THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

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

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: After almost six months of testimony, 58 witnesses and 488 exhibits, the prosecution finally figured out that less is more. Closing with hair and fiber may not be dramatic, but ending with Nicole’s mother would have been risky. The jury might have felt the prosecution was trying to manipulate their emotions with evidence that can’t establish guilt.

On the defense: F. Lee Bailey’s cross illustrated what the defense has done throughout the prosecution case: Focus on what wasn’t found, such as the absence of victims’ hair and clothing fibers on the Bundy glove, O.J.’s socks and in the Bronco, and attack the prosecution’s experts by suggesting they are biased, or simply incompetent.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Clark saved her best for last. She got from FBI Agent Doug Deedrick that O.J.’s hair on Goldman’s body appeared fresh, not dirty as if left from a prior visit, and that blue threads on Goldman and the glove could not have come from police uniforms. Most importantly, she reminded that this evidence doesn’t stand alone; there is the DNA.

On the defense: Blessedly short, albeit not very effective. Bailey offered other innocent scenarios for the hair and fiber evidence, but most were rebutted on redirect. As the prosecution finishes its case, Bailey was, however, able to make one important point: The scientific evidence is only as reliable as the people who collected it.

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the prosecution: As often happens, the prosecution ended its case anti-climactically with a stipulation that Nicole was last known alive at 9:42 p.m. Clark used redirect to negate inferences that blue-black fibers came from police uniforms and reminded jurors that the defense was given hairs and fibers, placing the burden on it to offer contrary opinions.

On the defense: Bailey concluded a shorter-than-expected cross with an effective use of exhibits showing what fibers and hair weren’t found in the Bronco or on O.J.’s socks or on the gloves. This raised the question of why these hairs and fibers weren’t on this key evidence if O.J. had driven the Bronco from the murder scene to his house.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times