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 Jill Lansing, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The prosecutors cut it short.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: By closing early, the prosecution will forego Simpson’s ‘suicide’ letter, the ‘low speed’ chase and some domestic violence evidence. Dismissed jurors were not impressed by the latter, and prosecutors can present more in rebuttal, if given an opening. The letter and chase are ambiguous and jurors know about both anyway. Five months of testimony have not changed the bottom line: The prosecution can win only if the jury accepts the DNA evidence.

On the defense: Less is more. The glove fiasco eliminates any need for O.J. to testify. Why combat domestic violence evidence that didn’t appear to work? The defense will put Mark Fuhrman, Dennis Fung and the LAPD lab on trial. If they can show that Fuhrman is a racist, they can provide fuel for their conspiracy allegations, and their forensic and DNA experts will strengthen the defense theme of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ to undermine DNA evidence.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Don’t play the defense’s game. If prosecutors had returned to domestic violence, the defense could argue that they weren’t confident enough about their scientific evidence. The defense also could have turned the Bronco chase evidence on its head. Instead of focusing on consciousness of guilt, the jurors might remember the crowds cheering for O.J. Prosecutors don’t want a popularity contest. They want physical evidence to decide the case.

On the defense: Step carefully. Although the prosecutors don’t look like they will end their case with a big bang, they have held back plenty of evidence for impeachment and rebuttal. If Johnnie Cochran tries to canonize O.J. with ‘circle of benevolence’ evidence, he could be in for some surprises. Not only do prosecutors still have plenty of domestic violence evidence, but if Cochran gives them an opening they still can introduce evidence of O.J.’s flight.

JILL LANSING

On the prosecution: This decision is a window on the prosecutors’ view of their case: It reflects their opinon of the strength of the evidence thus far presented; it points to their concern with jury attrition; it also may reflect a tactical assessment of how holding certain evidence in reserve may limit what the defense presents, since Simpson’s attorneys may not want to open certain doors. Prosecutors may also want to hold some compelling evidence for use in rebuttal.

On the defense: The defense may hope that jurors see the early termination of the prosecution’s case as an acknowledgement of defeat following the disastrous glove experiment. Their most important decision may be not to do anything, which would endanger the gains they may have made to date. It may be easier to explain putting on no defense rather than allowing prosecutors to highlight witnesses promised in opening statement, but not called.

Compiled by Tim Rutten/Los Angeles Times