Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:367
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 8/30/95 and 9/01/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 23:30:14 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 2628
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1995
11:28 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED,
THE DEFENDANT NOT BEING PRESENT.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(PAGES 43637 THROUGH 43643,
VOLUME 214A, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(PAGES 43644 THROUGH 43657,
VOLUME 215A, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
THE COURT: LET US GO ON THE RECORD.
WE ARE IN THE COURTROOM; HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A CHAMBERS CONFERENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE LAWYERS THAT WE HAVE HERE.
WE HAVE MR. COCHRAN, MR. BLASIER, MR. NEUFELD, MR.
SCHECK, MR. DOUGLAS.
AND FOR THE PROSECUTION WE HAVE MR. HODGMAN AND MR.
YOCHELSON AND ALSO MR. FAIRTLOUGH.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE?
MR. NEUFELD?
MR. NEUFELD: I WILL DEFER TO MR. BLASIER.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: YES, YOUR HONOR.
WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD WAS CLEAR
THAT IT IS OUR POSITION, AND THE POSITION TAKEN BY IZAZAGA IN
PARAGRAPH 10 OF THAT OPINION, THAT REBUTTAL WITNESSES ARE
DISCLOSEABLE.
IN FACT, THEY ARE DISCLOSEABLE AT THE TIME THAT WE
DISCLOSE OUR DEFENSE WITNESS LIST WHICH OF COURSE WAS A LONG TIME
AGO, SO WE ARE VERY FIRM IN OUR REQUEST THAT WE KNOW WHO THE
REBUTTAL WITNESSES ARE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THAT WE HAVE
DISCOVERY FROM THOSE WITNESSES.
WE HAVE A HOLIDAY WEEKEND COMING UP. WE HAVE TO
ARRANGE TRAVEL PLANS. IF WE HAVE MATERIAL, WE WILL TAKE THEM
WITH US AND WORK ON THEM, OTHERWISE THERE MAY BE A DELAY AND WE
DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
THE COURT: NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. TOO MUCH
DELAY.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN, GOOD MORNING, SIR.
MR. HODGMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, IN THAT REGARD WE HAVE INDICATED TO THE
DEFENSE THIS MORNING A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WE INTEND TO
CALL AND WE HAVE ALSO INDICATED TO THE DEFENSE THE STRENGTH OF
OUR INTENT, SO TO SPEAK, WITHIN THE -- ALONG THE SPECTRUM OF
POSSIBLE TO A DEFINITE.
AND WITH REGARD TO THE POSSIBLES, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF WITNESSES WHO MAY BE CALLED IN CONNECTION WITH MR. HEIDSTRA
AND THEY INCLUDE DAVID ADKINS, CHRISTIAN ANDERS, PATRICIA BARET,
B-A-R-E-T.
ANDERS IS A-N-D-E-R-S.
MR. YOCHELSON: ADKINS.
MR. HODGMAN: ADKINS IS A-D-K-I-N-S AND A MR. GEORGE
FIELDS.
WE HAVE GOT MR. WILLIAM BODZIAK, WHO HAS APPEARED
EARLIER IN THIS CASE, AND HE IS MORE OF THE DEFINITE REBUTTAL
WITNESS.
WE HAVE BEVERLY DE TERESA, D-E, CAPITAL, T-E-R-E-S-A,
AND THOSE ARE THE WITNESSES WE HAVE INDICATED TO THE DEFENSE
TODAY.
THE COURT: DE TERESA IS WHO?
MR. HODGMAN: SHE IS WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES. SHE WAS ONE OF
THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ON THE FLIGHT FROM L.A. TO CHICAGO.
THE COURT: GOT IT. OKAY.
MR. HODGMAN: THE DEFENSE HAS RAISED A CONCERN AS WELL WITH
REGARD TO VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY INCLUDE
PHOTOGRAPHS ENHANCED BY THE FBI, SEVERAL OF WHICH WERE UTILIZED
IN CONNECTION WITH DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY.
MR. YOCHELSON AND I ARE GOING TO EXAMINE THE REST OF
ANY SUCH ENHANCED PHOTOGRAPHS WITH AN EYE TOWARDS BRADY MATERIAL,
AND IF ANYTHING IS QUESTIONABLE AT ALL, WHAT WE INTEND TO DO, IF
IT IS CLEAR BRADY MATERIAL, OBVIOUSLY THAT IS GOING OVER.
IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS QUESTIONABLE, WE WOULD
LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE COURT AND PUT THAT INTO DISCOVERY
ESCROW SO THAT THE COURT CAN GUIDE US.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?
MR. HODGMAN: THIS AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THAT PROCEDURE, THOUGH, IS
THAT DR. LEE IS AN AMAZING GUY AND HE COULD JUST LOOK AT A PHOTO
AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I SEE AMAZING THINGS, AND I'M JUST POSING THE
PRACTICAL QUESTION THAT THIS COURT MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME SKILLS
AS AN EXPERT WITNESS WOULD HAVE IN EVALUATING THE KIND OF THING
UNDER 1054.7.
THAT IS A CONCERN. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I WILL LOOK AT
THESE THINGS, BUT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SUBJECT TO
INTERPRETATION, I HAVE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT IS LIKELY I'M
GOING TO REQUIRE ITS DISCLOSURE IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING
TO BE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION.
MR. HODGMAN: UNDERSTOOD.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. SCHECK: POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS THAT MY
UNDERSTANDING THESE ARE MARKETABLE ENHANCEMENTS OF PICTURES THAT
WE ALREADY HAVE.
MR. HODGMAN: UH-HUH.
MR. SCHECK: IN OTHER WORDS, SO I MEAN IT IS A PECULIAR
POSITION TO BE IN WHERE WE HAVE ONE SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS -- AND IT
HAPPENED WITH THE SOCKS, THE KEYS, THE WALKWAY, THAT WE THINK ARE
ONE THING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS GIVEN US AND THEN THEY HAVE
NOW A SET THAT ARE DIFFERENT. IT IS THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, IT IS LIKELY THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO GET THEM, SO LET'S NOT WORRY ABOUT THEM. I HAVE
EXPRESSED MY CONCERN.
MR. HODGMAN: I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A
TIME. I DON'T THINK WE ARE TALKING A VERY LARGE SET, MORE OF A
SUB-SET OF PHOTOS, AND WE WILL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
WE WILL ALSO EXAMINE, AND BY THAT I MEAN MR.
YOCHELSON AND I, PHOTOS TAKEN BY PETER DE FOREST IN CONNECTION
WITH THE RECENT EXAMINATION OF THE SOCKS WITH THE SAME EYE
TOWARDS POSSIBLE BRADY MATERIAL, AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE
GRAY AREA, WE WILL SUBMIT THOSE TO THE COURT AS WELL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS TO MR. DE FOREST, DO YOU INTEND TO CALL HIM AS A
WITNESS?
MR. HODGMAN: AT THE MOMENT WE ARE UNCERTAIN. TO BE HONEST,
UNCERTAIN. HE POTENTIALLY COULD TESTIFY TO A LOT, FROM ZERO TO A
LOT. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DO HAVE A --
THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE MAKING A DETERMINATION
OR BEING IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION?
MR. HODGMAN: WELL, I THINK THINGS ARE GOING TO GET MORE
AND MORE REFINED AS WE SEE ULTIMATELY WHAT THE DEFENSE DOES. I
MEAN, THEY HAVE GIVEN US AN INDICATION OF HOW THEY INTEND TO
CLOSE OUT THEIR CASE.
MR. NEUFELD MADE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS THIS
MORNING.
MR. NEUFELD: I REPRESENTED ON THE RECORD YESTERDAY, JUST
FOR CLARIFICATION AGAIN, AND I WILL DO IT AGAIN, THERE IS NO MORE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. WE ARE DONE.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE LEFT IS -- ARE THE
FUHRMAN WITNESSES AND ONE PERSON WHO WAS INSIDE THE BRONCO AND
MENZIONE WHO YOU KNOW ABOUT AS A CHICAGO WITNESS AND THAT IS IT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. NEUFELD: POSSIBLY A SECURITY PERSON WHO WAS THERE THAT
MORNING, BUT THERE IS NO MORE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. WE ARE DONE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE MOST CONCERNED
WITH. FRANKLY, WE DON'T NEED A LOT OF TIME TO PREPARE FOR
ADKINS, ANDERS, BARET AND FIELDS.
I DON'T MEAN TO DISPARAGE MY COLLEAGUES HERE, BUT
WHAT WE DO NEED A LOT OF TIME FOR IS SOMEBODY ON EDTA, SOMEBODY
ON DNA TO DEAL WITH GERDES' TESTIMONY. I MEAN, THAT IS THE
THINGS --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. NEUFELD: THAT IS THE SEPARATE ISSUE, TOO, OKAY?
AND FRANKLY, THE LAST ITEM WHICH YOU KNOW ABOUT
BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- MARCIA CLARK HAS TALKED ABOUT IT REPEATEDLY,
THAT IS THEY HAVE THESE PHOTOS OF THE GLOVES AND THEY WANT TO
HAVE VIDEOS OF THE GLOVES AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVES AND
DO ALL THAT.
NOT ONLY DO WE MAYBE HAVE A KELLY-FRYE ISSUE, MAYBE
WE HAVE OTHER ARGUMENTS TO DEAL WITH ABOUT THAT, BUT AT A MINIMUM
THEY HAVE ALREADY ANNOUNCED THEIR INTENTION OF PUTTING ON THAT
EVIDENCE.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL DECIDE THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE,
WE ARE ENTITLED TO ALL THAT DISCOVERY NOW, OKAY? THERE IS NO
QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
AND WE WILL HAVE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM WITH THE
DELAY.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK DID MENTION VIDEOS OF THE GLOVES AND
THAT SHE CATEGORICALLY STATED SHE CAN STATE THAT THE VIDEO
EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE, THAT YOU HAVE, WILL SHOW THAT THE GLOVES
MR. SIMPSON IS WEARING IN THE VIDEO ARE ARIS LIGHTS BASED UPON
THE CONFIGURATION, THE STITCHING, AND OTHER EXPERT TESTIMONY.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE GAVE THE DATE.
MR. NEUFELD: VIDEOS AND STILLS BOTH.
MR. COCHRAN: JANUARY 21ST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. DOUGLAS: RIGHT.
THE COURT: SO IF THAT IS COMING, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO SEE
THE -- GET COPIES OF THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS.
MR. HODGMAN: AND --
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU INQUIRE ABOUT THAT.
MR. HODGMAN: WE ARE GOING TO BE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON,
BECAUSE PART OF THIS IS SIMPLY REFINING WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO
BE USED.
AS A MATTER OF GENERAL INTENT, YEAH, SOME GLOVE
EVIDENCE IS COMING. WITH REGARDS TO SPECIFIC INTENT, SPECIFIC
ITEMS, WE --
THE COURT: THIS IS THE CALIFORNIA ERA.
