Alan Dershowitz served as the defense team's appellate strategist, and his most significant courtroom appearance came in June 1995 when he argued a provocative two-part motion: first, that no further jurors be removed without a showing of "manifest necessity" rather than mere good cause, and second, that the defense be granted an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether the prosecution had selectively targeted jurors for removal to reshape the panel in its favor. His argument wove together double jeopardy doctrine, California Supreme Court precedent, and pointed accusations that the Sheriff's Department — as a law enforcement body supervising the sequestered jury — served as a structural conduit for prosecutorial advantage, a claim Marcia Clark denounced as "the most offensive, groundless and baseless" motion the defense had filed. Though his appearances were limited to motion hearings rather than witness examination, Dershowitz's role reflected the defense team's broader strategy of building an appellate record and challenging the integrity of the trial's institutional framework at every turn.