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 Santa Monica defense attorney Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The case after Jeanette Harris.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: The good news for the prosecution is that a pro-defense juror was removed from the panel. The bad news is that their worst fears about the impact of race on the criminal justice system have been confirmed. Equally troubling is the realization that their use of domestic violence evidence to motivate jurors into believing in the reliability of the physical evidence appears not have worked, at least for this juror.

On the defense: The defense is angry because they’ve lost one of their best jurors. They also suspect that law enforcement has been willing to investigate only pro-defense jurors. But a juror who believed that Simpson could not get a fair trial from the very outset of the case doesn’t belong on the panel. Despite this setback, the defense clearly remains optimistic, as evidenced by Johnnie Cochran’s statement that his side would consent to a jury of fewer than 12.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: The prosecutors should be glad that Harris was excused from the jury. If she reflects the prevailing view of the jurors, then it may not matter what evidence the prosecution presents. Prosecutors can take some heart from Harris’ remark that there are at least some jurors, including African-Americans, who are ready to consider conviction. Most important, prosecutors must be careful not to let Harris’ remarks demoralize them.

On the defense: Defense lawyers clearly were stung by the loss of Harris. In her remarks, she almost parroted Johnnie Cochran’s opening statement. She obviously is unimpressed by the prosecution’s case. The real question is how many jurors’ views she represents. The defense is trying to convert this setback into an opportunity to put prosecutors on the defensive by claiming that there is a concerted effort to alter the composition of the jury.

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: The prosecution faces an insurmountable task. They have to bring a polarized jury to verdict across a chasm of disbelief. If this juror is representative--and that’s a big if--then the best result possible is a hung jury. It’s evident from what this juror has said that many of the prosecutors’ tactical decisions have backfired. For example, the decision to lead off with the domestic violence. It’s disheartening to reach out for jurors and find nothing in your hand.

On the defense: Defense attorneys should be dismayed at losing this juror, but delighted at this opportunity to look inside Pandora’s box. This juror mirrored each and every allegation made by the defense since the inception of the case. She had bonded with the defense lawyers and their client. She was, at best, lukewarm toward the prosecutors and felt that they had spent a lot of time impugning Simpson’s reputation rather than proving his guilt--and she resents it.

Compiled by Tim Rutten / Los Angeles Times