MR. HODGMAN: WE WILL BE RESOLVING THAT SHORTLY AND WE WILL
GET THE STUFF TO YOU.
MR. NEUFELD: THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE DNA AND
EDTA, WE ARE DONE WITH ALL THAT PORTION OF OUR CASE. IN FACT, WE
HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THAT PORTION OF THE CASE FOR A COUPLE OF
WEEKS.
AND SO IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT -- AND I'M NOT
TRYING TO SUGGEST ANYTHING MISGUIDED BY EITHER MR. HODGMAN OR BY
MR. YOCHELSON, THEY ARE HERE AS THE MESSENGERS, BUT IT JUST SEEMS
DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVEN'T DECIDED YET WHETHER THEY
NEED TO REBUT OUR EDTA WITNESSES OR OUR DNA WITNESSES.
THE COURT: BUT THAT IS THE SAME ARGUMENT, YOU HAVEN'T
DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE GOING TO CALL YOUR CLIENT YET
UNTIL THE LAST SHOE IS READY TO DROP.
SO I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THEIR QUANDARY THAT THEY ARE
IN. THE COURT HAS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ITS EXPERIENCE AS A
TRIAL LAWYER AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE DECISIONS AREN'T MADE
UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE.
LOOK AT WHAT YOU GOT, YOU LOOK IN THE EYES OF THE
JURY, YOU ASK YOURSELF CAN THEY ENDURE ANOTHER THREE DAYS OF
THIS? AND THERE IS A LOT OF CHESS PLAYING THAT GOES ON HERE.
BUT MR. HODGMAN, THE REPRESENTATION WAS PRETTY
CATEGORICALLY MADE BY MISS CLARK SO WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO SEE
THAT STUFF FORTHWITH ABOUT THE GLOVES.
MR. HODGMAN: OKAY.
AND YOUR HONOR, I CAN REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT
THERE IS AN EVENT, FOR LACK OF BETTER DESCRIPTION, THAT WILL
OCCUR OR SHOULD OCCUR TOMORROW THAT WILL BE AIDING US IN REFINING
WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, SO I HAVE TOLD THE DEFENSE WE ARE
PROBABLY LOOKING AT FRIDAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WHY DON'T DO YOU THIS:
THE STUFF THAT YOU HAVE GOT AND IS AVAILABLE, PRODUCE
IT THIS AFTERNOON AND WE WILL -- I WILL SET UP A STATUS
CONFERENCE FOR TOMORROW.
WHAT TIME IS CONVENIENT TO YOU GUYS?
MR. HODGMAN: MAY I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT? WHEN
YOU SAY "STUFF," SORT OF LIKE GEORGE CARLIN STUFF? WHAT STUFF
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
THE COURT: THE STUFF THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO COUGH UP,
STUFF THAT I NEED TO LOOK AT ON THE 1054.7 BRADY, THAT STUFF THAT
YOU HAVE READY -- NOW READY TO GO, WHY DON'T YOU BRING IT DOWN
THIS AFTERNOON.
THEN AS FAR AS TOMORROW, MY MOTIVATION HERE IS TO
SPEED THIS ALONG, SO I WILL SET THIS FOR JUST AN INFORMAL STATUS
CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD, HOWEVER, YOU NEED NOT DRESS UP
TOMORROW.
AND TEN O'CLOCK TOMORROW.
MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
ONE OTHER ITEM TO PUT ON THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD.
ANOTHER CATEGORY OF PHOTOGRAPHS WERE PHOTOMICROGRAPHS
OF GARY SIMS. AS OPPOSED TO PETER DE FOREST.
WE GOT A REPORT FROM PETER DE FOREST. ON JULY 17TH
HE AND SIMS AND MATHESON REVIEWED THE SOCKS AND TOOK A WHOLE
SERIES OF MICROPHOTOGRAPHS, AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE DE FOREST REPORT OF JULY 17TH, SO I THINK
THOSE SHOULD ALSO BE BROUGHT OVER FOR THE IN CAMERA INSPECTION.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO DO A STIPULATION ON
GREG MATHESON.
WOULD I BE CORRECT THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING
ABOUT FRIDAY MORNING AT THE EARLIEST BASICALLY? WOULD I BE
CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT?
THE COURT: LOOKS THAT WAY.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
I JUST WANTED -- NO RUSH.
L.A. TIMES SAID THAT YOU WARNED ME NOT TO RUSH YOU
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BAD INTERPRETATION, JUDGE, BECAUSE I
WASN'T RUSHING YOU AT ALL.
THE COURT: IT IS A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, A LOT TO LOOK AT, A
LOT TO REVIEW.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO MEET, BUT THERE IS
ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT BREAKS UP OUR DAY.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE.
MR. HODGMAN: OKAY --
MR. NEUFELD: ALSO, DO YOU HAVE A PACKAGE HERE YOU GOT FROM
DOJ?
THE COURT: YES, YES. WHY DON'T YOU ASK JOHN THE STATUS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(AT 11:39 A.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, FRIDAY,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1995
9:07 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO PRESENT, DARRYL MOUNGER,
ESQUIRE, FOR MARK FUHRMAN.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR.
SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BLASIER, MR. BAILEY AND
MR. SPAULDING, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MR. HODGMAN, MR. DARDEN AND
MISS CLARK.
COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE RESUME
WITH OUR NEXT WITNESS?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: WE NEED TO TAKE UP SEVERAL MATTERS, AND I'LL
TRY TO LAY THEM OUT FOR THE COURT AT THIS POINT.
BASED UPON THE COURT'S RULING, WHICH THE COURT TOOK
TWO DAYS TO RENDER OR A LITTLE SHORT OF TWO DAYS, WE'RE NOT READY
TO PROCEED EITHER WITH LAURA MC KINNEY OR WITH MARK FUHRMAN
TODAY. I'VE ASKED MR. FUHRMAN'S LAWYER, MR. MUNGER, TO COME
TODAY, AND I PLAN TO TALK TO HIM WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK THIS
MORNING FURTHER.
WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE.
WE HAVE A DISCOVERY MATTER WHICH HAS COME UP WHICH WE THINK IS
VERY URGENT AND IT BEARS UPON MARK FUHRMAN AND WHETHER OR NOT
WE'VE RECEIVED DISCOVERY TIMELY AND IT BEARS CRITICALLY ON THIS
WHOLE IDEA OF PLANTING EVIDENCE, AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO
HEAR FROM BARRY SCHECK ON THAT. THAT'S ONE.
WE HAVE SECONDARILY A -- WE FILED A MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WHICH I'M
GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO LISTEN TO PROFESSOR GERRY UELMEN ON.
THE COURT: MOTION TO SUPPRESS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT'S A MOTION TO THE COURT TO REVIEW
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, TO
WIT, FUHRMAN, THE FUHRMAN TAPES, ASK THE COURT TO HEAR THAT
MATTER BECAUSE IT TIES TO FUHRMAN.
THE THIRD THING THAT WE HAVE IS A BRADY MOTION WHICH
I INDICATED TO THE COURT WE'RE FILING, THE BRADY MOTION WITH
DECLARATION ATTACHED THERETO. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO
HEAR THAT.
AND FINALLY, WE HAVE -- WE'LL BE MAKING AN OFFER OF
PROOF REGARDING TWO WITNESSES THAT WE WOULD CALL TODAY, RODERIC
HODGE AND NATALIE SINGER, RELATING TO THIS SAME GENERAL AREA.
YOU'VE HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT THEM BEFORE. MR. BAILEY WILL MAKE
AN OFFER OF PROOF IN THAT REGARD.
THOSE THINGS WE WANT TO DO AND PRETTY MUCH IN THAT
ORDER IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW US STARTING WITH -- BECAUSE THEY
TIE IN TOGETHER -- HEARING FROM BARRY SCHECK FIRST. THEN THE
COURT PERHAPS WILL HEAR FROM PROFESSOR UELMEN -- UELMEN AND THE
COURT CAN HEAR FROM ME ON THE BRADY MOTION AND THEN LASTLY FROM
MR. BAILEY ON THE OFFER OF PROOF. AND THEN WE PERHAPS NEED A
BREAK TO TALK WITH MR. MUNGER WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
HE'S ON CALL ALSO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I CAN BE HEARD.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: WE WERE JUST HANDED THEIR MOVING PAPERS ON
THESE ISSUES LESS THAN THREE MINUTES AGO. SO WE HAVE NOT HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS.
IN ADDITION, WITH REGARD TO HODGE AND SINGER, AS THE
COURT MAY RECALL, THE COURT EARLIER RULED, AFTER AN ARGUMENT BY
CHERI LEWIS, THAT THE COURT WOULD WAIT TO RULE ON HODGE AND
SINGER UNTIL AFTER THE COURT HEARD TESTIMONY FROM KATHLEEN BELL
AND ANDREA TERRY. SO WE'RE NOT READY TO PROCEED ON HODGE OR
SINGER. I'M NOT EVEN READY TO ARGUE THE 352 ISSUE FOR THE SECOND
TIME, FOR A SECOND TIME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
HOW ABOUT THE DISCOVERY MATTER?
MR. DARDEN: WE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER A FEW MOMENTS AGO ON
THE DISCOVERY MATTER AND WE HAVE ONE COPY AND WE'RE TRYING TO
READ IT, READ OVER IT RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I'LL HEAR FROM MR. SCHECK ON THE DISCOVERY
ISSUE AND LET'S SEE HOW FAR WE GET.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
AS YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY, WE HAD A STATUS CONFERENCE ON
DISCOVERY, AND YOU WERE I KNOW OCCUPIED WRITING YOUR DECISION,
AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, WERE UNABLE TO JOIN US AND ASKED US TO PUT
SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THAT CONFERENCE IN A LETTER.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE THE COURT
MUST TAKE UP. THE FIRST -- MANY OF THEM DEALING WITH THE
REBUTTAL CASE AND DISCOVERY OF THE PROSECUTION'S REBUTTAL CASE.
BUT BEFORE I GET TO THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION AN EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT POINT.
AS THE COURT PROBABLY RECALLS, THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN
REQUESTING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN THIS CASE, REALLY FROM THE
BEGINNING, CONTACT SHEETS OF THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS. WE
HAVE NEVER HAD A PHOTO LOG IN THIS CASE AND WE NEVER HAD CONTACT
SHEETS INDICATING THE ORDER IN WHICH PICTURES WERE TAKEN.
YESTERDAY, WE SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME BIG BEAUTIFUL
COLOR CONTACT SHEETS OF CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS. WE SAW THOSE
BECAUSE MR. BODZIAK OF THE FBI HAD REQUESTED NEGATIVES AND
PREPARED CONTACT SHEETS APPARENTLY IN ANTICIPATION OF ASSISTING
THE PROSECUTION IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. LEE AND CALLING
MR. BODZIAK AS A REBUTTAL WITNESS IN THIS CASE.
