savage and KNBC general manager Carole Black. Defense sources also disclosed that they plan to subpoena two high ranking members of the district attorney’s office.

On Thursday night, an LAPD spokeswoman said Police Chief Willie L. Williams, whom the defense also said it would subpoena, would not testify. Sources said Williams has submitted a sworn declaration, obviating the need for him to appear in court. The Police Department also announced that Gascon’s promotion to deputy chief is still on track.

In a motion filed under seal last week, Simpson’s attorneys said they wanted to determine “whether employees of the LAPD crime lab or any other members or agents of the LAPD . . . have been responsible for the deliberate disclosure to the media of confidential information or evidence, particularly false information.”

“Those who deliberately leak false and highly prejudicial information on the eve of trial are capable of manufacturing false evidence against the defendant,” the motion contends.

Simpson’s attorneys filed the motion not long after Ito denounced media leaks, particularly a KNBC story that he branded as inaccurate and irresponsible. After that report aired, the judge threatened to pull the plug on live television coverage--a matter that is to be heard Nov. 7.

Today’s hearing, prompted by the defense motion on leaks, drew mixed reactions from legal experts. Los Angeles defense lawyer Barry Tarlow said he was not surprised by the defense move, contending that Simpson had been the victim of “a drumbeat of leaked prejudicial information.” Tarlow and several other attorneys said they were unaware of any leak inquiry during a trial that had yielded successful results, but that lack of success has not stopped some exasperated judges and litigants from trying.

For example, after a series of leaks last year in one of the cases stemming from the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center, U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey ordered a number of law enforcement personnel from the FBI and other agencies to prepare sworn statements about any contacts they had with representatives of ABC, the New York Times or New York Newsday. The judge also required the law enforcement officials to describe any contacts they knew of between their colleagues and the news organizations.

Later in the case, the judge ordered defense lawyers to file similar sworn statements after information damaging to the prosecution was leaked to the media immediately after it had been turned over to the defense.

In both instances, no one admitted to being the source of the leaks and the judge was unable to discover the source, said New York defense lawyer Ronald L. Kuby, one of those who signed a declaration. “Notwithstanding the judicial terror tactics in our case, all the information was leaked and no one was punished,” Kuby said.

Until now, the most noteworthy probe of a leak in a Los Angeles trial was precipitated in October, 1970, when Bill Farr, then a reporter for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, published a story containing information obtained from a transcript of testimony of a potential prosecution witness in the Charles Manson murder trial. Farr said he obtained the transcript from one or more of the attorneys in the case, all of whom were subject to a gag order, but he declined to say which one. Because of that, Farr was held in contempt and spent 46 days in jail.

Since that time, the ability of a reporter in California to refuse to disclose confidential sources has been strengthened considerably, said Kelli L. Sager, a Los Angeles attorney who represents The Times and several other media organizations. “The California Constitution provides a privilege for reporters which prevents the court from holding them in contempt if they refuse to reveal unpublished information or the names of confidential sources,” she said.

There is no law barring a reporter from publishing or broadcasting leaked information during a trial. And because no gag order has been imposed in this case, there is no basis for Ito to hold in contempt any individual involved in a leak--journalist or source--said Douglas E. Mirell, a Los Angeles attorney and constitutional law specialist.

KNBC officials acknowledged Thursday that Savage and Black had been subpoenaed. Station sources said KNBC lawyers would move to have the subpoenas quashed.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said he has not been subpoenaed and was unaware of anyone else in his office who had been. Garcetti said he opposes a request, made earlier by Simpson defense lawyer Robert L. Shapiro, to have an investigation of leaks by the California attorney general’s office.

“I am confident in the ability of the LAPD to conduct their own investigation,” Garcetti said, referring to an inquiry by the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division. According to sources, the police unit has interviewed officers and collected material in an effort to determine the source of a KNBC story that said DNA tests showed that blood drops found on socks seized from O.J. Simpson’s house showed a genetic match to Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood. The department also has been seeking to determine the source of a CNN story that echoed the KNBC report.

Ito denounced the KNBC story in open court, during a hearing televised live, and elicited comments from lead prosecutor Marcia Clark that the story was inaccurate.

Southwestern University law professor Myrna Raeder said the judge has the inherent authority to take action on matters that affect cases before him. “However, I would think it’s unlikely the judge is going to want to take on an investigatory procedure at the same point he is trying to pick a jury, get through the Kelly-Frye hearing (on the admissibility of scientific evidence) and start the trial.”

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers agreed, saying that an extended probe of leaks could turn into a major diversion that is unlikely to turn up the source of leaks.

Gillers and others also said there were risks in the motion for the defense. “The leaks haven’t only been from the state,” he said, noting in particular a July article in the New Yorker that attributed to defense attorneys the theory that a Los Angeles police detective may have planted a bloody glove at Simpson’s house.

“If you’re looking for a discretionary remedy, based on prosecution leaks, then certainly one factor in the judge’s decision will be whether the defense has clean hands. A judge won’t be inclined to hear only about the sins of one side,” Gillers said.

Other observers of the case’s media coverage said they have discerned stories that appeared to have been generated by defense leaks. And Los Angeles defense lawyer Gerald L. Chaleff said he found it “real interesting that a motion about leaks gets leaked,” referring to the fact that several stories have been done about the defense motion up for a hearing today.

The document was filed under seal.

A court spokeswoman said Ito is considering holding today’s hearing in chambers, outside the presence of journalists.

Times staff writers Andrea Ford and Jim Newton contributed to this story.