THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the O.J. Simpson trial. Joining them is Los Angeles defense lawyer Leslie Abramson, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Kato Kaelin continued.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Kaelin has proven to be a very effective prosecution witness despite his unwillingness to volunteer damaging characterizations of O.J.’s behavior and demeanor. That reluctance only increased Kato’s credibility when he was forced to divulge information about O.J.’s jealous behavior regarding Nicole’s old boyfriends. Marcia Clark should thank Robert Shapiro for raising the issue of domestic abuse during his cross-examination.

On the defense: Shapiro should have quit after getting good answers from Kato about O.J.’s demeanor the night of the murders. Shapiro broke another cardinal rule of cross-examination: never ask a question when you don’t know the answer. He never should have asked Kato if anyone other than O.J. regularly drove his Bronco. Kato’s reply that he had never seen Nicole drive the Bronco eroded a potential defense explanation of how her blood was found in that car.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Kaelin is one of the most difficult prosecution witnesses. Some of his testimony helps prosecutors, some hurts. Kaelin helped when he said he did not see Simpson from 9:35 to 10:55 p.m. and when he said he heard thumps on the wall at 10:45. However, he helped the defense when he said Simpson was not in an agitated state shortly before the murders. Clark is now on the attack, but she must be careful not to undermine Kato’s overall credibility.

On the defense: Shapiro did a fine job of cross-examining Kaelin. He raised the crucial question of whether a man about to cut his wife’s throat would calmly go out to buy hamburgers. Shapiro also countered the suggestion that Kaelin was biased in favor of O.J. by noting that he had met several times with the prosecutors. Finally, Shapiro suggested that the blood drops on Simpson’s property could have been there before the murders.

LESLIE ABRAMSON

On the prosecution: Kaelin’s testimony assists their case tremendously. He is the independent witness, the non-cop, who said someone was behind his bedroom at 10:45 and it surely wasn’t Detective (Mark) Fuhrman. He also said he saw blood spots in the foyer of O.J.’s house at 7:30 in the morning, when O.J. had not yet given his blood to the police. This makes the defense claim that all of O.J.’s blood found at the crime scenes came from a police vial totally illogical.

On the defense: The defense probably got as much out of Kato as they are going to. His testimony exhibits that O.J. was not in a fit of jealous rage after the dance recital. Another thing that doesn’t make sense is the little black knapsack. Clark suggested that O.J. was possessive about it because it contained the weapons and bloody clothes. If O.J. was so concerned why would he leave it out for any period of time? But the defense still has to explain where the bag is.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times