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. They are joined by Southwestern University Law Professor Myrna Raeder, who will rotate with other experts as the trial moves forward. Today’s Topic: Back to Bundy; waiting for Fuhrman.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: More filler testimony marking time until Mark Fuhrman and the tapes take center stage. If the jury attributed exculpatory significance to the absence of O.J.’s fingerprints at Bundy or the presence of unknown prints, then there’s a bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in purchasing. The real mystery is why O.J.’s prints were not found inside a condo he had frequently visited.

On the prosecution: Reason and emotion explain why the prosecution wants jurors to view the crime scenes again. The confined area by the Bundy gate might support the coroner’s ‘sudden killing’ scenario. Seeing the tree may undermine the defense’s claim that Ron Goldman bruised his knuckle by striking his assailant. And what could be better than reminding the jurors about the real tragedy at this case’s core before the Fuhrman circus begins.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: Was there anyone in America who had a straight face when the defense said the reason they didn’t want another jury view is that it might cost taxpayers too much money? The more likely reason: its emotional impact on the jury. As for fingerprints, Johnnie Cochran fed his ‘mystery killer’ theory by showing some unidentifiable prints but none that matched O.J.’s But Chris Darden was ready with answers.

On the prosecution: Darden’s message: ‘Get real!’ Of course, O.J.’s fingerprints weren’t at the murder scene; he was wearing gloves. Moreover, because his fingerprints weren’t present, O.J. has less of an explanation for why his blood was. As for the mystery prints, Darden reminded jurors of the obvious: numerous people other than ‘the true killer’ could have inadvertently left the unidentified prints.

MYRNA RAEDER

On the defense: They tried to make lemonade out of lemons by getting Ito to consider a ‘sound’ view--replete with clanging gates--if Sunday’s night jury visit to Bundy and Rockingham takes place. Meantime, while the defense eagerly awaits the fallout the Fuhrman tapes will leave in their wake, jurors had to be content with a fingerprint expert who found none of O.J.’s at the crime scene, but said he discovered nine mystery prints.

On the prosecution: With the Fuhrman fiasco looming in the wings, the prosecution must take comfort with small victories. First, Ito temporarily sealed the defense brief on the Fuhrman tapes. This signals his acute awareness of the tapes’ potential incendiary nature, particularly since he is unlikely to admit all of them. Second, a night viewing will refocus the case on the brutal slayings and let jurors evaluate months of testimony in light of what they see.

Compiled by Henry Weinstein/Los Angeles Times.