EXAMINATION OF THOSE CONTACT SHEETS REVEAL THAT THE
PICTURE OF MARK FUHRMAN POINTING TO THE GLOVE AT BUNDY APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT NIGHT BECAUSE THE PICTURES TO OUR EYES AT THIS
POINT PRIOR TO AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE FUHRMAN PICTURE, POINTING AT
THE GLOVE, REVEALED THAT TO BE TAKEN AT NIGHT.
NOW, THIS HAS VERY SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS. THE
PROSECUTION TURNED OVER A LONG TIME AGO A STATEMENT OF A
PHOTOGRAPHER NAMED ROLF ROKAHR WHO INITIALLY TOLD INVESTIGATORS,
DETECTIVE LUPER, THAT HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY SCENE SOMETIME
AFTER MIDNIGHT, HAD WAITED FOR THE ARRIVAL OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS
AND FURHMAN. WHEN THEY ARRIVED, HE WAS THEN DIRECTED BY THEM TO
GO TAKE INDIVIDUAL PICTURES OF EVIDENCE. PRIOR TO THEIR ARRIVAL,
HE HAD TAKEN SOME OVERALL SHOTS.
HE THEN INDICATED IN HIS STATEMENT --
THE COURT: DID HE -- I THOUGHT MR. ROKAHR TESTIFIED. I
KNOW WE'VE HEARD HIS NAME AND SEEN HIS LIKENESS ON SOME OF THE --
MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT MY POINT IS --
THE COURT: NO. I'M JUST ASKING YOU IF YOU HAVE SOME --
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T RECALL HIM TESTIFYING AT THE TRIAL --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: -- BUT HIS NAME DID COME UP IN THE SUPPRESSION
HEARINGS, AND IN FACT, THERE WAS AN INDICATION BY THE PROSECUTION
-- THEY FILED I THINK IN A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO MR. UELMEN'S
PAPERS -- THAT HIS INITIAL STATEMENT AS TO THE CHAIN OF EVENTS ON
THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH WAS MISTAKEN AS TO TIMES AND PERHAPS AS
TO SEQUENCE, AND THEY SUBMITTED AN AMENDED VERSION OF HIS
TESTIMONY.
THE POINT IS, IS THAT HE HAD GIVEN US THIS STATEMENT
A LONG TIME AGO INDICATING THAT THE PICTURES OF FUHRMAN POINTING
TO THE GLOVE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH HAVING BEEN TAKEN AT
NIGHT. THE CRIME SCENE LOG AT BUNDY INDICATES HIS ARRIVAL AT
3:25. HIS INITIAL STATEMENT SAYS LATER. BUT EVEN IF HE HAD
ARRIVED AT 3:25 AND TOOK PICTURES AT THAT TIME, THAT'S STILL
NIGHT.
THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THIS CASE
--
THE COURT: DARKNESS HOURS, YEAH.
MR. SCHECK: -- IS THAT THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN AFTER 7:00
O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. THAT IS ALSO ESSENTIALLY THE TESTIMONY
OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF
DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER, INDICATING THAT THEY DIRECTED
FUHRMAN TO GO BACK AND DO THIS COMPARISON OF GLOVES AND TAKE A
PHOTOGRAPH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU FEEL AT THIS POINT THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THIS
CONTACT.
MR. SCHECK: YES. WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONTACT PRINT
BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE AVENUE THAT IMPEACHES
NOT ONLY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, BUT IT IMPEACHES THE
OTHER DETECTIVES AS TO THEIR MOVEMENTS BETWEEN CRIME SCENES THAT
EVENING. THERE ARE NO NOTES ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THEY PROCEEDED AND
THERE ARE OTHER CONTRADICTIONS, SUBSTANTIAL CONTRADICTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, DOES THE CONTACT SHEET THAT YOU SAW
YESTERDAY INCLUDE FRAME NUMBERS?
MR. SCHECK: YES, IT DID.
WHAT WE ARRANGED WITH MR. HODGMAN AT THE END OF THE
DAY -- MR. HODGMAN -- AND I'M SURE HE'LL SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, BUT
HE INDICATED TO US AT THAT CONFERENCE, AND I'M SURE HE'LL CONFIRM
TODAY, THAT HE PERSONALLY RECALLS MR. NEUFELD ASKING HIM SEVERAL
MONTHS AGO FOR THESE CONTACT SHEETS, HAD DETERMINED THEY DIDN'T
EXIST. AND I KNOW THAT WE ASKED FOR THEM PREVIOUSLY.
THE COURT: I RECOLLECT OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LACK OF A
PHOTO LOG.
MR. SCHECK: AND THESE CONTACT SHEETS.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE MADE
ARRANGEMENTS, AND AT THIS MOMENT, MR. NEUFELD IS AT A LABORATORY
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ATTEMPTING TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY REPRODUCTIONS MADE OF THESE
CONTACT SHEETS.
ALSO, I SHOULD ADD --
THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION.
WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVES?
MR. SCHECK: I BELIEVE THAT --
MR. HODGMAN: WELL, THEY'RE AT THE PHOTO LAB NOW.
MR. SCHECK: THEY'RE AT THE PHOTO LAB.
MR. HODGMAN: THEY'RE BEING HANDLED RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SCHECK: SO WE ARE VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
IN ADDITION, AS THE COURT NOTED WHEN DR. LEE
TESTIFIED --
THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, SEE IF WE
CAN JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AT THIS POINT.
WHEN WILL THEY BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE, MR.
HODGMAN?
MR. HODGMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THEY'RE BEING MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE COURT OR -- EXCUSE ME -- TO THE DEFENSE RIGHT
NOW. WE MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE DEFENSE YESTERDAY. WE
OBTAINED THE NEGATIVES. WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATOR. WE AGREED TO A
NON-MACHINE REPRODUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PHOTOS.
WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATOR THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE
DON'T LOSE OUR NEGATIVES. BUT IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT
NOW.
THESE CONTACT SHEETS, WHICH SIMPLY SHOW AN ORDER --
PHOTOS WHICH THE DEFENSE HAS HAD FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, WERE
RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY US. I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHEN. I WOULD
ESTIMATE, BUT I'LL HAVE TO LET MR. GOLDBERG ADDRESS THIS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO DON'T WE NEED TO SEE THESE CONTACT SHEETS, HAVE
MR. SCHECK EVALUATE THEM AND THEN TAKE THE MATTER UP AT THAT
POINT TO SEE WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IS?
MR. HODGMAN: I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, YOUR
HONOR. BUT THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR, DISCOVERY IS BEING MADE.
WE MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS YESTERDAY. AND I'M SURE MR. SCHECK HAS
MORE HE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT ABOUT. SO WE'LL HANDLE IT
ITEM BY ITEM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: BUT THE MAJOR POINT HERE IS THAT WE'VE BEEN
ASKING THESE FOR A LONG TIME AND THEY TOLD US THEY DIDN'T EXIST
AND THEY COULDN'T BE MADE. AND NOW, JUST BECAUSE MR. BODZIAK HAD
THEM MADE IN AN EFFORT TO CONFRONT DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY, ALL OF A
SUDDEN, WE FIND SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT
ON A CRUCIAL MATTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, MR. SCHECK, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS. LET'S ASSUME
THAT YOU GET YOUR COPIES OF THE CONTACT SHEETS SOMETIME LATER
TODAY. YOU'LL HAVE TIME TO EVALUATE THEM.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
THE COURT: AND IF YOU CAN -- AFTER EVALUATING THEM, THERE
IS SOME SIGNIFICANCE TO YOU AND TO THE DEFENSE POSITION, THEN
WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AT THAT TIME.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
YOUR HONOR, I SHOULD NOTE IN THE BRADY MOTION THAT WE
FILED WITH THE COURT TODAY, WE INDICATE THE LINES WE ARE
PURSUING HERE BECAUSE WE THINK IT HAS SIGNIFICANCE WITH RESPECT
TO THE DECISION YOU RENDERED.
I SHOULD NOTE ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE -- THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE ENLARGEMENTS IN THE TREATED PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
WE SAW YESTERDAY -- AND WE'RE ENDEAVORING TO HAVE THESE COPIES
MADE AS WELL -- WE THINK PROVIDE, JUST FROM MY UNTRAINED EYE,
LOOKING AT THEM -- AND THAT DOESN'T SUBSTITUTE, AS THE COURT HAS
ACKNOWLEDGED, FOR DR. LEE'S TRAINED EYE, DR. LEE'S MAGICAL EYE
FRANKLY. BUT LOOKING AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, I THINK THAT THERE
MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL PARALLEL LINE IMPRINTS IN THE WALKWAY AREA
THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONTENTION THAT WE HAVE FOOTPRINTS
OF TWO INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THIS HOMICIDE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: AND WE THINK THAT THOSE PICTURES ARE
POTENTIALLY QUITE EXCULPATORY AS WELL AND WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN
THEM EARLIER.
THE NEXT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DISCOVERY IS THAT MISS
CLARK HAD INDICATED THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEE ALL THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS. AND OF COURSE, THEY WERE SLOW IN COMING, BUT YOU
HAD ORDERED FORTHWITH IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING.
THE COURT: WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT SINCE
WE'VE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES?
MR. SCHECK: LET'S START WITH THE GLOVES. WE THOUGHT THAT
YOU HAD ORDERED FORTHWITH FOR PRODUCTION YESTERDAY OR --
THE COURT: DAY BEFORE.
MR. SCHECK: -- WHATEVER FORTHWITH MEANS, THE -- WHAT THEY
HAD WITH RESPECT TO VIDEOTAPES OR BLOW-UPS ON THE GLOVES AND
WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE TO INTRODUCE IN THEIR REBUTTAL CASE.
THE COURT: I RECOLLECT --
MR. SCHECK: AND WE'RE NOT BY ANY MEANS CONCEDING THEY HAVE
A RIGHT TO DO THAT. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT I
BELIEVE IT WAS WEDNESDAY, THERE WAS AN EVENT CONCERNING THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS YESTERDAY AND BASICALLY WE WERE HAVING THEM REVIEWED
BY SOMEONE. WE'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THAT EVENT HAVING OCCURRED.
ACCORDINGLY, I'VE INSTRUCTED OUR STAFF TO PREPARE FOR
SUBMISSION EITHER TO THE DEFENSE OR TO THE COURT UNDER 1054.7,
JUST TO BE OVERLY CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT, THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS THAT
WE WOULD EITHER POTENTIALLY OR ACTUALLY SEEK TO INTRODUCE IN OUR
REBUTTAL CASE. I WAS INFORMED EARLIER THIS MORNING THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE THE PACKAGE COMPLETE BY NOON.
