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 Georgetown law professor Paul F. Rothstein, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: putting the LAPD back on trial.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Rock Harmon has a Jekyll-Hyde persona. In the jury’s presence, he is calm and professional; only a few of his more sarcastic questions have given the jury a hint of his combative nature. Outside the jury’s presence, the outrageous street fighter emerges. He already has suggested to the world that one defense expert should get detoxified before testifying. Now, he alleges the defense has tampered with blood evidence--potentially a crime.

On the defense: The alchemy of cross-examination: Take a strength and transmute it into a weakness. Since Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood is all over O.J.’s socks, how could the LAPD criminalists miss the obvious? It must have been planted later. Since Gary Sims is an excellent witness, use him to indict the sloppy LAPD lab. But will the jury believe that a ‘conspirator’ criminalist would put O.J’s blood on the Rockingham glove and proudly sign his handiwork?

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: The best news for the prosecution may have come through a note from the jury. If the jurors are eager to finish the trial at this point, it may be because they believe they’ve already heard the most significant evidence in the case--the DNA results. Also, prosecutors now know the defense has no new theory. Harmon seems ready and willing to attack the contamination and conspiracy allegations head-on.

On the defense: Barry Scheck is a good lawyer who does the best he can with the material he has. The defense is hoping that degraded DNA is more susceptible to contamination. But contamination is only part of the theory. The rest depends on those familiar villains--the LAPD criminalists and detectives. Scheck is using Sims, a likable witness, to show jurors who the defense believes the real bad guys are.

PAUL F. ROTHSTEIN

On the prosecution: The prosecution further escalated the astronomical infrequency of O.J.’s and the victims’ blood in the population. But it may have confused the jury about whose figures to accept--Sims’ or Robin Cotton’s--and shaken jurors’ faith in the DNA science. Prosecutors succeeded for the first time in placing Ronald Goldman’s blood in O.J.’s home and in his Bronco. Goldman’s blood is important because it is the only blood that cannot be innocently explained away.

On the defense: Scheck continued with Sims the tactic Peter Neufeld initiated with Cotton, which was to turn essentially unassailable prosecution experts into defense witnesses against the LAPD. When Cotton and Sims were asked about the measures they took to prevent contamination of the evidence, the answers were ‘no lose’ for the defense: If they proudly described their extreme care, the LAPD suffered by comparison. If they admitted to any lack of care, it indicted their own labs’ efforts.

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times