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 San Francisco defense lawyer Paul Harris, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Detective Mark Fuhrman vs. defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, Round III.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Marcia Clark gave the defense a taste of its own medicine when she put Bailey on trial. By labeling Bailey a liar she managed to throw him off stride before he commenced cross-examining Fuhrman. She successfully used Bailey’s courtroom comments about his ‘Marine to Marine’ talk with a prospective witness to justify her request that the defense be precluded from referring to that witness’ alleged statements in cross-examining Fuhrman.”

On the defense: “Bailey escalated expectations about what he could accomplish in cross-examining Fuhrman when he said he hoped to assassinate his character. Judged by that standard, Bailey failed. Fuhrman never acted or testified in a manner that supported the defense’s characterization of him as a rogue, racist cop. But the ultimate measure of Bailey’s cross-examination won’t come until the jury assesses the credibility of defense witnesses who claim Fuhrman uttered racial slurs.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Clark was able to put the defense in the hot seat. She managed to rattle Bailey and expose the extent to which the defense may go to try to obscure the true issues in the case. Fuhrman did the best job of focusing the real issue for the jury: on whether he, for any reason, would have planted evidence and tried to frame Simpson. Nonetheless, Fuhrman unequivocally denied that he has made racial slurs in the past 10 years.”

On the defense: “Bailey didn’t lay a glove on Fuhrman. This may be the worst day Bailey has faced in court in a long time. The morning began with questions regarding his credibility, and then he was caught trying to trick the jury by using a small glove to demonstrate how Fuhrman could have allegedly carried evidence to Simpson’s house. His biggest problem, however, is that there is still no evidence that Fuhrman tried to frame Simpson.”

PAUL HARRIS

On the prosecution: “Although Fuhrman did not blow up on the stand, the racial issues are not concluded. Fuhrman said he was concerned that there had been allegations that he planted evidence. But he said he wasn’t concerned about allegations of racial bias because he hadn’t made racial slurs. If Fuhrman is not a racist, wouldn’t he be concerned about the allegations of racism, particularly when there are eight African-Americans on the jury.”

On the defense: “Though Bailey didn’t get Fuhrman to admit he is a racist, he set things up nicely for another witness to destroy Fuhrman on this issue. Bailey’s made some good points in his examination of prosecutors preparing Fuhrman to testify, but Bailey went on so interminably that the power of it was lost. Still, just the fact that Fuhrman went through such preparation is unlikely to sit well with the jury.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times