THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the O.J. Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Ion-by-ion combat.

PETER ARENELLA

On the defense: “Good lawyers turn weaknesses into strengths. Roger Martz’s expertise hurt the defense’s EDTA theory, so Robert Blasier sought to undermine it by portraying him as a poorly qualified, biased and somewhat inept technician. He used Martz’s obvious change in demeanor from a compliant to a combative witness and his assistance to the prosecution during its cross of Fredric Rieders to strip away the veneer of scientific objectivity.”

On the prosecution: “Two can play Blasier’s game. Marcia Clark used Martz’s expertise to attack both the competence and integrity of the defense’s expert. Rieders could have performed some of the tests Blasier attacked Martz for not conducting. Why didn’t he? And Rieders either lied or was mistaken when he testified he had used the best available technology when he falsely identified a poison that might have led to the execution of an innocent man.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the defense: “Hostile witness or hostile attorney? Unhappy with Martz’s opinion that the gate and sock blood did not contain EDTA, Blasier attacked his own witness. He suggested that the EDTA had degraded (Remember the disappearing DNA?), that data had been destroyed and that Martz was a biased witness. When all else failed, Blasier also did a pretty good job of confusing the jury.”

On the prosecution: “Clark threw the burden back on the defense. If the defense had since March to conduct their own tests, why didn’t they? It’s too late now for the defense, but it’s not too late for another prosecution EDTA expert to testify in rebuttal. And that person would have a road map of how to avoid the defense’s complaints. However, Clark may want to wait on that decision until she finishes with Rieders.”

GERALD L. CHALEFF

On the defense: “When a witness is hostile, the distinction between direct and cross is obliterated. Blasier came out of the blocks attacking Martz as an integral part of the prosecution team whose every act was geared to assist prosecutors. Blasier went on to portray the agent as a simple technician qualified only to run a machine and not to interpret its results. This sets up a comparison with Rieders, who has more credentials than a general has ribbons.”

On the prosecution: “Clark continued to attack Rieders’ past mistake through Martz, setting up the defense expert for further cross. On Martz’s re-cross, she slammed the defense for criticizing Martz’s failure to perform more extensive tests, when their experts did no tests at all. This was designed to leave jurors wondering why the defense never tested the blood on the socks and gate for EDTA? She ended as she began: The evidence did not contain EDTA.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times