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 Georgetown Law School professor Paul Rothstein, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Endings and possible reopenings.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Tuesday’s testimony was overshadowed by the possibility that prosecutors have evidence linking O.J. to the gloves. The defense will argue that orderly trial procedure should prevent the prosecution from getting a second chance to prove what they should have shown in their case-in-chief. But trials should be a search for the truth and Judge Ito, a former prosecutor, may find a way to admit the tapes if they show O.J. wearing the killer’s gloves.”

On the prosecution: “How strongly do these videotapes link O.J. to the killer’s gloves and will the jury see them? To reopen its case-in-chief, the prosecution must have acted diligently to discover these tapes and their content must be so incriminating that an unjust verdict might result from their exclusion. If prosecutors fail to meet this test, they must hope Ito buys their claim that the defense’s plant/conspiracy theory has opened the door to use the tapes in rebuttal.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “Herbert MacDonell was their best expert witness so far. But his testimony alone can’t establish a conspiracy. Knowing this, the defense is fighting tooth and nail to get in evidence of alleged leaks by the LAPD, which they believe somehow shows blood was planted on O.J.’s socks. Peter Neufeld got nowhere with Michelle Kestler, head of the LAPD lab, but his colleagues are willing to run roughshod over reluctant reporters to expose the leaker.”

On the prosecution: “Marcia Clark didn’t think much of MacDonell’s testimony, and she wasn’t afraid to show it. She portrayed him as a semi-scientist, who tinkers in his house on blood tests that never are verified. But shorter would have been sweeter. The more opportunity she gave MacDonell to speak, the more he supported the defense’s position. Clark may have great photos of O.J. in gloves, but she must be careful that the case doesn’t shift to a trial of the LAPD.”

PAUL ROTHSTEIN

On the defense: “MacDonell bolstered contentions that Nicole’s blood was planted on O.J.’s socks by refuting the contention that it had been spattered at the murder scene. Instead, he testified that the blood had been applied through ‘compression’ by someone or something and leaked through to the opposite wall, suggesting the sock was empty at the time. The nurse’s testimony that he withdrew eight cc’s of blood from O.J. reopens the question of where it went?”

On the prosecution: “MacDonell agreed that the blood on the socks could have been smeared there by the victim’s bloody hand or when Simpson removed the sock or simply by brushing against blood at the crime scene. MacDonell also admitted the possibility that the drops on the sock’s opposite wall were put there while the police were conducting laboratory tests. The nurse admitted that he was uncertain how precise his 8 c.c. estimate of the blood sample really was.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times