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 Georgetown Law Professor Paul Rothstein, who will rotate with other experts as the trial moves forward. Today’s Topic: The Fuhrman Tapes: even worse than expected but how much will the jury hear?

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Will a predominantly black jury be shocked that Mark Fuhrman is a racist who lied to them about not using racial slurs? Hardly. Far more damaging are Fuhrman’s comments about fabricating evidence and the ‘rules of the game’: a code of silence backed by a web of lies from fellow officers to cover-up misconduct. The defense hopes the jury will believe he was willing to frame O.J. because of his racism and his confidence that others would back him up.”

On the prosecution: “With eloquence, Marcia Clark started distancing the prosecution from Fuhrman. She conceded he was a racist cop, but not one in a position to frame O.J. In a preview of her closing argument, she appealed to Ito’s common sense: one rogue cop doesn’t constitute proof of a conspiracy, nor should the ugligness of Fuhrman’s racism be permitted to distract jurors from a search for the only truth that matters in this trial: O.J.’s innocence or guilt.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “Gerry Uelmen pulled out all stops to get Fuhrman’s tapes to the jury. He argued that not only was Fuhrman a racist but that his statements show a broader LAPD conspiracy. No one could condone Fuhrman’s remarks. But Ito must get beyond rhetoric and decide whether: the transcripts are accurate; Fuhrman was making factual statements or screenplay embellishments; and if there is a purpose for playing the tapes other than inflaming jurors.”

On the prosecution: “As Clark acknowledged, she was in the worst of all positions. She could not defend Fuhrman or his racist attitudes, but she was unwilling to throw away her murder case because of the outrageous remarks of one officer. Clark contended that for as horrible as the tapes are, they don’t show Fuhrman could have or did plant evidence in this case. She reminded Ito that he has the responsibility and discretion to screen evidence for the jury.”

PAUL ROTHSTEIN

On the defense: “Uelmen made a splendid pitch for admitting the tapes: impeachment is always relevant and the rule excluding character evidence, which was used to limit evidence of spousal abuse, has some exceptions. Ito is likely to admit instances on the tapes of falsifying evidence, willingness to cover-up for a fellow officer, some use of the N-word and language suggesting a motive for Fuhrman to be a hero in order to maximize marketability of the screenplay.”

On the prosecution: “Clark made the best argument that can be for excluding the tapes: that Fuhrman’s racism has only limited relevance because of the mass of other evidence against O.J. Ito’s willingness to play the tapes for the public Tuesday may suggest he is going to limit admissibility for the jury. Portions of the tapes probably will be excluded--those relating solely to violence, those that seem hypothetical or fictional, and repetitious instances of the N-word.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times