THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Defense Drops DNA Expert as Witness : Trial: Edward Blake had been expected to help attack prosecution’s case in court. But he indicates that he would be unlikely to offer negative testimony about testing done at state lab.

In a key tactical move, O.J. Simpson’s lawyers have removed from their witness list Edward T. Blake, a highly regarded forensic scientist who was expected to be one of the key defense experts attacking the prosecution’s DNA evidence in court.

Blake is so respected that prosecutors have called him the nation’s foremost practitioner of one type of DNA technology and even tried to subpoena him to be their witness late last year, a move rebuffed by Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito.

Blake said in an interview with The Times that he is still working vigorously on Simpson’s behalf and that no inference should be made that he is at odds with Simpson’s lawyers or has reached any conclusions adverse to Simpson. “This has nothing to do with disagreements between me and the defense attorneys.”

Nonetheless, Blake indicated that if he were called to testify he would be unlikely to offer negative testimony about testing done at the state Department of Justice lab in Oakland, where much of the prosecution’s DNA testing is being done. Blake said that he considers Gary Sims, a former student of his who runs the lab, “a very capable forensic scientist.”

That is an opinion Simpson’s defense lawyers would not like Blake to voice in front of a jury and it is a subject he surely would be questioned about if he were to testify.

If Blake were a defense witness, he would also be cross-examined by prosecutors about the many times he has testified on the fundamental soundness of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technology, a process of magnifying DNA samples for testing that has been used extensively in this case.

“Ed would not be an effective witness if the defense wants to put the whole subject of DNA testing in issue because he has testified that DNA testing, in general, is reliable,” said Allan D. Hymer, a deputy public defender in Oakland, who has used Blake as an expert.

Moreover, “I don’t think the defense would get testimony out of Ed Blake that there is a strong chance that you will get a false positive from a DNA test,” Hymer said.

“The defense clearly has made a cost-benefit analysis and decided that there was more to lose than to gain by calling Blake,” said Southwestern University law professor Myrna Raeder, a DNA expert.

“I have no doubt there are some things he could say that would be helpful to the defense, but that would open up a lot of other issues the defense would not like to see opened,” Raeder said.

*

“No doubt, Blake already has been invaluable to the defense as a consultant by advising them about the technology and the people involved in the testing. He knows all the potential attack points. But by making this decision, the defense is losing a star-quality witness who has stood above the fray in the DNA wars and could not be attacked the way you could attack an expert who always testifies for one side or the other,” Raeder added.

Indeed, she noted that prosecutors have intimated that the defense may have hired Blake, in part, to make him unavailable as a prosecution witness. “Given his experience and credibility, he would have been a significant prosecution witness.”

Attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, the defense team’s DNA specialists, would not comment on the decision to drop Blake from the list, other than to emphasize that “no negative inference” should be drawn from the move.

For her part, Deputy Dist. Atty. Lisa Kahn, one of the prosecution’s DNA specialists, said she was delighted by the defense decision: “Ed Blake has been monitoring the DNA testing at the state Department of Justice laboratory in Oakland. We make the inference that (he has) nothing damaging to say in terms of our testing.”

Blake retorted in the interview that no such conclusion is warranted. He said the defense’s decision was shaped by several factors, some of them tactical, including the desire to avoid turning over to the prosecution any reports he has done during eight months of work on the case.

“As I understand it, as long as I am on the witness list, there will be increased pressure from the prosecutors and Judge Ito to provide everything we have done to the prosecution,” Blake said.

“That, in the judgment of a number of people, including me, would be wrong. Were I to turn over everything, including all my work product, that would reveal a lot of the thinking the defense camp has been engaging in and make the prosecutors’ job easier.”

The magnitude of Blake’s role in the case was described by defense lawyer Gerald F. Uelmen at a November hearing in which he successfully argued against the prosecution request to subpoena Blake. Uelmen said Blake advised Simpson’s lawyers about gaining access to blood samples that had been tested by the prosecution, helped prepare other expert witnesses, advised the lawyers on how to cross-examine prosecution experts, and “has participated in extensive consultations with Mr. Simpson himself.”

To be sure, Blake’s removal from the witness list does not mean that the defense has given up the fight on DNA evidence.

So far, their main attack has been on how blood samples were gathered rather than on the technology. That attack will continue, and may be broadened with the testimony of experts including Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel prize for conceiving PCR technology and is expected to voice reservations about the usefulness of PCR testing in a case such as this.

On Wednesday afternoon outside the presence of the jury, defense lawyer Scheck vigorously argued that his side should be allowed to argue the admissibility of some DNA evidence--even though prosecutors maintain that the defense waived its right to do so Jan. 4.

Scheck also urged Ito to caution jurors about how much weight they should give to DNA test results and inform them that false positive results are possible. In addition, Scheck said, prosecutors should not be allowed to use the word match when discussing DNA test results because DNA testing does not yield a specific identification, as fingerprinting does.

In theory, Blake could still be called into court as a witness, but that appears doubtful. Even though he is not likely to be a courtroom presence, Blake said, he will continue to play an active role. In an interview, he said he had observed the state of the evidence when it came into the state laboratory in Oakland. He also said that when test results came in, he was notified by Sims. At that point, Blake would go into the lab, record the results and inform the defense.

Blake indicated that the defense would continue to focus its attack on the way blood evidence had been collected and stored, rather than assailing the way it had been tested at the Oakland lab.

Blake also said it would make more sense for the defense to point out certain weaknesses in the prosecution’s case through cross-examination, rather than by calling him to testify.

He cited “one of the most incredible things that has occurred in this case,” the fact that LAPD Detective Philip L. Vannatter took a reference sample of Simpson’s blood from Los Angeles police headquarters back to the crime scene, instead of logging it and putting it in a refrigerated storage unit.

“I have never heard of such a thing occurring in my career and I am outraged by it,” Blake said. However, Blake said he believes that even the prosecution’s expert witnesses will have to acknowledge on the stand that Vannatter’s action was highly irregular. “That would be more powerful testimony, coming from a prosecution witness, than it would be coming from me. And there will be other examples like this,” Blake said.

Some prominent defense lawyers expressed surprise at the Simpson team’s move and said it was not a good development for the defense.

“You don’t discard a witness like Ed Blake without a good reason,” said Los Angeles defense lawyer Gerald L. Chaleff.

“There’s obviously something that came up that the defense believes would not be beneficial to their case. It could range from his prior testimony supporting the validity of DNA testing to something unique to this case which supports the prosecution theory,” Chaleff said.

“It’s impossible to speculate what it is, but all that can be deduced is that, overall, the defense believes that other witnesses would be more beneficial than Mr. Blake. It should be remembered, though, that as a DNA witness, Ed Blake is not the frosting on the cake. Ed Blake is the cake.”