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 Professor Paul Rothstein, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: “Tuesday, Bloody Tuesday.”

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Bob Blasier did the best he could with Agent Roger Martz, but it might not have been enough to make the defense’s EDTA theory fly. Martz destroyed underlying data and didn’t perform several more sensitive tests. Blasier offered several explanations for why so little EDTA was found on the evidence samples, with degradation being the prime candidate. But the defense offered no evidence from their own expert to support these hypotheses.”

On the prosecution: “Prosecutorial overkill. Marcia Clark used Martz to attack every vulnerable aspect of Professor Fredric Rieders’ testimony. Unfortunately, such comprehensiveness generated a miasma of technical detail that might have obscured her most powerful point: the minuscule amount of EDTA found on the rear gate and socks paled in comparison to what should have been there if the police had planted EDTA-rich preserved blood.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “What a bloody mess! At first, it looked like Blasier made headway in attacking Martz’s EDTA test procedures. Blasier focused on what Martz didn’t do, not the results he received. But then cross-examination started and Martz stated unequivocally that the socks and gate were not tainted with preserved blood. In the end, the defense was left with the toughest questions: why don’t they do their own tests and what are they afraid of finding?”

On the prosecution: “It’s like unscrambling the egg. On cross, Clark tried to clean up the confusion regarding Martz’ EDTA testing. Although at times her questions were extremely technical, eventually she made clear that each of Martz’ tests showed there was no EDTA on the socks or the gate. Clark must hope, however, that the jurors were still listening and that Martz’ defensive demeanor during Blasier’s direct exam didn’t undercut his credibility.”

PAUL ROTHSTEIN

On the defense: “The dispute between Rieders and Martz looks like Albert Einstein vs. the FBI, and we know on a superficial level who would be judged more credible. The defense wins in this dispute if the jury either believes Rieders or if they’re uncertain about who to believe because that’s a reasonable doubt. And a reasonable doubt about whether blood was planted on the socks or the gate is good enough for the defense.”

On the prosecution: “Clark made some good points with Martz, particularly that the amount of EDTA on the socks and the gate was so insigificant that its presence could be attributable to something other than police planting O.J.’s blood. But there was too much scientific jargon for jurors. The prosecution also lost the key ruling on Herbert MacDonnell’s testimony because the defense can emphasize once again that the gloves apparently don’t fit O.J.”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times