THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Los Angeles defense lawyer Albert De Blanc Jr., who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The prosecution tries to establish the time of the killings.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Time is critical. Prosecutors must prove that the murders occurred close to 10:15 to show that O.J. Simpson had the time to kill, destroy evidence and return home to catch a limousine. Using time cards, phone records, memories of Ronald Goldman’s colleagues, as well as his sister’s suggestion that her brother had quickly changed clothes, the prosecution created the impression that Goldman could have arrived at Nicole Simpson’s condo as early as 10:15.”

On the defense: “Despite Johnnie L. Cochran’s considerable trial skills, his cross-examination of Pablo Fenjves did not shake Fenjves’ firm conclusion that he heard a dog’s plaintive wailing between 10:15 and 10:20 and not between 10:15 and 10:30, as stated on a police report. In this instance, the defense wants the jury to believe the police report provides a more accurate account of Fenjves’ initial estimate because the later he heard the dog wail, the better it is for Simpson.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “The prosecution brought the forgotten victim, Goldman, into the courtroom. They showed the jurors his clothes, his pictures, his friends, his family and made him real. They also began to establish the time line critical to show jurors that the killings occurred at a time when Simpson could have been at the crime scene. So far, the time line evidence is consistent with what the prosecution told the jurors in opening statements.”

On the defense: “It was strange to hear Bob Shapiro suggest there had been an affair between the two victims. The defense has never said how that would be relevant to the defense and in some ways it helps the prosecution, which contends that Nicole and Goldman might have been killed because of O.J.’s jealousy. It seemed like a gratuitous remark about the victims unless there is a suggestion that another jealous lover could have been the killer.”

ALBERT DEBLANC JR.

On the prosecution: “The witnesses from Mezzaluna established that Goldman left the restaurant about 9:50 p.m., giving him time to have arrived at the crime scene by 10:15--the time Fenjves heard the dog wailing. That is highly relevant as to the time of death and critically important in a circumstantial evidence case like this. The witnesses did very well; they were not impeached by cross-examination.”

On the defense: “The defense indicated that a major problem for the prosecution is that the wailing of a dog does not definitively show the dog was reacting to a struggle or a homicide. Cochran tried to establish with cross-examination that you don’t know if the dog that was wailing is the same dog that was later discovered with blood on its paws, and he got Fenjves to acknowledge that a lot of dogs bark in that neighborhood.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times