Smith Case Jury Likely to Focus on Character : Rape trial: Personas of accuser and accused may be more crucial than high-tech evidence, legal maneuvers.

Learned doctors will analyze abrasions, forensic scientists will talk about blood tests and technicians will swear to the characteristics of fabrics under stress.

Yet when opening arguments begin in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith on Dec. 2, the heart of the case will probably be found not in the physical evidence but in something more elusive: the perceived character of the 31-year-old nephew of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and that of his 30-year-old accuser.

This is a battle of his word against hers, an effort to establish whether the real victim is a woman fallen prey to a privileged young man, or a man defamed because of his family’s celebrated name. To prove their cases, each side will manipulate image and nuance to show its principal witness has the morality, the background, the family and friends to be worthy of the jurors’ faith.

“This will be a classic head-butting contest, where the physical evidence probably isn’t foremost,” says Paul H. Rothstein, law professor at Georgetown University. Adds Craig Boudreau, a West Palm Beach defense attorney and former county prosecutor: “Whoever gets most beat up on cross-examination, loses.”

The battering is likely to be punishing, because what is extraordinary about the Smith case is not the circumstances of the alleged crime, but the extent of the publicity and the extraordinary preparation that has gone into proving what happened at the Kennedys’ Palm Beach estate last March 30.

The trial is likely to climax in the testimony of the alleged victim and the accused. Smith is, of course, constitutionally entitled to avoid the witness stand. But lawyers say he will be under tremendous pressure to testify since juries always want to hear the story firsthand--and particularly so when the issue is an unwitnessed allegation and a question of whether sexual relations were consensual.

The importance of such visceral--and strictly extra-legal--jury reactions was underscored during jury selection proceedings Friday when prospective panel member Renee Silberman told how important such testimony was to her.

In making a decision, “I like to look at the eyes. . . . They’re things that tell truth more than anything else,” she said.

Already, this battle over portrayal of character has been joined in pretrial hearings over two issues that could decide the case’s outcome before the first argument is made. The prosecution is fighting to get into the record explosive allegations that Kennedy assaulted three other women, as the defense is demanding use of evidence to prove the accuser is promiscuous, psychologically troubled and resentful of men.

Florida’s rape-victim shield law limits what can be used in evidence about an alleged sex-crime victim’s past; another state statute makes it difficult to enter information about a defendant’s past crimes. But there are loopholes, and some experts believe that at least some such evidence may be allowed into this trial.

Circuit Court Judge Mary Lupo ruled last week that the defense may introduce the bra, underpants, spiked high heels and panty hose the accuser was wearing the night of the incident--garments that the defense says are in such good condition that they prove no rape was committed. Lupo excluded the fact that the accuser had abortions, and that her child was born out of wedlock.

In a closed hearing, the defense argued to get in much more: evidence that the woman was abused by her father as a child, and thus resents men; that she has acknowledged using cocaine; that she is alleged to have bent an auto antennae in an argument; that she has a bad driving record.

The judge is expected to issue a written ruling on these issues soon.

After the jury is selected Judge Lupo will conduct a hearing on whether accounts of Smith’s alleged past assaults will be allowed into evidence. In July, the prosecution released statements from one woman who said that Smith raped her and from two others who said he sexually assaulted but did not rape them. The alleged incidents occurred in New York and Washington between 1983 and 1988; none was reported to police at the time.

Under Florida law, such previous-incident evidence is admissible only if it represents a very specific criminal pattern, or “signature.” The three alleged assaults seem to have some characteristics in common, but it remains to be seen whether they are distinctive enough to be judged criminal-act signatures. This could sway the case, because jurors tend to find such evidence powerfully persuasive regarding defendants’ habits.

Rothstein, of Georgetown University law school, believes the judge may allow some evidence from the alleged victim’s background, but that chances for admission of even some of the sex-crime allegations is “only about 50-50.”

Also crucial to the case will be the way both sides try to manipulate how the jurors see the Kennedy family--and many jurors can be expected to have strong feelings.

This was evident during the two opening days of jury selection as witness after witness talked of their warm memories of the Kennedy era, and their negative or mixed feelings about later chapters of the oft-told Kennedy saga.

Prospective juror Renee Eisenberg said that the Kennedy “Camelot” era meant to her “beautiful things from long years ago.” She said she was particularly fond of a television miniseries in which Jacqueline Bisset played Jacqueline Onassis.

David Thatcher, a prospective juror who works for the county government, said he believes that the Kennedys have gotten a “bad rap” because they are celebrities. But he said he had “negative feelings” toward Sen. Kennedy because of stories of his drinking and womanizing.

The defense is likely also to devote a great deal of time to fleshing out Smith’s persona as a young man who successfully made his way through medical school--in contrast to the alleged victim, who has held such jobs as a law-firm clerk and an accounting clerk at Disney World.

The state will not be allowed to bring in the fact that the alleged victim passed a lie-detector test, but they are likely to call police investigators, rape counselors and an emergency-room doctor to testify that she was a distraught and humiliated woman immediately after the alleged crime.

In his appearances to date, Smith has shown signs that he will be a polished and presentable witness. At the jury selection, he has smiled deferentially and bowed to the prospective panel members, and maintained eye contact with them as they were interrogated by lawyers.

And “you can be sure (prosecutors) Moira Lasch and Ellen Roberts are spending long hours talking to their witness about how to present herself,” said Michael Salnick, a local defense attorney and former county prosecutor.

Also hovering over the trial is the question of whether Smith can get a fair trial in a proceeding that is expected to be covered by 500 reporters and photographers. Roy Black, the lead defense counsel, has been laying the foundation for appeal on grounds that the “carnival-like atmosphere” has been prejudicial.