Simpson Murder Case : With ‘Dress Rehearsal’ Over, Cast Prepares for the Trial : Courts: Defense lawyers are likely to file a flurry of motions. DNA testing, search warrant are key issues.

With Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell’s ruling Friday afternoon ordering O.J. Simpson to stand trial on murder charges, the legal equivalent of a dress rehearsal has concluded.

Compared to the six-day preliminary hearing, Simpson’s trial will feature a larger cast of witnesses, a more in-depth script, and perhaps a significant additional act--a full-scale defense presented by Simpson’s lawyers that may include an appearance on the witness stand by the football legend himself.

“All this hearing was was an exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case,” said Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Barry Tarlow. “The trial will be a struggle to find out the truth where both sides will be presenting evidence.”

Well before before the start of the trial, which Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Friday could begin in mid-September, a flurry of legal motions and issues will be debated before an as-yet unchosen Superior Court judge.

Among the key issues are whether DNA samples gathered by the prosecution are admissible at trial and whether evidence of past spousal abuse can be introduced. Defense lawyers will also, in all likelihood, file a motion asking the new judge to overrule Kennedy-Powell and dismiss the charges for lack of evidence.

Additional defense motions probably will include a new attempt to throw out evidence obtained in a search of Simpson’s Brentwood estate in the hours after the bodies of his ex-wife and her friend were discovered outside her nearby condo.

For prosecutors, the looming question is whether to seek the death penalty against the celebrity, who is charged with the premeditated slashing deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman on the night of June 12.

The formal pretrial process begins July 22, with Simpson’s arraignment in Los Angeles Superior Court, at which time he will again be asked: “How do you plead?”

By then, it is unlikely that the district attorney’s office will have resolved whether to seek the death penalty or life without parole--the only two alternatives if it sticks with the “special circumstance” theory of multiple murders.

Such decisions are made by a committee of senior district attorney officials, who hear arguments by the prosecutors and informal pleas from the defense. The panel seeks consistency, considering decisions in past cases.

One senior prosecutor, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said he doubts that his office would seek the death penalty against Simpson because the crimes of which he is accused could have been the result of passion, were rooted in a specific circumstance and are unlikely to happen again. But other lawyers said one has only to look back to the Menendez murders for a similar case in which death is being sought.

Although 90% of the felony cases that reach Superior Court are concluded with a plea bargain, one is unlikely in this case.

Simpson, who maintains his innocence, has little to gain. If the special circumstances were eliminated and he were allowed to plead to either first- or second-degree murder, he would still face the prospects of imprisonment until old age. It is unlikely that prosecutors would be willing to reduce the charges to voluntary manslaughter, which could lead to a relatively minor penalty of 11 years imprisonment for each slaying. “There is no area, it seems, with an overlap,” Los Angeles defense attorney Harland W. Braun said.

For Simpson’s attorneys, even broaching the subject of a guilty plea might prove daunting because of fears that news of any such negotiations might leak out.

Given that a plea bargain is unlikely, here is what is likely to happen in coming weeks as attorneys start preparing for trial. They are expected to:

* Relitigate the fairness of decisions made by the judge in the preliminary hearing. Defense attorneys customarily file motions based on Penal Code Section 995 asking Superior Court judges to second-guess their lower court colleagues based solely on a review of the case’s written record. Such motions rarely go anywhere.

The defense in this case is also expected to challenge again the initial, warrantless search of the Simpson property, but will probably be barred from introducing any new evidence on this subject. It can introduce evidenceto challenge a search warrant that police later obtained.

* Squabble over the admissibility of DNA tests on blood from the crime scene that have not yet been completed. California appellate courts have made conflicting rulings on the crucial question of how far scientists can go in testifying about the ability of DNA tests to serve as genetic fingerprints and identify specific individuals. The question, said Southwestern University School of Law professor Myrna S. Raeder, is: “Is there an appropriate statistical basis, based on genetics, that permits an expert to come up with a number--whether it be one in 10,000 or one in a million--that has scientific validity.” The California Supreme Court has not weighed in to settle the dispute.

The point will be moot, of course, if the prosecution’s DNA tests eliminate Simpson as the source of the blood.

* Debate whether Simpson’s past conduct can be admitted as evidence before a jury. In 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest to misdemeanor spousal battery of Nicole. And in the weeks before Simpson’s preliminary hearing, authorities released tape recordings of Nicole’s anguished calls to 911. Legal experts said it is unlikely that a judge would allow introduction of such explosive evidence. In deciding, a judge would have to balance the information’s value to prosecutors as proof of the crime in question against its prejudicial impact on the defense. In general, past conduct is not considered proof of a currently charged crime.

An exception could come if Simpson takes the witness stand at his trial and says, for example, that he had a peaceful marriage. Then prosecutors might be able to use some of his past actions to challenge his veracity.

* Select the jury and possibly help choose the judge. A judge will probably be assigned soon by the presiding judge of the Superior Court. In some high-publicity cases in the past, the presiding judge has consulted with lawyers for both sides to avoid the spectacle of them later blackballing a judge. Each side can disqualify one judge without having to give a reason.

The jury selection in this case could take longer than the trial itself because massive publicity could make it more difficult to find people who declare, believably, that they can be impartial. Selection will be even more complex if the prosecution seeks the death penalty. A major issue for attorneys on both sides will be whether the judge allows them to question prospective jurors or exercises that prerogative alone, from the bench.

An additional delay could result if Simpson changes his defense team. His lead attorney, Robert L. Shapiro, is a criminal law specialist but has never tried a death penalty case.

In the preliminary hearing only a handful of witnesses were used, and as is typical, the defense presented no case. Defense lawyers rarely want to subject their witnesses to cross-examination and tip their hands to prosecutors about their theory of the case. The trial will likely feature many additional witnesses, including many more scientists. Criminalist testimony at the preliminary hearing dealt with only one of many blood spots. At trial, the defense is likely to have experts of its own to question the validity of scientific evidence.

“The defense at trial is never required to put up a separate model of what took place,” Raeder said. “All the defense has to do to gain an acquittal is to raise a reasonable doubt.”

How quickly it gets its chance is largely in its own hands. A defendant is entitled to a trial 60 days after arraignment.

But only rarely is that right exercised. “Sometimes it is to the defense’s benefit to go to trial immediately . . . if they have an airtight alibi,” said Los Angeles attorney Gerald L. Chaleff. “In the sense that they have a picture of you standing next to the Pope. And the Pope’s going to come in and testify.”