THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Los Angeles defense lawyer Michael F. Yamamoto, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Dennis Fung’s nine-day stint on the witness stand concludes:

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “What a difference a day makes. Goldberg’s redirect turned Fung’s weaknesses into strengths: Fung didn’t conceal his memory lapses and acknowledged his mistakes. And Kato Kaelin’s book tapes may be just what the prosecution desperately needs: leverage to secure more damaging testimony from Kato to support their story that O.J. was pathologically obsessed with his ex-wife and displayed that jealousy the night of the murders.�

On the defense: “While Barry Scheck’s recross of Fung was anti-climactic, some of his questions scored points. Why wouldn’t Fung closely inspect Simpson’s socks when he was looking for bloody clothing. And why didn’t Fung warn Andrea Mazzola that she was carrying a fragile glass vial of blood in the garbage bag. But Scheck’s portrait of Fung as a conspirator dissipated as the day wore on and Fung didn’t act like one when he shook O.J.’s hand.�

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “After many days of watching Fung be tormented, Goldberg ended Fung’s testimony with a barb back at the defense. He did it by mocking Scheck in a way that the jurors will probably long remember, asking with a whine, ‘Where is it, Mr. Fung?’ Fung survived his lengthy ordeal, but barely. Now the prosecutors have to worry about their next witness, rookie criminalist Mazzola, who will likely be subject to an even tougher attack.�

On the defense: “In his many recrosses, Scheck mentioned the phrase ‘cover-up’ so often that it began to sound like a mantra for the jurors. Other than that, most of Scheck’s questioning was repetitive. The defense lawyers will now get a peek inside the jurors’ minds, but they are undoubtedly disappointed O.J. won’t be there to charm them. The defense also has to worry if the tapes for Kato Kaelin’s proposed book contain information that could hurt Simpson.�

MICHAEL YAMAMOTO

On the prosecution: “The prosecution succeeded in concluding the testimony of their lead criminalist without any further damage being inflicted by Scheck. Goldberg’s attempt to humanize Fung was a sign that the defense had made inroads that had to be patched up as well as possible. And they may have benefitted because Scheck tested the patience of the judge, causing him to react visibly and possibly conveyed his impatience to the jury.�

On the defense: “Scheck methodically squeezed every misrecollection and every misstatement Fung made all the way through his re-recross. He undermined the credibility of the evidence collection process. Virtually every question Scheck asked, Fung either had trouble answering directly or recalling what he said previously. Scheck’s questions elicited responses that could be used very well by the defense during closing argument.�

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTEIN / Los Angeles Times