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 Gerald L. Chaleff, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Bloody socks on center stage, bloody gloves in the wings.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Their best moments came outside the jury’s presence. Marcia Clark’s credibility with jurors will be hurt when they are told she mistakenly accused the defense of misconduct. The defense also avoided a major blunder by not presenting a glove-drying experiment, which would would have opened the door to the prosecution’s use of videotapes showing O.J. wearing gloves the prosecution now claims they can connect to those at the crime scenes.”

On the prosecution: “Talk about burying your point. MacDonnell conceded there were many explanations for how a compression-smudge stain could have gotten on O.J.’s sock that incriminate O.J. and not the LAPD. And the transfer of that stain from one side to the other could have occurred when the stain was re-hydrated during subsequent testing. Unfortunately, style matters as much as substance and one wonders if the jury got the message.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “The defense blinked. When prosecutors threatened to use photographs allegedly showing O.J. wearing the same gloves as used in the murders, Peter Neufeld cut out a major portion of his expert’s testimony. Instead, MacDonnell limited himself to testifying about the bloody socks, suggesting that someone had pressed the blood on to the socks. The problem for the defense is that the ‘someone’ may have been Nicole when her murderer brushed against her.”

On the prosecution: “It was either a great bluff or prosecutors have photographs that would be extremely damaging to the defense. The mere threat to use photos of O.J. wearing leather gloves was enough to get the defense to back down. Clark then started taking swipes at MacDonnell. Her cross bounced all over, but she finally got him to admit that the transfer stain could have occurred if Nicole touched O.J.’s ankle or defense experts manipulated the socks.”

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the defense: “They continued to push their view that blood was pressed on the socks to support the evidence planting theory. Unfortunately for the defense, Ito wouldn’t prohibit the display of pictures showing O.J. wearing gloves similar to those found at the crime scene, while doing TV broadcasts. Consequently, the defense dropped MacDonnell’s tests which would have shown little or no shrinkage to the gloves from being dipped in blood.”

On the prosecution: “Clark used MacDonnell to answer the persistent question ‘why weren’t there bloody clothes,’ by having him concede that the absence of evidence isn’t evidence. She showed that material inside the sock--upon which he placed great importance--could have come from LAPD or defense tests prior to his examination. And she got him to admit that blood on the socks could have come from Nicole’s hand touching O.J.’s ankle--a dramatic image.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times