THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, former Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner and defense lawyer Gigi Gordon comment on developments in the O.J. Simpson trial. Peter Arenella, a regular Legal Pad commentator, is off this week. Today’s topic: The prosecution stubs its toe again.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: They lost one piece of the puzzle, but how big of a piece was it? Prosecutors can still tie O.J.’s hairs to the victims and fabric on the bloody glove to the type of fabric in O.J.’s Bronco. Marcia Clark has gone back to the roots of her case--scientific evidence. Using board after board, she’ll now ask ‘are all the similarities just an amazing coincidence?’

On the defense: Johnnie Cochran’s hair almost stood on end as he argued to preclude the prosecution’s trace evidence expert. He would love to derail the end of the prosecution’s case, but Ito only filled part of his wish list. The rarity of the fiber evidence is out but so is Cochran’s chance to spoil the prosecution’s finale with missing blood questions.

IRA REINER

On the prosecution: The prosecutors have to feel like they’re snake-bitten. First it’s the LAPD, then the coroner’s office, then the glove demonstration and now an FBI agent hiding the ball puts the prosecutors in a bad situation. What could have been very strong circumstantial evidence has been substantially diminished.

On the defense: FBI Agent Deedrick’s testimony still will be significant because of the clothing fibers. But the defense got Ito to throw his most potent testimony down the drain. If Deedrick could have described a fiber that was unique to this particular Bronco model, that would have been very dramatic for the jury. Now the defense doesn’t have to explain that away.

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: The prosecution suffered a huge setback. As Judge Ito said, the rarity of the carpet fibers is compelling circumstantial evidence, and it’s now precluded because of a clear-cut discovery violation. This evidence could have been their recovery from the glove debacle. Whether this was by negligence or by design, they should know better.

On the defense: The defense won a tremendous victory when Ito excluded Deedrick’s report. But they will have to walk a tightrope in cross-examining him. Unless they are careful in attempting to diminish the significance of his testimony, they will create possibilities for the prosecution on redirect. At that point, Ito might admit material that he has now excluded.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times