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 USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Robert Blasier concludes his cross-examination of LAPD forensics expert Gregory Matheson and prosecutor Hank Goldberg begins his redirect examination.
PETER ARENELLA
On the prosecution: “If the jury believes the defense’s contention that the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson’s fingernails was an EAP type B that came from an unknown third party, the prosecution’s single-assailant theory will crumble and with it any realistic chance of a conviction. Thus, Goldberg used his redirect to show the jury that Nicole’s BA type could have degenerated into a B in the manner shown by Matheson’s test results, despite defense contentions to the contrary.”
PETER ARENELLA
On the defense: “Blasier started his cross slowly, but he finished with a bang that capturedthe jury’s attention. Using graphics that are far clearer than the prosecution’s, Blasier suggested that the blood under Nicole’s fingernails came from an unknown third party and that 1.5 milliliters of blood missing from O.J.’s reference sample could have been planted at the Bundy crime scene.”
LAURIE LEVENSON
On the prosecution: “Goldberg is at his best when he lets Matheson do the talking. By objecting so much, he silences the best witness the prosecution has had so far. Then on redirect, Goldberg managed to complicate an issue that is likely to go away. Why go into a lengthy and technical discussion of blood degradation patterns when you have DNA test results coming? But Goldberg effectively rebutted the defense’s tampering theory, showing there was little opportunity to do it.”
LAURIE LEVENSON
On the defense: “Blasier is no Perry Mason. But he did a very good job suggesting why the blood under Nicole’s fingernails may belong to an unknown assailant. Using the prosecution’s witness, Blasier simplified the science for the jury. Unfortunately for him, however, his efforts may come to naught when the DNA results are introduced. Blasier also planted in the jurors’ minds that some of O.J.’s blood is missing, even though we don’t know exactly how much.”
ERWIN CHERMINSKY
On the prosecution: “Goldberg’s redirect was detailed but effective. Most importantly, he showed that scientific studies support that the blood under Nicole’s fingernails is consistent with her blood type. Also, he offered an explanation for the blood apparently missing from O.J.’s vial: It was used during routine handling. He elicited from Matheson, but probably did not emphasize enough, that errors in collection of blood do not undermine the reliability of test results.”
ERWIN CHERMINSKY
On the defense: “Blasier got Matheson to admit that the blood under Nicole’s fingernails could have been from a person other than her, Ronald Goldman or O.J. This may be the best, if not the only, physical evidence that the defense can use to say that someone else was at the murder scene. Blasier also was effective at showing that blood appears to be missing from the vial taken from O.J., blood that the defense says was used by the police to frame him.”
Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