I SHOULD ADVISE THE COURT THAT --
THE COURT: THEY'RE TO BE TURNED OVER BY NOON?
MR. HODGMAN: YES. AND BY BEING TURNED OVER, THE BULK OF
IT WE'LL GIVE TO THE DEFENSE. THERE WILL BE PERHAPS ONE OR TWO
SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT WHERE WE'RE STILL NOT QUITE SURE. SO --
BUT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE
COURT UNDER 1054.7.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THEN WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS DIRECT THAT THAT PACKAGE
BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE BY NOON TODAY, THAT ANYTHING
THAT YOU FEEL IS NOT WITHIN THE DISCOVERY STATUTE, SUBMIT TO THE
COURT BY NOON TODAY FOR THE COURT'S REVIEW.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT'S BOTH VIDEOTAPES AND PHOTOS, CORRECT?
MR. HODGMAN: CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE THAT ORDER, BUT I
JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE BEEN -- WE WERE
PROMISED THIS EARLIER. AND THE REASON THAT'S OF CRITICAL
IMPORTANCE IS, THIS CASE IS DRAWING TO AN END. WE ANTICIPATE
RESTING IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK OR TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY.
AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE TO GET THESE THINGS
OUT TO EXPERTS, AND WE THINK THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN
WITHHOLDING ALL OF THIS DESPITE THE COURT'S ORDERS BECAUSE WE
CAN'T -- THIS IS LABOR DAY WEEKEND. WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO
LOOK AT THIS? WE DON'T WANT ANY FURTHER UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN
THIS CASE AND WE THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN UNFAIR COURSE OF
CONDUCT.
IN THAT REGARD, YESTERDAY, THEY ANNOUNCED --
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, I'M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WHEN I
MADE THE DIRECTION THAT IT BE PRODUCED FORTHWITH, NOBODY TOLD ME
THAT THOSE MATTERS WERE OUT BEING EXAMINED BY EXPERTS.
MR. SCHECK: WELL --
THE COURT: SO -- BUT LET'S TAKE UP THAT ISSUE --
MR. SCHECK: I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY JUST SAID.
THE COURT: ONCE YOU'VE SEEN IT --
MR. SCHECK: THEN WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO JUDGE.
THE COURT: -- YOU'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO EVALUATE
WHAT PREJUDICE THERE IS, IF ANY.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
THE NEXT --
MR. HODGMAN: EXCUSE ME.
I WILL POINT OUT TO THE COURT, A PORTION OF THIS
MATERIAL HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE AS WELL.
THE COURT: OKAY.
WELL, BUT, MR. HODGMAN, MAKE YOUR BEST EFFORT -- NOT
MAKE YOUR BEST EFFORT. HAVE IT TURNED OVER BY NOON TODAY.
MR. HODGMAN: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHECK: FOR THE FIRST TIME YESTERDAY, THEY INDICATED
THAT MR. BODZIAK WOULD BE A REBUTTAL WITNESS, BUT WE HAVE NO
REPORTS OR NOTES OF AGENT BODZIAK WITH RESPECT TO THAT AT ALL,
ALTHOUGH WE DID SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE APPARENTLY PRODUCED
FOR PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINING DR. LEE. BUT --
AND WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE THOSE. THEY HAVE PICTURES OF
THOSE JEANS THAT ARE SO MUCH CLEARER THAN ANYTHING WE HAD.
THE COURT: NASA QUALITY.
MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: NASA QUALITY.
MR. SCHECK: NASA QUALITY.
THERE IS ALSO THE MATTER OF DR. BRADLEY POPOVICH. WE
WERE -- DISCLOSED TO US WERE A SET OF NOTES, ONE FROM JANUARY
1994, ANOTHER FROM MARCH, ROUGH NOTES, WHERE THERE IS NO REPORT
>FROM DR. POPOVICH, BUT THEY TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT HE WOULD BE
TESTIFYING AS A REBUTTAL WITNESS.
THE COURT: AS TO WHAT ISSUE?
MR. SCHECK: PRESUMABLY ON DNA. I HAPPEN TO KNOW HE'S A
MEDICAL GENETICIST.
WHAT CONCERNS ME, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT I AM FINDING IT
VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE RULINGS WORK. WHEN MR. SIMS
TESTIFIED, I GOT HIS REPORT AT THE LAST MINUTE, THEN I GOT 80
PAGES OF NOTES A DAY BEFORE HE TESTIFIED. I WAS TOLD, WELL,
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. YOU GET THE REPORT, THEN YOU GET THE
NOTES WHEN THE WITNESS TESTIFIES. SO I DID IT.
LAST WEEK, WE WENT THROUGH THIS VITRIOLIC DISCOVERY
MOTION CONCERNING DR. LEE WHERE I THINK THE RECORD NOW IS CLEAR
WITH THE SUBMISSION BY MR. BLASIER THAT THEY RECEIVED SO MUCH
MORE FROM DR. LEE IN TERMS OF WITNESSES IN A TIMELY FASHION AND
THAT WERE ABLE TO SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY, HAD THEIR OWN
EXPERTS SPEAK TO HIM AT GREAT LENGTH, THAT --
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S NOT REVISIT THAT. LET'S FOCUS ON
MR. POPOVICH.
MR. SCHECK: I JUST -- I JUST -- THIS MUST BE A PROBLEM
THAT WE'RE JUST GETTING THESE NOTES FROM JANUARY AND MARCH AND NO
REPORT AND DISCOVERY AT THIS LATE DATE OF THIS WITNESS.
CERTAINLY IF HE'S TESTIFYING TO ANY GREAT SUBSTANCE WITH RESPECT
TO DNA, THIS COULD CAUSE UNFAIR DELAYS.
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, AS TO MR. POPOVICH AND MR.
BODZIAK, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF REPORTS AS TO BOTH THOSE
INDIVIDUALS?
MR. HODGMAN: WE TURNED OVER A RECENTLY ACQUIRED REPORT,
THAT I BELIEVE SUPPORTIVE NOTES FROM MR. POPOVICH TO THE DEFENSE
YESTERDAY HERE IN COURT.
THE COURT: AND WHEN DID YOU REQUEST THAT REPORT FROM MR.
POPOVICH?
MR. HODGMAN: WELL, HIS TESTIMONY IS ANTICIPATED WILL BE IN
REBUTTAL TO MR. GERDES AMONGST OTHER THINGS. SO IT'S BEING --
THE REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED ALL ALONG AND IT WAS JUST RECENTLY
COMPLETED. WE TURNED IT OVER JUST ABOUT AS SOON AS WE GOT IT. I
THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN JUST ONE DAY FOR PROCESSING,
RENUMBERING, AND I KNOW IT WAS IN MY IN-BOX LATE WEDNESDAY
AFTERNOON AND WE TURNED IT OVER TO THE DEFENSE YESTERDAY MORNING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO THE DEFENSE IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF MR. -- DR.
POPOVICH'S NOTES AND A REPORT?
MR. HODGMAN: THEY HAVE WHAT WE HAVE.
AND I WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT -- I MEAN IT'S -- I'VE BEEN
WORKING ON QUITE A FEW OTHER THINGS AS WELL. I HAVEN'T EVEN
REVIEWED THIS REPORT OURSELF. YOU KNOW, OUR SCIENCE SUBTEAM HAS
BEEN DEALING WITH THAT. SO I CAN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE CONTENT OF
THE REPORT OTHER THAN I KNOW WE JUST RECENTLY RECEIVED IT AND WE
JUST TURNED IT OVER YESTERDAY MORNING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN: AS FAR AS MR. BODZIAK GOES, WE DO NOT HAVE A
REPORT OR NOTES AS OF YET. MR. BODZIAK WILL BE TESTIFYING WITHIN
SOME PERIMETERS AS YET COMPLETELY DEFINED, AS YET COMPLETELY
UNDEFINED.
THE COURT: BUT IT'S --
MR. HODGMAN: -- IN RESPONSE TO DR. LEE.
THE COURT: IT'S UNUSUAL THOUGH FOR THE FBI NOT TO PRODUCE
A REPORT.
MR. HODGMAN: OH, I FULLY ANTICIPATE MR. BODZIAK WILL
PREPARE A REPORT. WE DON'T HAVE IT. SO IT'S --
AGAIN, HIS TESTIMONY WILL BE IN RESPONSE TO WHAT DR.
LEE TESTIFIED. AND AGAIN, THE SCOPE OF THAT TESTIMONY IS AS YET
UNDEFINED BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESULTS OR THE OPINIONS
OR THE ANALYSIS OF MR. BODZIAK AT THIS TIME.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE ENTERING THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND, AND
INDEED WE WILL BE LABORING. THERE WON'T BE TIME OFF FOR ANYONE.
WE'RE BRINGING THIS CASE TO A CLOSE. WHEN WE GET A REPORT -- AND
WE WILL ENCOURAGE MR. BODZIAK TO GET HIS REPORT TOGETHER AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE -- WE'LL GIVE IT TO THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I MUST SAY THAT MR. HODGMAN APPARENTLY
IS NOT IN TOUCH WITH THESE WITNESSES WITH HIS LAWYERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SCIENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO REPORT FROM DR.
POPOVICH. THERE'S NONE.
THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU HAVE?
MR. SCHECK: I HAVE NOTES. THAT'S ALL HE GAVE ME
YESTERDAY. IF THERE'S A REPORT, MISS CLARK, THEN WHY DON'T YOU
TURN IT OVER?
MS. CLARK: IT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER. MR. SCHECK AS USUAL IS
UNINFORMED. I'M GOING TO CALL MY OFFICE, IF I MAY HAVE LEAVE OF
THE COURT, TO BRING IT DOWN AGAIN. BUT IT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER.
THE COURT: HAVE IT BROUGHT DOWN.
MS. CLARK: I'LL HAVE IT STAMPED AND NUMBERED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS TO BODZIAK, IT'S CLEAR THAT BODZIAK IS A SHOEPRINT
PERSON WHO'S GOING TO TESTIFY IN RESPONSE TO DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY.
DR. LEE COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, THEY HAD DR. LEE'S REPORT IN JULY AND
IT'S PERFECTLY APPARENT, AND WE'LL SEE WHEN MR. GOLDBERG CAN BE
CONTACTED BECAUSE APPARENTLY HE COULDN'T BE CONTACTED WITHIN THE
LAST TWO DAYS, AS TO WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND CONTACT PRINTS
WERE FIRST TURNED OVER TO HIM.
THE COURT: DIFFERENT ISSUE.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, RELATED ISSUE.
THE COURT: DIFFERENT ISSUE.
MR. SCHECK: IF HE'S -- IF BODZIAK IS PREPARING ALL OF
THIS, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S AN AWFUL GOOD IDEA AS TO
THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE'S GOING TO SAY AND WHAT HE
WILL SAY ABOUT WHETHER IMPRINTS EXIST OR NOT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: THEY SHOULD KNOW. THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING.
