THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Arenella, Levenson & Co. / The Legal Pad

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Southwestern School of Law professor Karen Smith, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: opening statements.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Up until the closing moments, Marcia Clark’s opening statement was a perfect illustration of what a good opening should be. She did a masterful job of telling a story about . . . the evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene as well as a trail of evidence connecting the crime to his Bronco, his driveway and his home. The only quibble is that she should have stopped at the dramatic moment when she summarized the tragic events of June 12.

On the defense: “The unfortunate and clearly inadvertent showing of an alternate juror on television . . . was a disaster for the defense because the incident led to the trial being recessed and the jury going home with only one side of the story in their minds. Regardless of how Judge Ito rules . . . it would be terribly unfair to Mr. Simpson not to have the defense’s opening statement televised because if he is acquitted, the courtroom of public opinion would only have been exposed to the prosecution’s powerful opening.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “The highlight of the prosecution’s day was when Marcia Clark started to go through the physical evidence--the blood, the hair fibers and the fibers from the Bronco that tie O.J. Simpson to the crime scene. The strength of the prosecution case is the physical evidence and the DNA evidence. She tried to explain that there are just too many pieces for the defense to explain away.”

On the defense: “The challenge for the defense today is to defuse the impact of the prosecution’s opening statement and to show the jurors they can not trust the prosecution’s evidence, why each and every piece of the evidence is not as reliable as the prosecution asserts. They also have to humanize O.J. Simpson. Right now, he has been painted as a murderer who made enough mistakes to leave a trail of his blood.”

KAREN SMITH

On the prosecution: “The prosecution made a powerful and coherent presentation to suport their theories that Mr. Simpson committed these murders. They presented a psychological motive for Mr. Simpson to act, the opportunity to act--the hour-and-10-minute window--and Marcia Clark walked us through the blood trail. They educated the jury on the cycle of Mr. Simpson’s abuse of Nicole in the marriage and they also took ‘love’ and showed how it can be obsessive and deadly.”

On the defense: “They got something the prosecution didn’t want them to have--Mr. Simpson gets to show his knee injuries. That’s a significant contact point between the defendant and the jury. You can’t show your knees from across the courtroom. It gives Simpson an opportunity to get within touching distance of the jurors so they can make a good observation of what he’s trying to show them.”