UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola...

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 Gerald L. Chaleff, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: More damning DNA.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “So much blood. So much on the Rockingham glove consistent with O.J. Simpson and the two victims that it seeped into the glove’s lining. And a bloody smear on the Bronco’s console bears the same genetic markers of the two victims and O.J. as the mixed stain on the Rockingham glove. The prosecution hopes that its sea-of-blood evidence and DNA results will wash away any reasonable doubt about Simpson’s guilt.”

On the defense: “There is no innocuous explanation for how Ronald Goldman’s blood could be found inside Simpson’s Bronco. Thus, PCR results suggesting that Goldman’s blood might be on the console could be devastating evidence of Simpson’s guilt if the defense cannot undermine them. The defense can use statistics to dilute the incriminating value of any PCR result, but if RFLP results tie Goldman to the Bronco, only a conspiracy theory will do.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Seeing is believing. Test result after test result, the prosecution linked O.J. to the murders. In the post-lunch period, when jurors usually are close to snoozing, they instead were studying X-rays of O.J.’s and victims’ blood on the Rockingham glove, in the Bronco and on Simpson’s socks. When the light box went on, so did the jurors’ eyes and the results could be devastating for the defense.”

On the defense: “Wednesday was probably the day the defense team had hoped would never come. Not only did Gary Sims’ DNA results corroborate Cellmark’s findings, but they also made it much harder for O.J. to claim that the police smeared blood on his socks. Barry Scheck is a great lawyer, but even Clarence Darrow would balk at the task ahead. Simms has been a low-key but lethal witness for the prosecution.”

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the prosecution: “The prosecution is attempting to drown Simpson’s defense in a sea of blood--and they may be succeeding. They scored particularly dramatic points with testimony about the combination of the victims’ blood and Simpson’s in the Bronco and on the Rockingham glove. Sims offered corroboration for Robin Cotton and Cellmark’s testing by achieving identical test results, thus depriving the defense of an opportunity to argue laboratory error.”

On the defense: “The defense indicated that a primary line of their cross will be a challenge to the mathematics the prosecution’s scientists are using to calculate the probability that some one other than Simpson deposited this blood. Sims’ repeated use of the phrase ‘could be the source of’ gives the defense an opening. But he is an easy, open and apparently truthful witness and Scheck will have to approach him with caution, attacking the science not the man.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times