UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola...

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Burying the coroner.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Not calling Dr. Irwin Golden makes sense. Why vouch for the credibility and competence of a witness who so easily can be destroyed on cross-examination? Now, the prosecution can avoid another ‘Dennis Fung’ moment during the most emotional phase of its case. But Brian Kelberg must hope that his repeated references to Golden’s numerous mistakes will suffice to defuse the defense’s inevitable claim the prosecutors are trying to hide the truth.”

On the defense: “Timing matters. The defense still gets to attack Golden’s competence because they will call him as a defense witness. And they can use his absence from the prosecution’s case to support their claim that the state is trying to keep the jury from seeing the best evidence of what went wrong in its investigation. But without Golden to kick around now, the defense has lost its immediate opportunity to undermine the gruesome photos’ emotional impact.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Very, very smart move. Dr. Lakshmanan has done a great job of presenting the autopsy findings, so why ruin a good thing by calling Golden? The prosecutors have made the savagery of the attacks clear and don’t want to lose momentum so near the end of their case. They have brought the focus back on the victims. Though they now are silent, their slashed throats call out for justice.”

On the defense: “As it turns out, Robert Shapiro did the prosecution a huge favor by humiliating Golden at the preliminary hearing. Now the prosecutors won’t call him and the defense is left to nit-pick about his mistakes. After Dr. Lakshmanan, the defense has an uphill battle. Ronald Goldman’s defensive wounds, made without clenching his fists, undermine defense claims that O.J. should have been bruised.”

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the prosecution: “The prosecution is attempting to negate the importance and--if they could--the very existence of Golden. Not only have prosecutors professed that his omissions and commissions were insignificant and irrelevant, but they also have disassociated their case from his opinions. They’ve essentially turned him into a non-person and are not even going to call him as a witness, a highly unusual and unorthodox strategy.”

On the defense: “By not calling Golden, prosecutors have given the defense the opportunity to call him and, thus, say to the jury, ‘What are they trying to hide and why don’t they want you to hear this man?’ It also appears that the defense has fertile ground to till when it comes to the wounds on the back of Goldman’s hands. The defense will push the theory that these are defensive wounds, caused when Goldman hit his assailant. Simpson was unmarked.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times