THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is former Los Angeles District Atty. Ira Reiner, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The bloody socks take center stage.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: One step forward, two steps back for the defense’s conspiracy theory, as the bloody socks in O.J.’s bedroom took center stage. The socks weren’t there when Willie Ford entered to videotape the room, but did he precede or follow Dennis Fung? Time-frame testimony suggests that Ford entered first, supporting the defense theory; Ford following Fung’s apparent instructions and Detective Luper’s seeing the socks hours earlier undermine it.

On the prosecution: The prosecution had a good day on two fronts: persuading Judge Ito to bar testimony from a defense blood-splatter expert who might have supported their conspiracy theory and defusing the impact of Ford’s testimony that he didn’t see the bloody socks. Though the law doesn’t make it easy, Christopher Darden effectively reconstructed a critical conversation in which Fung told Ford to videotape the bedroom’s contents after Fung completed his search.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: When will they ever learn? Almost every witness the defense called hurt more than helped. Take, for example, Willie Ford. Sure, he didn’t see the socks, but he wasn’t videotaping until the search was over. Just ask Bert Luper, who when called by the defense had no doubt that the socks were there before Ford arrived. At most, Gigi Guarin portrayed O.J. as neat as a pin, and Officer Muldorfer confirmed there were no records of who entered the Bronco.

On the prosecution: Success on two fronts. Ito precluded, for now, expert testimony on how blood was allegedly smeared on the socks. Without such testimony, the conspiracy theory seems to be mere speculation. More important, Darden used Johnnie Cochran’s witnesses to show that Cochran wasn’t giving jurors the full story. Although Cochran tried to control the damage by endless objections and sidebars, Darden put a serious dent in the defense’s credibility.

IRA REINER

On the defense: They tried to revisit old themes--conspiracy, contamination, carelessness and inattention to detail by police. Those themes have haunted the prosecution. Before we had gloves that didn’t fit; now we have socks that weren’t there. And logs meant to provide careful recordings of precise times don’t have them, so that a reasonable person would not have confidence in the accuracy of the records kept by the LAPD’s scientific investigation division.

On the prosecution: They got a big break from Ito’s ruling limiting testimony of the defense’s blood-splatter expert. He won’t be able to offer evidence about test results indicating that the socks got blood on them after police found them. That would be very damning and hard to answer. Darden effectively reduced the impact of Ford’s missing sock testimony by laying out a sequence of events where Ford didn’t enter O.J.’s bedroom until after Fung collected evidence.

Compiled by Henry Weinstein / Los Angeles Times