UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola...

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Santa Monica attorney Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the trial moves forward. Today’s topic: Defense lawyer Barry Scheck’s stiff cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi concludes.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “The good news is that Yamauchi is no Dennis Fung. When Scheck insinuates, Yamauchi rejects the innuendo. When Scheck attacks, he fights back and defends what he has done. The bad news is that Yamauchi’s feistiness can get him into trouble by prompting him to sudden flashes of memory recall that the jury may not believe.”

On the defense: “Barry, Barry, quite contrary--how does your cross-examination go? By innuendo and insinuation, but with no knockout blow. Jurors hear improper references to a statement by O.J. they’ve never seen: Are prosecutors suppressing it? O.J.’s blood reference sample was not sealed properly: Did a conspirator use it?”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Yamauchi is bound and determined not to look like Dennis Fung. He insisted on explaining his answers and resisted Scheck’s attempts to put words in his mouth. But Yamauchi is in a tough spot. Not only does he have to explain his handling of the evidence but also the practices of others.”

On the defense: “Tone down! No matter how good a cross-examiner he may be, Scheck detracts from his presentation when he interrupts, snaps at, embarrasses and points his finger at Yamauchi. The defense has a legitimate gripe if the evidence was contaminated, but Scheck’s widespread cross-examination may have clouded the issues.”

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: “Marcia Clark’s invocation of the specter of the State Bar sanctioning Scheck shows how much she wants to prevent jurors from hearing anything about O.J.’s statement unless he testifies. It seems curious that she is so worried that the perceived power of O.J.’s words could knock out the strongest part of the prosecution case--the scientific evidence.”

On the defense: “It’s like having termites in your house. The only difference between Scheck and termites is that he chews a lot louder. The end result, however, is still the same. He gnaws away at the foundation of your house relentlessly until you come one day, shut the door and the whole house falls down.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times