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 Southwestern University Law School professor Myrna Raeder, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Testimony of people who lived in Nicole Brown Simpson’s neighborhood.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “The prosecution wants to prove the victims were killed about 10:15 by having the jury infer that their deaths triggered Nicole’s dog to start howling plaintively at that time. The prosecution presented several witnesses who supported that time frame and observed blood on the dog’s paws 40 minutes later. Even if the jury concludes that the 10:15 time frame is relatively accurate, they need not conclude that a dog’s persistent barking proves anything.”

On the defense: “Despite the message of Cochran’s opening statement that the LAPD can’t be trusted, he relied on the accuracy of police reports to suggest in his cross examination that several prosecution witnesses had first heard the dog wailing closer to 10:30 than 10:15. Whether the jury will notice Cochran’s sudden partial endorsement of the LAPD remains to be seen.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Even though the testimony was not dramatic, it was critical. By testifying that they heard dog barks about 10:15, the witnesses established that the crime occurred enough before 11 to give O.J. time to change his clothes, dispose of the murder weapon and return home. The prosecution used witnesses to corroborate one another and had the witnesses explain any discrepancies between their testimony and prior statements to the police.”

On the defense: “The defense looked for any way to push the time of the murders closer to 11 p.m. They pointed out inconsistencies between witness testimony and police reports and tried to get the witnesses to admit that they don’t know exactly when the dog started barking. However, the defense must have been frustrated by the prosecution’s use of an elderly neighbor to rebut the anticipated defense argument that prowlers in the area had committed the crime.”

MYRNA RAEDER

On the prosecution: “The prosecution won a potentially significant out-of-court victory when a woman who Johnnie Cochran claimed in his opening statements could provide information suggesting that someone other than O.J. committed the crime, was booked on suspicion felony fraud charges. Also, prosecution witnesses’ description of the frightened bloody Akita leading people to the even bloodier crime scene is an image likely to stay with the jury.”

On the defense: “The defense made incremental gains in demonstrating that no one can precisely pinpoint the time of death. However, their biggest success of the day may have been the prosecution’s pyrrhic victory in winning the right to call Simpson’s first wife to the witness stand--without any knowledge of what she will say. Every trial lawyer knows better than to call such a witness unless desperate for the anticipated information.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times