Arenella, Levenson & Co

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson and defense lawyers Albert De Blanc Jr. and Paul Mones offer their take on the Simpson case. UCLA Law school professor Peter Arenella, a regular Legal Pad commentator, will be off most of this week. Today’s topic: A trip into the murky world of DNA data bases. *

On the prosecution LAURIE LEVENSON (prosecution) ‘Much ado about nothing’ was the prosecution’s response to Peter Neufeld’s prolonged attack on Bruce Weir. The two sides were talking apples and oranges. Weir presented the odds of two people contributing to the mixed stains; Neufeld asked about the odds of one contributor. Weir is no gem but got better the more Neufeld attacked him. *

ALBERT DE BLANC JR. (prosecution) The prosecution has produced compelling evidence that it’s highly unlikely that anyone other than O.J. and both victims had their blood mixed on areas in the Bronco and on the gloves. Weir’s demeanor was better Monday than last week. He appeared to be honest and did not deviate from the testimony the prosecution wanted jurors to hear. *

PAUL MONES (prosecution) In the big picture, Weir’s admission of mistakes may not be as important as it appeared over the past few days. The prosecution still has a remarkable number of pieces of DNA evidence, especially the socks found in O.J.’s bedroom. The defense still has to answer that compelling evidence. Weir’s mea culpa may have humanized him with jurors. *

On the defense LAURIE LEVENSON (defense) For a while it looked like Neufeld would never end. He was so intent on beating Weir he lost track of whether anyone could follow his questions. DNA is the prosecution’s strongest evidence, so he was willing to do anything to undermine it. He attacked Weir as biased, confused jurors and played the race card when challenging FBI data profiles. *

ALBERT DE BLANC JR. (defense) Overall, Neufeld was unsuccessful in his attempt to discredit Weir. Even though Weir had to change some of his calculations, the corrections he testified to on mixed stains are still consistent with the high probability that O.J. and both victims had their blood mixed and deposited in the Bronco and on the gloves. *

PAUL MONES (defense) Neufeld succeeded in hammering home the divisions in the scientific community about population sub-groups, instilling in jurors that statistics about mixed stains aren’t as definitive as the RFLP statistics. Weir’s admission of errors could have a negative effect on the jury’s perception of his entire testimony. Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times