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 USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topics: Conclusion of Rosa Lopez’s testimony and sanctioning of defense lawyers.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Despite his best efforts, Chris Darden never shook Rosa Lopez’s basic story that she saw Simpson’s Bronco shortly after 10 p.m. and viewed it in the same place the next morning. Questions suggesting that she might have been paid for her testimony elicited denials. If someone paid for this testimony, he got a very bad bargain because Lopez insisted that she had never told the defense that she had seen the Bronco between 10:15 and 10:20.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: The defense is between a rock and a hard place. If they don’t use Lopez, they have lost their only alibi witness and broken the promise Johnnie Cochran made in his opening statement. If they do present the videotape, they run the risk of losing credibility in the jury’s eyes, thereby endangering other defense efforts to create reasonable doubt. The defense may decide to use Lopez in the hope that a few jurors might believe her story.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Darden did a good job of cross-examining Lopez. His cross-examination will make the defense think long and hard before playing the videotape of Lopez’s testimony for the jury. Darden also sent the message that he has a long line of rebuttal witnesses just waiting to contradict Lopez. Now the prosecutors have to start focusing again on presenting their case to the jury and hope jurors still remember the evidence against Simpson.

Laurie Levenson

On the defense: The defense appears fairly desperate when they attempt to rehabilitate a witness by having her claim that “I don’t remember” means “no” or that she has a cultural reason for lying. My experience is that people from all cultures know how to tell the truth. But the defense dodged a bullet on their discovery violations. The sanctions imposed are mere pocket change for these lawyers. One wonders if Judge Ito’s order will deter future violations.

Erwin Chemerinsky

On the prosecution: Although the prosecution obtained no major new admissions from Lopez, it did powerfully reinforce its central point: Lopez only can say that she saw the Bronco after 10 p.m., not at 10:15 or 10:20. Therefore, her testimony is not inconsistent with the prosecution theory. Lopez’s statement that she never told Detective Mark Fuhrman that she saw the Bronco at 10:15 is important because it explains why the police did not follow up with her.

Erwin Chemerinsky

On the defense: The defense was unable to rehabilitate Lopez’s testimony. Even though some of the inconsistencies were explained, many never were. On redirect the defense never could establish that she saw the Bronco at 10:15. Although Lopez seems to lack credibility, there is still a chance that the jury might see the tape: Cochran promised her in his opening statement and she may be the only witness that puts Simpson at home at the time of the murders.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN/Los Angeles Times