Anne Sorge, a 60-year-old bank employee, said she barely paid attention to the so-called Trial of the Century when it became a national obsession in 1995 and ended in a Los Angeles jury finding Mr. Simpson not guilty in t he stabbing deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.

“I’ll be honest with you, I don’t even buy newspapers,” Ms. Sorge said. At the time of Mr. Simpson’s previous trial, she added, “I had a young son, and I was more concerned about his soccer games.”

Mr. Simpson, 61, now faces the possibility of a life sentence after his convictions on a dozen charges including robbery, burglary, assault, coercion and kidnapping. The charges stemmed from a confrontation in September 2007 in which Mr. Simpson and five cohorts burst into a hotel room and departed with dozens of pieces of sports memorabilia that were in the possession of two collectibles dealers, Bruce L. Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

The defense argued that Mr. Simpson was unaware that two of his companions brought and displayed weapons and that he was merely trying to recover keepsakes from his family life and his storied professional football career, which he said were stolen from his home years ago. Mr. Fromong and Mr. Beardsley were told by Thomas Riccio, a memorabilia auctioneer, that a prospective buyer wanted to view the items; Mr. Riccio arranged for Mr. Simpson and his friends to come instead, and Mr. Riccio secretly recorded the planning and execution of the incident.

Ms. Sorge said she and the other jurors were convinced by a different secret audio recording, that one of Mr. Simpson’s accomplices made after the fact in which Mr. Simpson is heard asking about the gun. Four of the accomplices took plea deals and testified against Mr. Simpson. The fifth accomplice, Clarence Stewart, 54, was convicted of the same charges and faces the same possible sentence.

Ms. Sorge said the 1994 killings and 1995 acquittal were never discussed during the 13 hours of deliberations because “we weren’t on that jury.” Her account aligns with those of three other jurors interviewed by other news media outlets.

“We never once referred to the past,” Ms. Sorge said. “We had so much information in front of us to consider. We had hours of detailed recordings, and we were comparing our notes on what the witnesses said. We watched what would clarify the information more. And remember, we watched and listened to everything in the courtroom a number of times.”

Yet Yale Galanter, Mr. Simpson’s lead defense lawyer, said it was inevitable that jurors would be influenced by the events of the 1990s. A pool of 500 prospective jurors was cut in half by the answers they gave to a 50-page questionnaire on their views of Mr. Simpson and the murders.

“You all haven’t seen the answers from those questionnaires, but Gabe and I did and, quite frankly, they were horrifying,” said Mr. Galanter, referring to his co-counsel Gabriel Grasso. “As good a job as we did trying to weed out people who had very fixed opinions, with this pool it was just a difficult process.”

Ms. Sorge said the jury had no holdouts and agreed on every count fairly easily. The length of the deliberations owed to the complexity of the jury instructions and the number of charges they were considering, she said.

Most of the jurors had been on juries before, Ms. Sorge said, and the foreman, Paul Connelly, a mechanical engineer, had a “wonderful sense of humor and kept our spirits up.”