THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Brian C. Lysaght, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The amazing shrinking jury.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Now we know why Chris Darden is so depressed. We have reached the meltdown phase of the Simpson trial. With at least three months of testimony to go, Judge Lance A. Ito may well run out of jurors before deliberations even begin. Put yourself in the place of the victims’ families: How would you feel about a system that puts you through such an ordeal without any definitive resolution? Maybe that’s what’s on Darden’s mind.”

On the defense: “The defense writ complaining about Ito’s dismissal of an African American juror is part of a longer-term legal strategy. While the court of appeals may not be willing to put the Simpson trial in a state of suspended animation, the defense has set the stage for what it surely will argue if a mistrial is declared. The defense will contend that double jeopardy bars Simpson’s retrial because prosecutorial and judicial misconduct caused the mistrial.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “No sad faces on the prosecution’s side. Prosecutors knew that they probably would lose a pro-prosecution juror. What they didn’t know was that the defense would lose one of their jurors as well. (That’s assuming they’re reading the tea leaves correctly.) Now prosecutors want to keep O.J. from putting on his sad face for the jury.”

On the defense: “Court of appeals or bust! The defense was stunned that Ito dismissed a juror who seemed favorable to their side. Now they want to make the best record possible in case there is a mistrial. You can bet double or nothing that the defense will claim double jeopardy, alleging that Ito acted without good cause in excusing the latest juror.”

BRIAN C. LYSAGHT

On the prosecution: “Prosecutors are reaping the consequences of an ill-advised sequestration. If it wasn’t needed in the Menendez or World Trade Center cases, it wasn’t needed here. Johnnie Cochran already has said he’ll take a jury of fewer than 12, and that means he loves this panel. His stand puts the prosecution in a box: Take a chance on this panel or take a chance on a double jeopardy bar to a future prosecution.”

On the defense: “The defense has gotten rid of two pro-prosecution jurors (Francine Florio-Buntin and the 28-year-old note-passer) and lost one pro-defense juror (the 54-year-old African American male). It filed a writ petition on the male and, even though it lost--which it probably knew it would--it nevertheless strengthens the double jeopardy issue. And who knows? Lightning may strike.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times