AND TO SAY, "WELL, IT'S VAGUE AND UNDEFINED. WE HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY AND WE CAN'T MAKE ANY OFFERS AND WE CAN'T
TELL YOU AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY, BUT ALL WE CAN
TELL YOU, HE'S TESTIFYING," IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT GUARANTEES
THAT THIS TRIAL IS GOING TO BE UNNECESSARILY EXTENDED AND THEY'RE
HOLDING BACK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ISSUE.
MR. SCHECK: THEY HAVE SAID THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHETHER
DR. DE FOREST IS GOING TO BE A WITNESS OR NOT AND THEY STILL
HAVEN'T TURNED OVER TO US THE PHOTOMICROGRAPHS THAT DR. DE FOREST
TOOK WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN, WHAT ABOUT THE PHOTOMICROGRAPHS OF THE
SOCK BY DR. DE FOREST?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE INDICATED WE WERE GOING
TO SUBMIT THOSE TO THE COUNT UNDER 1054.7. I HAVE A PACKAGE
PREPARED TO THE -- FOR THE COURT, AND A COVER LETTER WAS BEING
ATTACHED TO THE PACKAGE, AND THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED THIS MORNING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE'LL HOLD THE 1054.7 HEARING AT 2:00 P.M.
MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: AND FINALLY, THEY HAVE TOLD US NOTHING ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THEY INTEND TO CALL A WITNESS ON THE EDTA ISSUE.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO CALL SUCH A
WITNESS AND IF THERE'S NOTES, EXPERIMENTS, DATA OF SOME KIND,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE AT THIS LATE
DATE AND THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DUMP ALL OF
THIS ON US THE DAY AFTER WE REST WITHOUT EVEN THE LABOR DAY
WEEKEND TO TRY TO FIND EXPERTS TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THIS, WHICH IS
EXACTLY WHAT'S OCCURRING HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS
INTENTIONAL, IT'S INTENDED TO DELAY THE TRIAL, PUT US IN AN
IMPOSSIBLE POSITION BECAUSE THE MORE YOU DELAY TURNING OVER THIS
KIND OF DISCOVERY AND THAT PUTS THE DEFENSE IN THE POSITION OF
BEING THE ONES THAT ARE DELAYING THIS CASE FROM GETTING TO THE
JURY, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S AN UNFAIR TACTIC.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN, ANY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING EDTA
WITNESSES?
MR. HODGMAN: NO. NOT AS OF YET. I MEAN, IT'S UNDER
CONSIDERATION. I HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT TO THE COURT. IF THE
COURT UNDER 1054.7 WOULD LIKE A PRIVATE REPORT OF WHAT'S GOING
ON, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT THAT AT THE COURT'S CONVENIENCE.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT CALL EDTA WITNESSES. THAT'S STILL
BEING DETERMINED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
2:00 O'CLOCK.
MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU MAKE SURE WE HAVE A COURT
REPORTER AVAILABLE 2:00 O'CLOCK?
MISS MOXHAM, YOU'RE AVAILABLE?
ALL RIGHT.
THE 1054.7 ON THE PHOTOS OF THE GLOVES AND THE
VIDEOTAPE, WE'LL DO THAT AT 2:00 O'CLOCK AS WELL. WE'LL JUST DO
ALL OF THESE AT 2:00 O'CLOCK.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN.
MR. UELMEN: THANK YOU.
AS YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, THE DEFENSE FIRST RAISED
ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE SEIZED AT THE
ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. WE RENEWED THAT
MOTION IN THE -- IN THIS COURT PRIOR TO TRIAL. AND AS A RESULT
OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WHICH JUST CAME INTO THE
POSSESSION OF THE DEFENSE ESSENTIALLY TWO WEEKS AGO, WE BELIEVE
WE HAVE VERY CREDIBLE AND IMPORTANT NEW EVIDENCE THAT MUST BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE RULING ON THE
SUPPRESSION ISSUES.
THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO PRESENT
THAT?
MR. UELMEN: WELL, THE EVIDENCE ESSENTIALLY IS CONTAINED IN
OUR OFFER OF PROOF AND, YOUR HONOR, OF COURSE, HAS CONSIDERED
THAT OFFER OF PROOF ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENTATION OF
THAT EVIDENCE TO A JURY AND THE 352 IMPLICATIONS OF THAT. OF
COURSE, THERE ARE NO 352 IMPLICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF A
SUPPRESSION HEARING.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE COURT SHOULD REOPEN THE
SUPPRESSION ISSUE, IT SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
CONTAINED IN THE FUHRMAN TAPES AND IT SHOULD GIVE US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH
THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE SO THE COURT CAN MAKE AN INFORMED
JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO HIS CREDIBILITY.
THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT
YOUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCES
TO WHICH PARTS OF THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS YOU WISH TO CONSIDER
AS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE? WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE
TO DO THAT?
MR. UELMEN: I'M SURE WE COULD DO THAT BY TUESDAY MORNING,
YOUR HONOR.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THE RECENTLY MADE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTACT PRINTS MAY BE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO
DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THESE ISSUES.
WHAT WE HAVE FILED TODAY ADDRESSES THE PROPRIETY OF
THE COURT HEARING A MOTION IN THE MIDST OF TRIAL ON THE BASIS OF
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND A DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THAT
INDEED THIS EVIDENCE IS NEWLY DISCOVERED, WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO
THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FUHRMAN TAPES.
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASSUME THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY PREVAIL
ON THAT POINT.
MR. UELMEN: WELL, THEN I THINK THE COURT HAS TO REVISIT
NOT ONLY THE OFFER CONTAINED IN OUR OFFER OF PROOF, BUT THE TAPES
AS A WHOLE IN TERMS OF THE LIGHT THAT THEY SHED ON THE
CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THE
MANUFACTURING OF PROBABLE CAUSE. HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HIS
BELIEVABILITY IN TERMS OF ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO
THE DECISION TO GO OVER THE WALL AND ENTER MR. SIMPSON'S
PREMISES.
THAT WAS A VERY CLOSE ISSUE BOTH AT THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING AND I BELIEVE IN THE MOTION THAT WAS RENEWED IN THIS
COURT, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS OF
SUCH WEIGHT THAT THE COURT WILL BE COMPELLED TO COME TO A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
EXPLANATION OF THE REASON THAT THE OFFICERS ENTERED THE PREMISES
AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUPPRESS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND AS A
RESULT.
THE COURT: AND YOU ANTICIPATE RECALLING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
--
MR. UELMEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: -- FOR THAT PURPOSE?
MR. UELMEN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN, MISS CLARK.
MR. UELMEN: WE'LL BE READY TO PROCEED ON THAT TUESDAY
MORNING.
THE COURT: ANY RESPONSE TO THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO REOPEN
BASED UPON 1538.5 -- EXCUSE ME -- NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE?
MS. CLARK: I WOULD JUST URGE THE DEFENSE TO FILE THEIR
MOTION, BUT I WOULD REMIND THE COURT THAT -- I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT
THE DEFENSE HAS TO ARGUE IN THIS REGARD.
I WOULD REMIND THE COURT THAT THE TESTIMONY REGARDING
PROBABLE CAUSE WAS ELICITED FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND I
BELIEVE DETECTIVE LANGE AS WELL IN NUMEROUS MOTIONS, BUT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY WAS CUMULATIVE TO THEIRS. SO HOW
THE TAPES MAY IMPACT ON HIS CREDIBILITY, IT -- I FRANKLY FAIL TO
SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE ULTIMATE
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT IF THE DEFENSE THINKS THEY
HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO MAKE, OF COURSE, THEY'LL MAKE IT AND WE'LL --
THE COURT: WELL, YOU'LL CONCEDE THOUGH THAT THE FUHRMAN
TAPES ARE NEWLY DISCOVERED.
MS. CLARK: I WILL CONCEDE THAT.
THE COURT: SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1538.5 BOTH AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING AND IN THE SUPERIOR COURT?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YEAH. THERE'S NO DISPUTE
ABOUT THAT. WHETHER THEY'LL RELEVANT OR WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY
IMPACT ON THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS ANOTHER MATTER,
BUT THEY ARE NEWLY DISCOVERED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO I THINK THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO MAKE THE
MOTION.
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: I AGREE.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
JUST FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES THEN, DEAN UELMEN,
YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE THAT FILED BY TUESDAY?
MR. UELMEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO NEED TIME TO EXAMINE IT AND
RESPOND, YOUR HONOR. OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY FILE IT TUESDAY MORNING,
I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TUESDAY MORNING.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. WHEN THEY FILE IT, YOU CAN TAKE
A LOOK AT IT, SEE HOW MUCH TIME YOU NEED TO RESPOND. BUT SINCE
THE ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FRAMED AND SINCE WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT
TESTIMONY ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING
WOULD LIKELY INVOLVE THE RECALLING OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN -- I MEAN
IT'S A PRETTY PRECISE ISSUE SINCE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
DEALS ONLY WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
MS. CLARK: WELL, WE WOULD URGE THE COURT TO URGE THE
DEFENSE TO GIVE US SOME POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AS TO WHY THEY
FEEL THEY WOULD NEED TO RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN FOR THAT
PURPOSE. THEY HAVE THE TAPES. ON WHAT -- NO, I'M SERIOUS, YOUR
HONOR. TO THE EXTENT THAT HAVE IMPEACHING MATERIAL ON THEM, THEY
ARE 10 YEARS PRIOR TO THE EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH,
1994. SO --
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S NOT -- MISS CLARK, LET'S NOT ARGUE
THE MERITS OF IT NOW.
MS. CLARK: I'M NOT EVEN ATTEMPTING TO. I JUST DON'T KNOW
WHY WE HAVE TO ELICIT FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM HIM.
THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO KNOW IF
SOME -- IF THERE'S A FACTUAL BASIS FOR SOME OF THOSE MATTERS.
MR. UELMEN: THE MOTION --
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME.
MR. UELMEN: I'M SORRY.
THE MOTION WAS FILED THIS MORNING. THE ONLY THING WE
STILL NEED TO FILE AT YOUR HONOR'S REQUEST IS A SPECIFIC
IDENTIFICATION OF PORTIONS OF THE FUHRMAN TAPES THAT WE BELIEVE
ARE RELEVANT TO THIS DETERMINATION.
WE BELIEVE WE'RE ENTITLED TO REOPEN THE MOTION AND
RE-EXAMINE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PRIOR TO CALLING AND CROSS-EXAMINING
HIM AS A WITNESS AT THE TRIAL. SO WE'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THAT
AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN THEN PROCEED TO CONCLUDING
OUR CASE FOR THE TRIAL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN, LET ME DIRECT YOU THEN TO FAX TO THE
PROSECUTION AND TO THE COURT ANY ADDITIONAL -- ANY SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IF YOU WORK ON IT OVER THE
WEEKEND, AND SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS UP AND RUNNING BECAUSE
I'M CONCERNED THAT OUR JURY IS SITTING HERE AGAIN.
