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 Beverly Hills defense attorney Roel C. Campos, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Covering some old ground.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Hank Goldberg must be kicking himself for giving the defense a video tape depicting how Andrea Mazzola swatches bloodstains. Since Goldberg had decided not to use this demonstration tape, he was under no obligation to disclose it. His generosity provided the defense with a visual demonstration of how easily mistakes can be made in the collection process. But the jury has heard this litany and none of this can explain away all the evidence.”

On the defense: “Peter Neufeld’s cross-examination tediously covered familiar ground: technical mistakes by Mazzola and others in the collection and reporting of physical evidence. Mazzola conceded that she never saw the four blood spots on the Bronco’s door sill and did not promptly refrigerate blood evidence. Neufeld effectively used the prosecution’s video tape of Mazzola swatching stains to refute her claim that it’s an easy, error-free process.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Goldberg must be shaking his head that all his preparation now is being used as ammunition for the defense. Mazzola had been doing pretty well in her cross-examination until Neufeld produced a prosecution video showing her putting her hand on the dirty pavement, dropping swatches and placing a control swatch where it might be contaminated. Mazzola kept her cool, but prosecutors now have to explain the video tape and why such contamination did not occur in this case.”

On the defense: “Even though he was under pressure from Judge Ito, Neufeld continued to bleed Mazzola’s cross-examination for all it’s worth. He covered the same ground as Scheck had with Fung--possible contamination, incomplete records and inconsistencies in prior testimony. But Neufeld also floated a new defense theory, suggesting that Simpson cut his finger in his foyer and then dripped out to his car. Though interesting, it still doesn’t explain why Simpson’s blood was found at Bundy.”

ROEL C. CAMPOS

On the prosecution: “The jury may yet view Mazzola as being sympathetic and earnest, even though she committed rookie mistakes. It is significant that the defense made no progress in showing a possible conspiracy by police against Simpson or in explaining how blood that matches his was deposited at the crime scene or how the victims’ blood was in Simpson’s Bronco.”

On the defense: “The defense runs the risk of doing too much of a good thing. It already has established that evidence gathering and record keeping were sloppy. Rookie criminalist Mazzola was caught in several mistakes and inconsistent testimony. But by revisiting old ground Neufeld risks losing some of the prior impact of Fung’s cross-examination or, worse, boring the jury.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times