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 professor Karen Smith, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Further testimony and cross-examination of LAPD detective Ronald Phillips.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Despite Phillips’ limited role in the investigation, the prosecution used him for several key purposes. As the officer who first told O.J. his ex-wife had been killed, he could testify that Simpson never asked him to explain how Nicole died. Marcia Clark hopes jurors will conclude O.J. already knew. The prosecution also might have wanted the first testimony about the bloody glove found at Simpson’s estate coming from a witness who doesn’t have detective Fuhrman’s vulnerabilities.

On the defense: In Cochran’s hands, Phillips’ explanations for investigatory delays and the detectives trip to Simpson’s estate appeared more suspicious. Cochran suggested that four detectives left the crime scene before the investigation was finished because they suspected Simpson was the killer. On several occasions, Cochran emphasized the critical role played by Fuhrman at Simpson’s estate in an effort to undermine the prosecution’s attempt to minimize his importance.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Much of detective Phillips’ testimony was a straightforward description of his role in the investigation. However, two things stand out. First, when notified of Nicole’s death, Simpson didn’t ask any questions about it. Second, the officers at the crime scene were preoccupied with the prospect of dealing with the media, causing them to by-pass LAPD rules about promptly notifying the coroner that there had been two murders.

On the defense: Cochran raised two tough questions--why wasn’t the Coroner’s office called earlier and why did four detectives need to go to Simpson’s house to notify him of his ex-wife’s death. Cochran did it with a style that was very different than that used by his co-counsel F. Lee Bailey. Instead of beating up the witness, he established a rapport that led the LAPD detective to be freer in providing information.

KAREN SMITH

On the prosecution: Since they knew the defense would make make an issue of how late Simpson was notified about Nicole’s death, the prosecution parlayed that to their advantage by showing his odd reaction to the news. He did not ask for any details of how she was killed. The prosecution wants jurors to infer that he didn’t need to be told how she died. The only person who could explain his reaction would be O.J. and I think the prosecution would like him to testify.

On the defense: By raising the question of how late the coroner was notified, Cochran’s goal was to plant in the jurors’ minds that the police were playing fast and loose with their obligations and that they thought O.J. was the prime suspect. Cochran tried to suggest that the police seemed more interested in building a case against Simpson than notifying him of the killings and implied that they may have lost interest in any other suspect within a few hours after the killings.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times