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 Southwestern University law professor Karen Smith, who will rotate with other experts as the trial moves forward. Today’s topic: A key ruling goes against the defense and another juror bites the dust.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: Relief was just a ruling away. One could almost hear the sighs of relief when Judge Ito decided that the jury will only hear from O.J. if he takes the stand. And Collin Yamauchi is far more willing than Dennis Fung to fight efforts by Barry Scheck to portray him as an incompetent criminalist. But they lost their favorite juror.

On the defense: Christmas did not come early for O.J., but the defense did receive one present. They lost an opportunity to have the jury hear from O.J. without his being cross-examined. But they also gained something that might be more important: the dismissal of a prosecution-friendly juror who might have persuaded others to share her perspective.

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: Yamauchi is no Robin Cotton. But he doesn’t need to be. The prosecution was very smart in putting on its most important DNA results through outside experts. Now Yamauchi simply has to show that he is neither a bungler nor a conspirator. As long as he changed gloves and opened one vial at a time he should survive Scheck.

On the defense: Scheck must be the first lawyer to criticize the LAPD for doing too much work too fast. For showing a little initiative, Yamauchi is being criticized for working too hastily. Although the defense point is simple--haste makes waste--Scheck may have lost ground in insisting on doing it his way. His repetitive questioning clearly irritated Ito.

KAREN SMITH

On the prosecution: The prosecution convinced Ito that it would have been a defense windfall to introduce O.J.’s statement. But when Marcia Clark said prosecutors wanted Simpson to take the stand so they could cross-examine him, that gave Johnnie Cochran an opening to say this was all staged to strip O.J. of his 5th Amendment right not to testify.

On the defense: The defense served notice that they don’t believe Yamauchi’s knowledge of O.J.’s ‘alibi’ explanation came solely from a newscast. They referred to his knowledge of O.J.’s cut finger and his conversation with Detective Tom Lange. They may cross-examine Yamauchi more about what he may he have learned from the detectives.

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times