MR. UELMEN: YES. WE ARE TOO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, YESTERDAY I
WAS PROVIDED DNA DISCOVERY PAGES 9679 THROUGH 9688, WHICH ARE
ENTITLED "PERSONAL NOTES OF BRAD POPOVICH REGARDING PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA VERSUS ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON," WHICH ARE REALLY
NOTHING MORE THAN RECITATIONS OF HIS VISITS TO THREE DIFFERENT
LABORATORIES. THERE IS NO REPORT.
MS. CLARK: IF THERE IS NO REPORT, THEN HOW CAN WE TURN IT
OVER?
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHY -- IF SHE'S SEEN A
REPORT AS SHE JUST SAID AND MR. HODGMAN SAID, WHERE IS IT? I'M
NOT ILL-INFORMED.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, I GUESS REASONABLE MINDS
CAN DIFFER ABOUT WHAT IS A REPORT. THIS, YOU KNOW, LOOKED LIKE A
REPORT TO ME. DETAILS WHAT HE SAW AND WHAT HE DID AT THE
LABORATORIES AND WE'VE TURNED IT OVER.
WE HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERYTHING WE HAVE. YOU KNOW, WHAT
ELSE CAN WE DO, YOUR HONOR? WE GIVE DISCOVERY WHEN WE GET IT.
IF WE HAVE NOTES, WE HAVE REPORTS, WE TURN THEM OVER. WE HAVE
NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE
WE CAN BE REQUIRED TO DO.
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT A
DOCUMENT THAT SAYS "PERSONAL NOTES" AND TURN AROUND AND SAY --
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, IF THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE AND
THAT'S WHAT DR. POPOVICH CALLS A REPORT, THAT'S A REPORT.
MR. SCHECK: NO. NO. NO. THESE ARE CALLED -- THIS IS
WHAT DR. POPOVICH IN HIS OWN WRITING CALLS PERSONAL NOTES. IT IS
NOT A REPORT. IF THERE IS A REPORT OR THERE'S GOING TO BE A
REPORT OR THERE SHOULD BE A REPORT AND SHE'S INDICATING SHE SAW A
REPORT --
THE COURT: SHE'S SAYING THIS IS THE REPORT.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS WHAT I SAW.
MR. SCHECK: THIS IS -- THESE ARE NOTES. THEY'RE ENTITLED
"NOTES." THERE IS NO REPORT.
MS. CLARK: FINE. LET'S TALK ALL DAY ABOUT WHAT'S A NOTE,
WHAT'S A REPORT. WE'VE TURNED OVER WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S THE
BOTTOM LINE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, MINDFUL AS WE ARE OF
THE FACT THAT THE JURY NEEDS TO CONCLUDE THIS CASE, WE BROUGHT
INTO TOWN ON TUESDAY TO HAVE THEM AT THEIR READY TWO WITNESSES
>FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY RELATING TO MR. FUHRMAN. THE
NAMES HAVE BEEN LISTED. THE NOTES OF THEIR INTERVIEWS WERE
TURNED OVER A LONG, LONG TIME AGO.
THEY ARE NATALIE SINGER. NATALIE SINGER IN 1987
SUFFERED A KIDNEY STONE ATTACK, WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. WHILE
THERE, HER ROOMMATE MET TWO OFFICERS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, MARK
FUHRMAN AND TOM VETTRAINO, HIS THEN PARTNER. MISS HANNAK, THE
ROOMMATE, BECAME FRIENDLY WITH OFFICER VETTRAINO WHO USED TO
VISIT THE APARTMENT OF HANNAK AND SINGER WITH MARK FUHRMAN.
ON THE VERY FIRST VISIT WITH MISS SINGER PRESENT IN
THE ROOM -- IT IS A VERY SMALL APARTMENT OR WAS -- MARK FUHRMAN
REGALED HIS AUDIENCE WITH TALES OF HOW HE LIKED TO TAKE NIGGERS
INTO THE ALLEY AND HIT THEM WITH A BATON AND PRACTICE HIS KICKS
UPON THEM UNTIL THEY TWITCHED AND HOW IT RELIEVED HIS TENSIONS TO
HAVE SUCH AN EXPERIENCE.
HE VISITED ONE OR TWO MORE TIMES TO THE DISGUST OF
THIS WITNESS. AND FINALLY, ON A THIRD OR FOURTH OCCASION, SHE
WAS LOOKING OUT HER BATHROOM WINDOW WHEN THE PAIR ARRIVED ON
DUTY, UNIFORMED, BUT, OF COURSE, TAKING A LITTLE TIME OFF TO
SOCIALIZE.
AS THEY STARTED UP THE SIDEWALK, SHE YELLED OUT THE
WINDOW, "HELLO, TOM." OFFICER FUHRMAN RESPONDED IN VINTAGE
FUHRMAN, "THAT FUCKING BITCH," AT WHICH POINT, PRINCIPALLY
BECAUSE OF HIS REVOLTING RACIAL CONDUCT, SHE ORDERED HIM NEVER TO
COME IN THE APARTMENT AGAIN. HE WENT BACK TO THE CRUISER.
VETTRAINO CAME IN AND VISITED. VETTRAINO WAS A WITNESS TO EACH
OF FUHRMAN'S UTTERANCES THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED. THIS OCCURRED IN
THE FALL OF 1987.
IN LATE 1986, MARK FUHRMAN MADE THE ACQUAINTANCE -- I
USE THAT WORD SPARINGLY -- OF RODERIC HODGE, RECENTLY RELEASED
>FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN THE MARINE CORPS, A MEMBER OF THE RESERVE,
WHO WAS EARNING HIS ROOM AND BOARD BY SUPERVISING A CERTAIN SMALL
APARTMENT BUILDING WITHIN FUHRMAN'S TERRITORY. FUHRMAN HAD
EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN HODGE'S BROTHER-IN-LAW, JUAN SYKES BY
NAME NOW DECEASED, AND WAS QUERYING HODGE ON A REGULAR BASIS AS
TO WHETHER HE AND SYKES WERE INVOLVED IN SOME ELICIT ACTIVITY.
ON JANUARY 10TH, 1987, HODGE CAME OUT OF A PASSAGEWAY
IN THE BUILDING THAT HE SUPERVISED AND KNOCKED DOWN SOMEONE THAT
HE DIDN'T RECOGNIZE. THE FOLLOWING DAY, OFFICERS CAME TO ARREST
HIM, AND OFFICER FUHRMAN AND VETTRAINO TOOK HIM DOWNTOWN IN THE
CRUISER. VETTRAINO WAS DRIVING. FUHRMAN WAS IN THE FRONT SEAT.
OFFICER FUHRMAN TURNED AROUND AND SAID TO HODGE, "I TOLD YOU I'D
GET YOU, NIGGER." HE THEN LEARNED AND COMMENTED UNFAVORABLY ON
THE FACT THAT MR. HODGE'S MOTHER IS WHITE AND THAT THE COUPLE IS
RACIALLY MIXED.
AT THE POLICE STATION, HE TOLD MR. HODGE TO UNDRESS
AND BEND OVER, AND WHILE LOOKING AT HIS BACKSIDE SAID, "YOU DO
ALL LOOK ALIKE, DON'T YOU?"
HODGE WAS THEN PROSECUTED, NOT ON THE CHARGE OF
ASSAULTING MARK FUHRMAN FOR WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED, BUT ON SOME
KIND OF CONSPIRACY CHARGE HAVING TO DO WITH DRUGS. HE AND HIS
CODEFENDANT, I BELIEVE A MAN NAMED EARL GRAY, WERE TRIED IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT IN WEST LOS ANGELES IN SANTA MONICA AND ACQUITTED.
THOSE ARE THE TWO WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
NOW, YOU HAD INDICATED EARLIER AND I TOOK A MOMENT TO
REAFFIRM YOUR HONOR'S RULING MADE MANY MONTHS AGO THAT IN ORDER
TO CROSS-EXAMINE MARK FUHRMAN ON INCIDENTS SUCH AS THIS -- AND
THIS RULING AROSE FROM THE CORDOBA CONFUSION, AS YOU REMEMBER --
THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY THAT THE WITNESSES TESTIFY AND THAT
YOU HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY WOULD SAY WHAT THE OFFER OF
PROOF SAID THAT THEY WOULD SAY.
AND I BELIEVE IT APPROPRIATE TO PUT THEM ON AS WELL
AS ANGELA TERRY AND KATHLEEN BELL, KATHLEEN BELL HAVING BEEN
INTRODUCED INTO THIS CASE BY THE PROSECUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SHOWING THAT SHE LIED ABOUT EVEN KNOWING FUHRMAN AND, THEREFORE,
A WITNESS WHO I ASSUME IS NOT ONLY PERMISSIBLE, BUT ESSENTIAL AT
THIS POINT. WE WILL PROVE THAT SHE KNEW HIM FAR TOO WELL.
THEY ARE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY FIRST UP ONCE YOU HAVE
WHATEVER LEGAL MATTERS ARE NECESSARY OUT OF THE WAY.
THE REMAINING TWO WITNESSES ARE FUHRMAN'S PARTNER
VETTRAINO. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A FOUNDATION TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR
NOT HE WAS PRESENT AT THE SEVERAL INCIDENTS I'VE DESCRIBED
BECAUSE THE WITNESSES BY THAT POINT WILL HAVE SAID SO AND THEN HE
CAN DECIDE HOW HE WILL RESPOND TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HEARD THESE
WORDS.
AND FINALLY WE HAVE DR. GOULSTON EMPLOYED BY THE
PROSECUTION APPARENTLY TO CONDITION AND WE THINK POSSIBLY
MEDICATE MARK FUHRMAN FOR HIS PERFORMANCE ON THAT STAND WHO SAT
HERE WHEN I POINTED TO HIM AND ASKED FUHRMAN IF HE KNEW HIM, HE
SAID HE DIDN'T, AND THE PROSECUTOR SAT SILENT, KNOWING FULL WELL
THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THEIR TEAM.
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN ADDITION TO
KATHLEEN BELL AND ANGELA TERRY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON. WE
ARE PREPARED TO PUT MISS SINGER AND MR. HODGE ON THIS MORNING SO
THAT WE DON'T WASTE THE MORNING.
THANK YOU.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE WAY BEYOND THE POINT
OF WHAT IS RIDICULOUS, BUT LET ME SAY THIS.
