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 Jill Lansing, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Plowing familiar fields.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Greg Matheson is a very impressive witness for the prosecution. Apart from Detective Tom Lange, he is the only witness whose demeanor did not change when subjected to hostile defense questioning. He consistently responded in a straightforward and intelligent manner, conceding mistakes but minimizing their significance without appearing defensive. He did and said little that would support the defense’s persistent theme of police incompetence.”

On the defense: “Been there. Heard that. Robert Blaiser’s cross focused on a familiar defense litany of collection errors and potential contamination risks that could have compromised some of the test results. But the numbing repetition of these points may dull the jury’s sensitivity to them, especially if potentially significant points such as the contamination problems at the LAPD lab are combined with fairly trivial ones like the criminalists’ use of pencils instead of pens.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Matheson held up well on cross-examination. He was unusually patient, even when Blaiser grilled him on such minutiae as whether a criminalist should use a pen or pencil in filling out reports. Matheson seems particularly credible because he is willing to admit that the LAPD criminalists made mistakes. He then explains why those mistakes don’t necessarily make a difference in the test results. So far, Matheson seems to be in a different league from the other prosecution witnesses.”

On the defense: “To put it bluntly, most of Blaiser’s cross-examination was extraordinarily dull. Rather than attack blood evidence directly, he rehashed old areas of inquiry. Even fancy charts couldn’t break the tedium. In the morning, Blaiser went door-by-door, cabinet-by-cabinet, tweezer-by-tweezer, challenging the conditions of the LAPD lab. The afternoon was only slightly better, focusing on whether nanograms of floating blood flakes or dripping perspiration can contaminate the DNA evidence.”

JILL LANSING

On the prosecution: “Matheson’s confidence, experience and lack of defensiveness make him a believable witness. His refusal to go beyond his experience prevents him from embarrassing himself and the prosecution. Though conceding there may have been better ways of doing some things, his continued message was that those departures in no way compromised the evidence in this case.”

On the defense: “Blaiser first asked a series of questions with little exploration, explanation or impact. Once he put down his notes, we saw animated, pointed questions suggesting the extension of the alleged conspiracy into the lab. For those unwilling to go that far, the ever-present theme of incompetence and contamination was reinforced through Matheson’s ‘good-enough-for-government-work’ responses.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times