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 Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: It’s in the blood.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Was EDTA found in the blood samples taken from the Bundy rear gate and O.J.’s socks? Were the EDTA levels sufficient to suggest that they came from O.J.’s blood sample and not from some innocent source, such as food? Fredric Rieders answered yes. And that may be enough for jurors who want to believe in a police conspiracy.”

On the prosecution: “Marcia Clark put the focus where it belonged--on the reliability of this expert’s conclusions. Rieders may dismiss the significance of the finding of the same level of EDTA in an FBI agent’s blood, but claims of absurdity do not qualify as a scientific explanation. If nothing else, Rieders’ arrogance and condescension may alienate undecided jurors.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “He’s feisty, but is he correct? In eye-glazing testimony, Rieders stated that he believes the blood on the socks and gate came from blood samples preserved with EDTA. If accurate, this testimony would support the conspiracy theory. But Rieders had his problems. He did his key work in the 1950s, seems more intent on zinging Clark than answering her questions and his opinion of how much EDTA is normally in blood is about 1,000 times off EPA’s. Ouch!”

On the prosecution: “Well, there is an easy rebuttal for the prosecution. Just prick Agent Martz’s finger and see if he bleeds to death. As Clark got Rieders to admit, according to his opinion, Martz has a fatal level of EDTA in his blood. But Martz is alive and kicking. Moreover, his unpreserved blood has nearly the same amount of EDTA as the blood on the socks and gate. Overall, Clark sought to portray Rieders as a has-been, hired hack who has been wrong before.”

GIGI GORDON

On the defense: “The defense had better hope that at least some of these jurors paid better attention in high school chemistry class than most of us did. When Rieders started talking about ‘daughters,’ some of the jurors may have wondered if he was going to testify about PTA meetings rather than EDTA readings. Rieders is on the verge of becoming another of the defense’s courtroom tennis balls and Marcia Clark’s return game is strong.”

On the prosecution: “Clark appears to have the book on Rieders. It may help that his biggest error seems to have occurred while he was working with Marcia’s mentor, Deputy District Atty. Harvey Giss. Apparently while the defense was trying to figure out the difference between PTA and EDTA, Clark was quietly doing her homework. Now we’ll have to see what kind of marks the jury gives her, assuming they’re still awake enough.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times