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 Santa Monica defense lawyer Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Further examination of Los Angeles Police Detective Tom Lange, lead investigator in the Simpson case.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “If Marcia Clark was graded for style, she had a bad day due to her difficulty in formulating appropriate questions. Still, many of Lange’s answers provided strong rebuttals to defense attempts to shift the focus away from Simpson to police or forensic mistakes. Lange explained why the murders probably weren’t drug-related, how physical evidence pointed to a lone killer and why ice cream at the scene had melted despite its remaining lumpy texture.”

On the defense: “Once again, Johnnie Cochran’s detailed opening statement came back to haunt him. Cochran told the jury that blood evidence under Nicole Brown’s fingernails was inconsistent with the blood types of either victim or O.J. But Clark said Tuesday that final testing of that blood indicated it was Nicole’s. At this juncture the defense has to be concerned about how many of their initial promises to this jury will be broken by the end of this trial.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Detective Lange was more effective on redirect than he was in the initial examination. He explained why there was only one assailant and why the killings were not drug-related. He showed that there was a credible investigation and that a lot of questions raised by the defense had little merit. For example, the police did follow up on the melting ice cream and the marks on Goldman’s hands could be attributed to hitting a gate rather than hitting O.J.”

On the defense: “Had Johnnie Cochran stood up for all his objections Tuesday, he would have looked like a jack-in-the-box. His strategy was to derail Clark’s redirect examination and fluster her. Sometimes it worked, particularly when she was trying to reconcile crime scene photograph numbers with police evidence numbers. Other times, however, it may have looked to the jury as if the defense was trying to hide something.”

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: “The empire strikes back. Clark shot down a lot of little things that have become these large issues in the mind of the public--the banana label, the shopping list, the invisible footprints, the ice cream. And now we know why Lange believes this wasn’t an offense committed by drug killers--the nature of the weapon used and the lack of any link between Nicole’s condo and the use or sale of drugs.”

On the defense: “Showing the videotape of Lange leaving Simpson’s home with O.J.’s Reeboks was extremely effective. The average person would be shocked that this is the method of handling evidence. The view that this investigation was conducted in an antiseptic manner is completely shattered by seeing a detective walking around with a pair of sneakers, throwing them into his car and then taking the shoes to the police crime lab when it suits his fancy.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times