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 School professor Karen Smith, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Criminalist Andrea Mazzola leaves the stand after days of questioning by prosecutor Hank Goldberg and defense lawyer Peter Neufeld.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Sometimes, style triumphs over substance, especially when exhaustive attention to minute details leaves the jury focused on the trees and not the forest. Goldberg’s methodical redirect reminded jurors that Mazzola had not tailored her testimony to help the prosecution when she conceded she never saw the blood drop on the Bundy gate. But the slow pace and phrasing of his questions generated glazed eyes and suppressed yawns in the courtroom.

On the defense: Neufeld’s persistent cross raised doubts about whether Mazzola offered credible explanations for changes in her memory and testimony. Did she really feel that a plastic trash bag, already containing papers, became ‘slightly heavier in one area’ when a paper envelope containing a vial of Simpson’s blood allegedly was added to it? Neufeld can hope some jurors’ mistrust of authority will convince them that only a sinister cover-up can explain her changes.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Although Mazzola stood firm that there had been no tampering, she had to acknowledge that the police conducted a less-than-perfect investigation. She also had to admit she had made mistakes at an earlier hearing regarding how she handled the evidence. But even with mistakes, she still didn’t look like a conspirator. Perhaps realizing that the jury had heard enough from this witness, Goldberg wisely chose to keep his re-redirect short.

On the defense: It took a long time, but Neufeld finally zeroed in on the key arguments for the defense. He pointed out that because the blood swatches are so small and look alike the criminalists could have intentionally or accidentally mixed them up during collection and processing. Neufeld also effectively highlighted that the evidence before the jury does not contain Mazzola’s initials as she earlier testified it should.

KAREN SMITH

On the prosecution: When Mazzola’s mistakes were pointed out to her--whether major or minor--she conducted herself as if she still had self-confidence. But she could only go so far to corroborate Fung’s testimony that he received Simpson’s blood vial on June 13 because she didn’t see it happen. It was amazing when Mazzola said she didn’t know who O.J. was. If she hadn’t been a criminalist, she might have been eligible to be a juror. She was convincingly oblivious.

On the defense: The real issue is whether a juror buys the defense’s incompetence theory or its conspiracy theory. The juror has to conclude that this collection of evidence could lead to false-positive test results. All of this grilling of Fung and Mazzola may be for naught if the experts testify that if you have lousy evidence-collection, all you get are negative results or no results, rather than false positives.

Compiled by Henry Weinstein / Los Angeles Times