THE COURT RULED EARLIER THAT NEITHER HODGE NOR SINGER
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS AND UNTIL
THE COURT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM KATHLEEN BELL AND
ANGELA TERRY. THERE'S A 352 ISSUE AS TO HODGE AND SINGER. CHERI
LEWIS FILED A MOTION WITH THE COURT AND ARGUED THAT ISSUE TO THE
COURT, AND THE COURT ISSUED ITS RULING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE HODGE AND TERRY HERE
TODAY. THE COURT HAS NOT INDICATED THAT THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO
TESTIFY IN THIS PROCEEDING. I HAVEN'T READ THE FILE COMPLETELY ON
HODGE AND TERRY. HOWEVER --
THE COURT: HODGE AND SINGER.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. HODGE AND SINGER. BUT IN THE
EVENT THEY DO CALL MR. HODGE AT SOME POINT, THEN WE'LL HAVE
ANOTHER LITTLE MINI TRIAL IN THIS CASE, THE MINI TRIAL OF MR.
HODGE. AT ANY POINT OR ANY EVENT, I'M NOT READY FOR THAT.
THE COURT SHOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO ATTEMPT TO FORCE US
INTO HEARING TESTIMONY FROM THESE TWO WITNESSES TODAY. I WILL
SAY THIS. SOME OF WHAT I HEAR TODAY FROM MR. BAILEY, I HAVE
NEVER HEARD OR READ BEFORE. I THINK THERE MAY BE A DISCOVERY
ISSUE ON SOME OF WHAT MR. BAILEY SAID.
AT ANY EVENT, WE'RE NOT READY TO GO FORWARD ON SINGER
AND HODGE. WE HAVE HAD NO INDICATION FROM THE COURT THAT THEY'LL
BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE
WITNESSES HERE TODAY, WITNESSES WHO ARE ON THE WITNESS LIST AND
WHO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT ALREADY AS WITNESSES WHO HAVE
RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE TESTIMONY TO OFFER THIS JURY.
AND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE TODAY? ARE WE GOING TO
ALLOW THE JURY TO SIT ANOTHER DAY AND THEN THREE DAYS OVER THE
WEEKEND?
THE COURT: NO. WE MIGHT WORK TOMORROW.
MR. DARDEN: WE SHOULD WORK TOMORROW. WE SHOULD WORK
TONIGHT. LET'S GET THIS THING ON, JUDGE.
IF THEY WANT TO CALL ANDREA TERRY OR KATHLEEN BELL,
THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD CALL THEM TODAY. BUT I
WILL PREPARE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE WITNESSES, MYSELF AND MISS
CLARK. WE WILL GET READY THIS MORNING IF THEY'D LIKE. BUT
SINGER AND HODGE, THEY SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS AS THEY HAVE BEEN.
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, I ALSO CALLED MR.
TAYLOR DANIEL WHO IS INSCRIPTING OR ENROLLING HIS DAUGHTER IN
COLLEGE IN MICHIGAN. HE HAD PLANNED TO SPEND THE WEEK THERE ON
TUESDAY AND SAID SO AS NOT TO DELAY THE COURT -- WE DID NOT
ANTICIPATE YOU WOULD BE TWO DAYS MAKING YOUR RULING -- THAT WE
NEEDED TO HAVE HIM HERE WITH MISS BELL.
NOW, WE HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO MISS BELL AND I DON'T
THINK THEY HAVE EITHER. SHE'S WILLING TO TESTIFY AND THAT'S IT.
HE CAME ALL THE WAY BACK THE FOLLOWING MORNING
ANTICIPATING THAT HE WOULD BE HERE WITH HIS CLIENT. WHEN WE
FOUND OUT THE RULING WOULD COME DOWN FRIDAY MORNING, WE
ANTICIPATED THE MORNING WOULD BE SPENT PUTTING IN THE EVIDENCE
THAT YOU WOULD PERMIT AS TO LAURA HART MC KINNEY.
WE DIDN'T LEARN TILL LAST NIGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE
MUCH TRUNCATED. I HAD ALREADY COMMITTED TO MR. TAYLOR DANIEL
DOWN IN TORRANCE THAT HE WOULD BE THE FIRST WITNESS MONDAY,
BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE COULD GET RID OF THE TWO WITNESSES WHO ARE
NOW ASKED TO SIT HERE THE WHOLE LABOR DAY WEEKEND BECAUSE MR.
DARDEN ISN'T READY.
MR. DARDEN IS ABLE TO GET READY QUICKLY. HE'S KNOWN
ALL ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. THESE ARE THE LAST WITNESSES IN THE
CASE. AND IF HE'S NOT READY TO CONFRONT THEM WHEN THEY FINISH
TESTIFYING, I RECOMMEND THAT HE SIT DOWN BECAUSE HE KNOWS, AS THE
JURY NEVER WILL, THAT THEY'RE TELLING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THEM ON TODAY AND NOT PUT THEM UP
OVER THE WEEKEND. THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO HOME AND THE JURY WOULD
LIKE TO HEAR SOME EVIDENCE.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MR. BAILEY SCHEDULED WITNESSES IN
DEROGATION OF THE COURT'S OWN ORDER. WE HAD NO DUTY TO BE READY
ON THESE WITNESSES, NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER AND WE ARE NOT.
AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT UPSETS MR. BAILEY. I'M SORRY THAT HE IS
UPSET WITH THE COURT'S RULING, BUT IT'S BEEN THREE DAYS NOW --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
WHEN WILL KATHLEEN BELL BE AVAILABLE?
MR. BAILEY: BY TUESDAY MORNING.
MR. DARDEN: WHY NOT SATURDAY MORNING?
MR. BAILEY: I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET HER HERE TOMORROW, BUT
I THOUGHT IF WE GOT TO ANYONE TODAY, I HELD THEM SPECIFICALLY
THAT IN THE UNLIKELIHOOD THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THEM
TODAY BECAUSE WE WOULD BE TIED UP WITH OTHER MATTERS ON THE
CHANCE THEY COULD GO HOME, MISS SINGER AND MR. HODGE. IN
ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, MR. HODGE IS HERE WITH HIS LAWYER WHO'S
BEEN HERE SINCE WEDNESDAY, AND WE'RE BEARING THOSE EXPENSES AS WE
MUST.
NOW, TO SAY THAT FAMILIES CAN'T SPEND THE LABOR DAY
WEEKEND TOGETHER BECAUSE MR. DARDEN ISN'T READY TO CROSS-EXAMINE
IS PRETTY POOR RESPONSE WITH ME.
MR. DARDEN: WE KNOW WE'RE MISSING CARTOONS TOMORROW. WE
CAN WORK THROUGH THE DAY. NO BIG DEAL, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN MOVE
ALONG.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE BESIDES HODGE AND SINGER
AVAILABLE TODAY? HOW ABOUT MISS MC KINNEY?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE OTHER MATTER -- WE HAVE ONE
OTHER MOTION WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON, WHICH MAY BE
RELEVANT AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE SO-CALLED BRADY MOTION THAT I
TOLD THE COURT EARLIER THIS WEEK I'D BE FILING, AND I THINK THIS
MATTER DESERVES THIS COURT'S VERY, VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION,
AND IT'S A VERY SERIOUS MOTION AND WE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE THE COURT TO BE AWARE
OF IS THE DECLARATION OF A DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY THE NAME
OF LUCIENNE COLEMAN. IN THIS DECLARATION, SHE SPELLS OUT IN
DETAIL CONVERSATIONS WITH SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN OF MY OFFICE WHAT
WE THINK --
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT DURING ONE OF OUR -- I
DON'T RECOLLECT IF IT WAS A 1054.7 OR A PITCHESS -- I THINK IT
WAS A PITCHESS MOTION. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT I ORDERED THE
DISCLOSURE OF A STATEMENT THAT MISS COLEMAN GAVE; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOU DID, YOUR HONOR, A REDACTED
STATEMENT THAT ADDRESSES -- AND I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THE
STATEMENT WE GOT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH WHAT SHE SAYS THE FACTS
ARE, AND IT'S VERY, VERY SERIOUS. AND SO IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW
ME, I WOULD LIKE TO SPELL THIS OUT.
THIS IS A MATTER IN WHICH MISS COLEMAN IS ON A DAY
OFF TODAY. SHE IS STANDING BY THE PHONE AND IS AVAILABLE SHOULD
YOU WANT HER TO TESTIFY TODAY.
SHE HAS BEEN A DEPUTY DISTRICT FOR SOME 16 YEARS, AND
I MIGHT INDICATE THAT I WAS THE ASSISTANT D.A. WHEN SHE WAS
HIRED, AND I'VE KNOWN HER FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH WHAT SHE'S DONE IN THIS CASE HOWEVER.
SHE -- ON JULY 19, 1994, SHE WAS WORKING IN
COMPLAINTS, AND AT THAT TIME, SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH LAPD
HOMICIDE DETECTIVE ANDY PURDY HERE IN THIS BUILDING. AND PURDY
WAS THERE TO FILE A CASE.
AT THAT TIME, THE STORY HAD FIRST SURFACED ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF FUHRMAN PLANTING THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM. AND SHE
INDICATED TO PURDY AT THAT TIME AND COMMENTED HOW RIDICULOUS SHE
THOUGHT THAT THOUGHT WAS. PURDY RESPONDED THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE
NOT RIDICULOUS AT ALL AND THAT HE WOULDN'T PUT ANY SUCH THING
PAST FUHRMAN.
HE THEN WENT ON TO TELL LUCIENNE COLEMAN ABOUT HIS
EXPERIENCES IN WORKING WITH FUHRMAN AT WEST L.A. STATION, YOUR
HONOR. AT THAT TIME, PURDY HAD RECENTLY MARRIED A JEWISH WOMAN
AND HE RETURNED FROM APPARENTLY HIS HONEYMOON OR WHATEVER, AND IT
WAS HIS CONTENTION THAT FUHRMAN HAD PAINTED PURDY'S LOCKER WITH
SWASTIKAS.
AND DURING THIS CONVERSATION, PURDY, MISS COLEMAN AND
ANOTHER D.A. BY THE NAME OF JULIE SERGOJAN WALKED UP AND THEY
HEARD MANY OF THE THINGS THAT PURDY WAS SAYING ABOUT FUHRMAN.
LATER ON AND IN JULY OF 1994, DEPUTY D.A. ELLEN BURKE
TOLD LUCIENNE COLEMAN ABOUT A BLACK OFFICER WHO HAD HEARD FUHRMAN
AT A PICNIC OR A BARBECUE TALKING ABOUT AND DISCUSSING HIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE SIMPSON, QUOTE, THAT HER, QUOTE,
UNQUOTE, BOOB JOB HAD LOOKED REAL GREAT. BURKE DID NOT TELL THE
NAME OF THE BLACK OFFICER AT THE TIME, BUT MISS COLEMAN LATER
CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS AN OFFICER NAMED MAXWELL.
