UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola...

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 Stanley Greenberg, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Defense lawyer Barry Scheck’s tough cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “A more aggressive Dennis Fung conceded nothing and resisted defense moves to cast him as an incompetent investigator who tainted everything he touched. But Fung’s aggressive stance backfired: his counterpunches were undermined by his own notes or videotapes. Hank Goldberg doesn’t need to rehabilitate Fung; he must resurrect him.”

On the defense: “Scheck’s devastating examination of Fung should be shown to any lawyer desiring to learn how to destroy an expert witness: Fung improperly collected and packaged evidence, he took inadequate samplings of blood evidence from the Bronco and he did not notice any blood on the socks in O.J.’s bedroom, that were later determined to be ‘bloody.’ ”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “The prosecutors have their work cut out for them. Fung was hammered about everything from his training to his failure to collect evidence at the crime scene. The only time Fung stood firm was when he denied touching the bloody envelope, but even then he was wrong as to when he started to collect evidence.”

On the defense: “Scheck was on a roll. He effectively raised questions about the reliability of forensic evidence collected by the police: Were the envelope and glove contaminated when they were moved? Could ‘missing’ blood swatches have been used to create false DNA results? Did more blood show up in the Bronco and on the back fence at Bundy (Drive) after the murders?”

STANLEY GREENBERG

On the prosecution: “The prosecutors did not look happy as Fung appeared to vacillate between incompetency and dishonesty. The challenge for the prosecution is to show that sloppy evidence gathering does not necessarily translate into unreliable DNA test results. The prosecution needs to acknowledge that the evidence gathering was not perfect and then show it doesn’t matter.”

On the defense: “The defense continues to effectively hammer home its themes: a sloppy investigation, a contaminated crime scene and possibly planted blood. Scheck is demonstrating some of the best lawyering in the trial. He did a good job of laying the foundation for future expert testimony that presumably will offer the opinion that the DNA test results are untrustworthy.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times