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 Los Angeles defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Step by step with criminalist Dennis Fung.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: What should have been a very good day became an unmitigated disaster. Judge Ito sanctioned the prosecution for its belated disclosure of a videotape, and then told the jury that prosecutors had referred to two evidentiary items that they had previously agreed could not be mentioned because they had been improperly seized. Goldberg has to hope jurors will focus on the blood in O.J.’s Bronco, which suggests he was wearing bloody clothing.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: The theme of Barry Scheck’s devastating cross-examination was ‘you can run, but you can’t hide.’ Scheck showed the jury that Fung exaggerated his role in collecting evidence in order to minimalize the role playing by the less-experienced criminalist Andrea Mazzola. Sheck damaged Fung’s credibility by pointing out that he has twice testifed inaccurately about Mazzola’s role. Why didn’t prosecutors anticipate this line of attack and defuse it?

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: To his credit, Hank Goldberg prepared great charts, organizing a large volume of evidence. But he walked into a buzzsaw by referring to evidence prosecutors had promised not to use. Goldberg’s mistakes threatened to undermine the credibility of the prosecution team. Ito refrained from personally raking Goldberg over the coals in front of the jury, but once again the prosecutors were on the defensive.

Laurie Levenson

On the defense: The defense did fine before Ito, but lost some more ground in front of the jury. Now, the defense not only must explain blood at Simpson’s residence and a bloody trail at the crime scene, but also all the blood found in O.J.’s Bronco. Scheck attacked Fung for discrepencies in his prior testimony, but he has yet to show that either criminalist made mistakes that compromise the integrity of the evidence.

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the prosecution: The prosecution presented an elaborate description of the collection, storing and preparation for testing of blood evidence in an obvious preemptive strike at the defense theory that those parts of the LAPD’s investigation that weren’t dishonest were incompetent. Prosecutors used interesting charts to graphically depict where the evidence was found, including the large amount of blood inside the Bronco. Then the defense had its turn.

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the defense: Scheck used protocols and manuals to show what should have been done as compared to what really happened at the crime scene, and to establish the proper role of a criminalist. He then used that base to vividly demonstrate that Fung apparently attempted to cover up the role of the inexperienced Mazzola in the collection process in previous sworn testimony. This contradiction could have a serious impact on the jury’s view of Fung’s credibility.

Compiled by Tim Rutten / Los Angeles Times