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 defense attorney Jill Lansing, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Bailey vs. Fuhrman, Round Two.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “While Detective Mark Fuhrman testified that he found his coaching session with prosecutors to be unproductive, his performance on the stand so far suggests otherwise. Fuhrman has shown a remarkable sense of composure and calm in the face of persistent defense attacks on his character. Whether the jury will remain impressed with Fuhrman’s unflappable demeanor will depend in part on the credibility of forthcoming defense witnesses.”

On the defense: “F. Lee Bailey continues to score points, but no knockdown is in sight. Jurors might well be asking why a detective who had been taken off the case hours before would show such initiative in investigating the source of the unusual noise outside Kato Kaelin’s room and why he would arrange the situation so that he could do it alone. What Bailey has not accomplished so far is piercing Fuhrman’s air of professionalism.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Fuhrman continued to hold up well. Marcia Clark tried to help by convincing Judge Ito to limit the scope of cross-examination. But, by and large, Fuhrman is on his own. He certainly does not come off as a criminal mastermind who pulled off an elaborate and sinister plot to frame O.J. Simpson. Rather, he seems like a police office fed up with slanderous attacks on his character. He clearly blames the defense lawyers more than the witnesses or even Simpson for those attacks.”

On the defense: “Bailey effectively laid out the defense theory--that Mark Fuhrman, a junior detective, not only planted the glove, but also created a diversion so he could do so. Bailey went so far as to suggest that Fuhrman also planted blood in the Bronco. Right now, there is no evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence, but Bailey may be hoping that his innuendoes will be enough to raise doubts in the jurors’ minds. But if the evidence does not support Bailey’s accusations, the jury will feel manipulated.”

JILL LANSING

On the prosecution: “Fuhrman has maintained an even demeanor, answering questions respectfully, articulately and with no visible display of emotion. He is never intimidated or confused and is assertive in explaining answers that might be misunderstood if not put in context. If Bailey hoped to provoke an unguarded response, he has failed to do so. The destruction promised has not, to date, been delivered.”

On the defense: “The problem with this unflustered demeanor is that it is present even when Fuhrman is testifying to items of questionable believability. If the defense can produce the witnesses to impeach him they alluded to, the jury will see that this behavior is present even when he is lying. That could be disastrous. The issue here is the monumental task of proving not a policeman in error, but one in dishonor.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times