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 Marcia A. Morrissey, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The “N word” takes center stage, with the bloody socks still looming in the wings.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: Reports of the defense’s demise may be premature. While Professor Rieder’s expertise may be subject to serious challenge, Herbert MacDonnell’s testimony about compression and transfer bloodstains on the socks supports the defense’s conspiracy theory, and he appears less vulnerable (than did other witnesses). More importantly, the defense may be able to shift the focus of blame from O.J. to the LAPD, if they can prove Detective Fuhrman is a racist who lied to the jury.

On the prosecution: Fuhrman is the prosecution’s Achilles’ heel. His testimony that he was as certain about not using the ‘N Word’ as he was about not planting the glove linked his credibility to the prosecution’s denial of a police conspiracy. That is why Johnnie Cochran wanted the audiotape: to show this jury that Fuhrman lied to them. In a bit of ‘Southern Justice,’ Judge Woods helped the prosecution enormously by denying Cochran access to the tapes.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: Boom! Welcome to North Carolina. The defense just lost a crucial motion. They have always tried to put Mark Fuhrman on trial. But now they won’t have McKinny and her tapes to do it. They must regroup and hope that their other witnesses who claim Fuhrman used a racial slur hold up on cross and that experts such as MacDonnell can establish that evidence was planted. He is an excellent witness whose humility enhances his credibility.

On the prosecution: They dodged a bullet. It will be much easier for prosecutors to cross-examine witnesses accusing Fuhrman of racism than to question an audiotape. Prosecutors have argued for months that the issue is not whether Fuhrman used racist language but whether he planted evidence. A North Carolina judge agreed. Now Marcia Clark must try to use, not abuse, MacDonnell, to elicit how blood smears on the socks were made in a manner consistent with the prosecution’s case.

MARCIA A. MORRISSEY

On the defense: The judge’s ruling in Winston-Salem strikes at the heart of Simpson’s defense. It denies him the opportunity to call a witness to prove that Fuhrman lied under oath about the use of the ‘N Word.’ More importantly, the defense is precluded from presenting testimony about evidence-tampering and fabricated criminal charges based on that evidence-tampering--the destruction of African American drivers’ licenses by the LAPD.

On the prosecution: They face two potentially significant problems. MacDonnell’s testimony that the ankle stain on the socks was soaked, not spattered, and appeared to have been pressed on the socks is powerful evidence that could cause the jury to disregard both FBI agent Martz and the DNA tests. Yet another attack on the evidence obtained from the socks looms in the form of testimony about a discredited KNBC story on the results of DNA tests before they had been conducted.

Compiled by Henry Weinstein / Los Angeles Times