THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Decision Not to Play Tape of Simpson Statement Called Good Strategy : Evidence: Interview by police took place the day after slayings. Experts say prosecution has avoided airing a lengthy declaration of innocence by defendant that could not be cross-examined.

When O.J. Simpson talked to police just hours after his ex-wife was murdered, the buzz in the legal community was that Simpson had made a grave error. Numerous attorneys said that no matter what Simpson had said, it was bound to be trouble for him.

So it came as something of a surprise to some observers when it was revealed Monday that prosecutors have decided not to play the tape of the statement as they present their case against Simpson to the jury.

But maybe that is not so surprising after all.

Many legal analysts noted that if prosecutors introduced the statement now, they would be allowing Simpson an opportunity to give his version of what happened without being cross-examined.

“The tape is 33 minutes of Simpson denying he did it, with maybe one or two things contradicting the physical evidence. If the prosecutor played it, it would allow O.J. to testify without being cross-examined,” said Los Angeles defense lawyer Harland W. Braun.

The decision by Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden and co-lead prosecutor Marcia Clark also may be an attempt to lure Simpson to the witness stand, according to some attorneys.

“This is a gutsy move by Chris Darden to force O.J. Simpson to the witness stand,” said defense lawyer Gigi Gordon. “They think they can take him on cross-examination.”

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson agreed: “It’s a smart strategy move. The prosecutors want to put as much pressure as possible to make Simpson take the witness stand so they have an opportunity to cross-examine him.”

If Simpson does take the stand, his early statement to police could still pose problems for him because prosecutors could introduce it to show any inconsistencies with his testimony.

Levenson said that Simpson made two potentially damaging statements when he talked to the police.

“He gave a vague description of how he got the cut on his finger, and he offered no explanation for why his blood would have been found at the Bundy crime scene.”

Simpson told LAPD detectives he had last been at his ex-wife’s residence a week before the murders and that nothing had happened on that occasion that would have accounted for his blood being found there.

Levenson said that if prosecutors introduce the statement and Simpson does not testify, then his lawyers could argue that any problems in the statement resulted from the shock he was suffering at the time.

Gordon agreed. “In this case, because O.J. has this heroic quality, because people want to give him the benefit of the doubt, he really has the presumption of innocence, unlike most defendants,” she said.

“For most defendants, the doom would be in the details of the statement. For O.J. it would be different. As long as the core of his statement was believable, the minor glitches wouldn’t hurt him that badly so the prosecutors are better off holding the statement back for now,” Gordon said.

There are potential hazards for the prosecutors, though, if Simpson does not testify. “The risk for the prosecutors is that the jury will speculate on what he said in the statement,” Levenson said. She said it was possible that a defense attorney could remind the jury during closing arguments that Simpson had voluntarily talked to the police and raise questions about why prosecutors had declined to tell the jurors what he said.

Prosecutors could counter that move by arguing that the best the defense could do was to speculate and then remind the jurors of the judicial instruction “that they should not speculate and must rely only on the evidence they hear in the courtroom,” Levenson said.

Despite this risk, prosecutors made the right move, said former Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner.

“As a general rule, from a prosecutor’s point of view, you don’t put something into evidence unless it’s entirely good for you. It’s the opposite for the defense--you should use anything that is good. That is because the prosecution is trying to resolve all doubts and the defense is only trying to raise one.”

As to whether Simpson ultimately will testify, his lawyers consistently have said that he wants to do so, but a final decision will not be made until the defense is putting on its case.