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 Southwestern University Law professor Myrna Raeder, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The DNA war heats up.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Woody Clarke, Sheri Lewis and Hank Goldberg showed us how competent and professional prosecutors should argue in a courtroom. But Rock Harmon’s gratuitous and snide remark that a prospective defense expert should enter a ‘detox center’ before testifying in this case constitutes a new low in character assassination: a remarkable accomplishment given how frequently prosecutors and defense counsel have used that tactic in this case.

On the defense: The defense clearly waived its right to exclude DNA evidence on the grounds that there is no scientific consensus about its general reliability. Judge Ito may conclude that he has the authority to exclude any specific DNA test results if they came from patently unreliable testing procedures. But the most likely outcome in the DNA war will be the admission of most test results, with the jury being left to consider how much weight to give them.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: The prosecutors are fighting tooth and nail to present their crucial DNA evidence to the jury. Through DNA test results, they hope to place Simpson at the scene of the crime and the victims’ blood in Simpson’s Bronco and his home. It seems clear that the DNA evidence will be admitted. The big fight is now over the form of that evidence. The prosecutors are trying to fend off defense attempts to constrain and confuse their presentation.

On the defense: The defense is in an odd position. They don’t want to call Edward Blake, a universally respected DNA expert, but they do want to call Karry Mullis, a controversial scientist. While a Noble Prize winner, Mullis may be a wild card in front of the jury. The defense needed to limit questions about Mullis’ personal life. They appear to have been partially successful on that issue, but less successful in persuading Ito to have a lengthy DNA hearing.

MYRNA RAEDER

On the prosecution: Harmon’s tenacity in arguing that the defense should be severely limited in its cross-examination of prosecution experts, while at the same time declaring open season on Mullis, met with mixed reactions from Ito. The judge indicated that he understood Harmon was trying to educate him, but he also appeared offended by Harmon’s attack on Mullis. It was startling to hear Ito say he had no doubts about Harmon’s “chutzpah” to do anything.

On the defense: Barry Scheck has toned down his intensity level to better mesh with Ito’s preferred style. Yet his fervor was still evident. He has a difficult argument on the waiver issue, but a compelling argument on the defense’s continued ability to challenge the reliability of DNA testing techniques. He was joined by William Thompson, who argued convincingly that Mullis’ theories rise or fall on their scientific validity, not on his lifestyle or character.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times