THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their takes on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Santa Monica defense lawyer Paul Mones, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Prosecutor George Clarke elicits the first DNA test results from Cellmark laboratory director Robin Cotton.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Finally, on Day 107, Cellmark’s ‘cocktail’ auto-rads offered visual evidence of Simpson’s guilt that jurors without a Ph.D. could understand: the presence of O.J.’s distinctive genetic pattern in blood drops taken from the Bundy murder scene and from his house and the finding of Nicole’s genetic pattern on Simpson’s bloodstained sock taken from his bedroom. The damning import of this evidence explains why the defense offered a conspiracy theory.”

On the defense: “The defense has to hope that their conspiracy theory will find some believers on the jury because of the difficulty of undermining RFLP evidence with claims of contamination. Perhaps the defense can take solace in the fact that true believers in conspiracy theories rarely demand proof of conspiratorial acts but ask only for reasons why government authority cannot be trusted: something the defense surely can provide to this jury.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “The prosecution finally struck up the bands. Using DNA bands on X-rays, the prosecutors produced the first physical evidence placing O.J.’s blood at the scene and Nicole’s blood on his socks. Clarke had Cotton instruct the jurors in excruciating detail on how to read DNA results. While it is unlikely that any of them mastered the process, the telltale bands were there for everyone to see. The next battle will be over the statistical meaning of these results.”

On the defense: “Clarke already may have done some of the defense’s work by demystifying DNA science to such a point that some jurors may feel they can second-guess the experts’ readings of DNA X-rays. Sometimes it is helpful for science to have a little mystique. Human estimations leave room for human error. The defense also won its first battle on DNA statistics. Judge Ito ordered the prosecutors to present conservative probabilities on mixed blood results.”

PAUL MONES

On the prosecution: “The prosecution has preceded with a user-friendly presentation. They boiled down something very complicated into careful steps, using the power of the auto-rad. The day ended with Cotton’s frequent repetition of the word ‘match’ linking Nicole’s genetic markers to genetic markers on the socks in O.J.’s bedroom. I believe the prosecution finds itself exactly where it wants to be: poised to give the statistical significance of the ‘match’ today.”

On the defense: “Defense attorneys have their work cut out for them. One thing that always impresses juries in DNA cases is the compelling nature of looking at the auto-rads. But the defense is going to say that all that glitters is not gold. After they question the Cellmark lab procedures and challenge the notion of a match, the defense will challenge the statistical significance of what Cotton said was a match.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times