Even before Simpsons trial began, racial polarization was evident. Whites and blacks started out roughly 40 percentage points apart in their estimation of his guilt. Succeeding months, and a parade of witnesses, experts and evidence, have not closed the gap.

It would be nice to believe that jurors could nonetheless rise to their assigned task and weigh evidence without prejudice toward either side. Indeed, the U.S. judicial system is rooted in the assumption that something almost magical happens in the jury room; that ordinary people, once charged with rendering justice, not only suspend judgment but also resist the polarization that defines so much of the outside world. jurors succeed often enough to give hope that even though justice may not necessarily be blind, neither is she a bigot.

That was not always the case. A few decades ago, recalls Harvard psychiatrist Alvin E Poussaint, “jury lists were totally biased; and we [blacks] couldn’t get a conviction of a white person [for a crime against blacks].” Until 1986, lawyers routinely bounced prospective jurors purely on the basis of race. The U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to that practice by ruling that blacks and members of other “cognizable groups” (subsequently interpreted to include Hispanics, whites, women, Italian-Americans and the deaf) could not be pre-emptively purged.

But if the court could prevent blatant discrimination in jury selection, it could not stop jurors from making their own prejudices felt. Nor could it erase the memories among black Americans of decades of judicial injustice. Partly because of such memories, the Simpson case has assumed a particular significance among many African Americans. It has become, in short, a test of the quality of U.S. justice, and a reminder that, in the recent past, blacks were routinely denied due process. As Ramona Edefin, head of the National Urban Coalition, asks, “How many of our brothers have been railroaded by an unfair judicial system?”

Though Simpson is not considered a particularly important hero to African-Americans, many blacks believe his fate holds a key to that of others of his race. As writer Thulani Davis put it, “It endangers us for 0. J. Simpson to be demonized across the world.” So most blacks are inclined to grant Simpson a huge presumption of innocence -and hope, as Hall of Fame halfback Walter Payton told Ebony magazine, that “there’s an ugly monster out there” who committed a double murder.

Some observers wonder whether wishful thinking will render black jurors incapable of convicting Simpson. Los Angeles civilrights lawyer Leo Terrell, however, argues that such a conclusion is “ludicrous.” He acknowledges that black and white jurors are likely to weigh evidence differently, not only because of differing feelings about Simpson but because of their divergent experiences. Whites, he suspects, are likely to find police testimony credible, while blacks may not. Police mistreatment of blacks, he suggests, has bred widespread skepticism among African Americans. “Blacks,” says Terrell, “are not automatically going to believe what the officer says. "

That blacks and whites bring different attitudes to the case is not necessarily bad. The whole point of having a jury is to provide for diversity of experiences and viewpoints. Otherwise, as Georgetown University Law Center professor Girardeau Spann observes, the state might as well replace them with computers. Ideally, jurors are forced to confront their biases and the limits of their experiences and surmount them in the pursuit of justice.

But as Terrell admits, the ideal is a goal that is not always achieved. People often make up their minds without benefit of facts and shield their preconceptions in a cocoon of prejudice. Melanie Lomax, a black lawyer and former president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, fears that the Simpson jury may already have succumbed. “It’s clear that jurors are not following instructions and putting aside their biases,” Lomax said. “Maybe a mistrial should be declared because it’s become so disgracefully partisan.”

Lomax’s alarm may be premature. It’s unclear what forces are motivating most of the Simpson jurors. They may yet be capable of serving as a model of how to reach consensus and get beyond racial tunnel vision. If Jeanette Harris’s allegations serve no other function, they have reminded us not only of how fanciful it is to believe that jurors put the outside world behind them, but also how important it is that they try.

NEWSWEEK POLL Do you believe race was an important factor in the decision to prosecute O.J.? WHITE NONWHITE Important 24% 68% Do you believe race has been an Important factor In determining the jurors’ views? WHITE NONWHITE Important 47% 60%

..MR.-

How many times could O.J. be tried? if the cases end in hung juries, there is technically no limit. But not even trial addicts can imagine more than three; by then the budget and the supply of potential jurors Would be exhausted ..MR0-