SO THESE NAMES MAY BECOME RELEVANT TO YOU WHEN YOU
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW.
AND THEN CONTINUING ON, A DAY OR TWO LATER, AN LAPD
DETECTIVE BY THE NAME OF MARK ARNESON -- THIS IS IN JULY OF 1994,
YOUR HONOR -- CAME TO FILE A CASE BEFORE LUCIENNE COLEMAN. THE
TOPIC, AS USUAL, THEN TURNED TO SIMPSON. AND ARNESON --
MR. HODGMAN: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN.
YOUR HONOR, I'D POINT OUT FOR THE COURT AT THIS POINT
IN TIME, MR. COCHRAN IS READING APPARENTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
PUBLIC WHAT IS CONTAINED IN A DECLARATION FILED UNDER SEAL TO THE
COURT. HAS THE COURT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS
DECLARATION?
THE COURT: NO.
MR. HODGMAN: NOR HAVE WE.
THE COURT: I TOOK THE BENCH BEFORE --
MR. COCHRAN: TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT FILED
UNDER SEAL AND I'M NOT READING IT. I'M USING THE REFERENCES TO
SPEAK OUT TO THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AS USUAL, YOUR HONOR, THEY WANT TO CUT OFF EVERYTHING
THAT RELATES TO THEM. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MOTION. I HAVE A
RIGHT TO SPELL THIS OUT TO THE COURT. IT'S VERY SERIOUS AND IT
BEARS UPON OUR ABILITY TO GO FORWARD AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
SO AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT, ARNESON SAID THAT HE
ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE BOOB JOB COMMENT AND THAT HE HAD TALKED TO
TWO OTHER OFFICERS AND SAID THEY HAD HEARD FUHRMAN MAKE SUCH
STATEMENTS ABOUT NICOLE'S BREASTS AS WELL. ARNESON DID NOT SAY
WHO THESE TWO OFFICERS WERE.
THEN IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF AUGUST OF 1994, THIS
DEPUTY D.A., LUCIENNE COLEMAN, WENT TO SEE MARCIA CLARK AND BILL
HODGMAN AS SHE WAS TROUBLED ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD
HEARD. MISS CLARK SHE SAYS HAD BEEN A FRIEND OF HERS FOR MANY
YEARS AND THEY HAD BEEN FRIENDS.
AND SHE FOUND CLARK AND HODGMAN IN CLARK'S OFFICE AND
TOLD THEM WHAT SHE HAD HEARD, WHAT I JUST INDICATED TO THE COURT.
BY THEN, SHE HAD ALSO HEARD THAT FUHRMAN WALKED AROUND ON
WEEKENDS WEARING NAZI PARAPHERNALIA.
WHEN SHE TOLD CLARK AND HODGMAN WHAT SHE KNEW, CLARK
STATED, "THIS IS 'BS'" IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. HODGMAN SUGGESTED
THE OFFICE SHOULD LOOK INTO THESE ALLEGATIONS. CLARK SAID, "THIS
IS JUST 'BS' BEING PUT OUT BY THE DEFENSE."
COLEMAN THEN INDICATED THAT SHE HADN'T HEARD ANY OF
THESE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE DEFENSE, BUT RATHER FROM LAPD OFFICERS
AND SHE SUGGESTED THAT THE L.A. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
LOOK INTO THESE ALLEGATIONS.
NOW, YOUR HONOR, IT'S IMPORTANT AS I GO THROUGH THIS,
THIS WAS IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF AUGUST OF 1994.
SHE THEN SPOKE WITH CLARK AND HODGMAN ABOUT MATTERS
UNRELATED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND THEREAFTER, SHE SUGGESTED
THAT --
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU,
BUT REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN IT WAS THOSE MATTERS WERE
-- THOSE -- MISS COLEMAN, MISS BURKE, MISS SERGOJAN, DETECTIVE
MAXWELL, DETECTIVE PURDY -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COURT
ORDERED THE DISCLOSURE OF THOSE REPORTS TO YOU WITH THOSE NAMES.
BUT JUST REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN THAT OCCURRED.
MR. COCHRAN: AS I RECALL, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T HAVE THE
EXACT DATE, MR. HODGMAN CAME DOWN AND INDICATED THAT HE HAD A
MATTER TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURT. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE
COURT'S ATTENTION AT SOME POINT.
IT STARTED OFF BY HIM SAYING HE DIDN'T THINK THIS HAD
ANY BASIS IN FACT, BUT IT WAS MUCH, MUCH LATER. IT WAS THIS
YEAR. BUT IT WAS IN MAYBE FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AND WE
CAN FIND OUT AND LET YOU KNOW.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WE GOT, YOUR HONOR, IS A REDACTED
VERSION. AND YOU'LL SEE WHEN I TIE THIS IN, THE VERSION WE GOT
CERTAINLY SPEAKS A COVER UP OR SOMETHING BECAUSE WHAT WE GOT, YOU
COULDN'T TELL ANYTHING FROM THIS. AND SO THAT'S THE POINT I WANT
TO POINT OUT. AND LET ME CONTINUE ON IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
THIS -- SO MARCIA CLARK CONTINUES ON, "THIS IS 'BS,'"
SAYS THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND THEN IT GOES ON AND SAYS, "I
AGAIN SUGGEST TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE LOOK INTO THESE ALLEGATIONS
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE WOULD ONE DAY LEARN OF THE INFORMATION AND
QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ASKED ABOUT WHY IT HAD NOT BEEN REVEALED TO
THE D.A.'S -- BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE SOONER."
THIS IS WHAT THIS WITNESS IS PREPARED TO TESTIFY AS
AN HONEST DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. SHE SAID -- AND THIS IS WHAT
SHE QUOTES HER FORMER FRIEND MARCIA CLARK AS SAYING.
SHE THEN ANGRILY STATED, CLARK SAID SHE WAS TIRED OF
OTHER D.A.'S TRYING TO GET INVOLVED IN HER CASE FOR THEIR OWN
SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT, AND SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT SHE HAD NO
INTEREST IN THIS CASE OTHER THAN DOING THE RIGHT THING AND
UNDERSTANDING WHAT BRADY MENTIONED. SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT SHE
THOUGHT THE INFORMATION MIGHT PROVE FALSE AND THEY SHOULD REALLY
CHECK IT OUT.
LATER ON, SHE SAW DETECTIVE ARNESON IN THE HALL AND
ASKED HIM IF THE DEFENSE KNEW ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
FUHRMAN. OF COURSE, HE SAID, WELL, PERHAPS THEY DO BECAUSE OF
PAVELIC. AND THERE'S ANOTHER DEPUTY D.A., JEANNETTE BERNSTEIN,
WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THAT CONVERSATION.
ON AUGUST 24TH, 1994, YOUR HONOR, ANOTHER KEY DATE,
THIS DEPUTY D.A. RECEIVED A CALL, AN IRATE CALL FROM OFFICER
PURDY. PURDY WANTED TO KNOW IF SHE HAD CONTACTED THE MEDIA ABOUT
WHAT HE HAD TOLD HER. SHE TOLD HIM HE HADN'T.
PURDY WANTED TO KNOW WHY SHE HAD INFORMED CLARK AND
HODGMAN ABOUT THEIR CONVERSATION. HE WAS UPSET AND HE TOLD HER
AT THAT TIME THAT HE WOULD DENY HAVING TOLD HER ANYTHING ABOUT
FUHRMAN AND THAT HE WOULD LIE ABOUT THE WHOLE THING. "AND I TOLD
PURDY IF EVER I HAD TO TESTIFY, I WOULD TELL THE TRUTH, AND HE
SAID HE WOULD LIE." AND SHE'S IN FACT DOING THAT NOW.
ON AUGUST 25TH, 1994, YOUR HONOR, AFTER THAT, PURDY
LEFT A MESSAGE FOR HER TO CALL HIM BACK. WHEN SHE DID, PURDY TOLD
ME THAT HIS, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "STORY" WAS GOING TO BE THAT FUHRMAN
WAS ONLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING LEFT THE SWASTIKAS IN HIS LOCKER,
THAT IT WAS NEVER PROVEN.
SHE REMINDED HIM THAT IT WAS NOT WHAT HE HAD TOLD HER
IN JULY. PURDY INDICATED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE HIS STORY
NOW. PURDY ALSO SAID THAT HE KEPT A LOG.
AND THIS IS A KEY THING. PURDY TOLD JULIANN--
LUCIENNE COLEMAN THAT HE HAD KEPT A LOG OF ALL INCIDENTS
INVOLVING FUHRMAN WHEN THEY BOTH WORKED IN WEST LOS ANGELES
STATION, BUT THAT HE HAD DESTROYED THE LOG THAT MORNING AT 3:00
O'CLOCK A.M. SO THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE
PROSECUTION. AND THAT BECOMES A VERY KEY MATTER BECAUSE PURDY,
OF COURSE, REMEMBERS WHAT'S IN THAT LOG EVEN IF HE DID DESTROY
IT.
ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 1995, LUCIENNE COLEMAN SPOKE TO
BILL HODGMAN BY TELEPHONE, AND HODGMAN TOLD HER THAT HE HAD HEARD
>FROM TWO DEPUTY D.A.'S IN THE BRANCH AND AREA OFFICES THAT THEY
HAD SOME NEGATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT FUHRMAN. AND THIS IS IN
FEBRUARY NOW. KEEP IN MIND, THIS ALL OCCURRED IN JULY AND AUGUST
EARLIER.
SHE THEN HAD TO REMIND BILL HODGMAN OF THE
CONVERSATION SHE HAD HAD WITH CLARK AND HE BACK IN AUGUST.
HODGMAN CLAIMED TO HAVE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF HER EVER
DISCUSSING FUHRMAN DURING THAT CONVERSATION. AND SHE REMINDED
MR. HODGMAN OF THE INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD GIVEN BACK IN AUGUST.
HE WANTED NAMES OF THE OFFICERS WHO HAD GIVEN HER THE
INFORMATION AND SAID HE NEEDED TO CHECK WITH THE OFFICERS -- AND
SHE SAID SHE NEEDED TO CHECK THE OFFICERS FIRST BEFORE SHE GAVE
OUT THEIR NAMES.
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT SHE CALLED PURDY AND TOLD HIM
SHE WAS GOING TO GIVE HODGMAN HIS NAME. PURDY INDICATED HE WOULD
TELL HODGMAN "THE STORY" HE HAD MENTIONED IN HIS PRIOR
CONVERSATION, NOT WHAT HE TOLD HER ORIGINALLY.
SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO CALL HODGMAN AND GAVE HIM
PURDY'S NAME. SHE ALSO TOLD HODGMAN ABOUT PURDY'S LOG. AND I
DON'T THINK WE EVER SAW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS LOG EVER IN ANY OF
THE DOCUMENTS, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO SEARCH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT
YOU WERE TOLD IN THE CONVERSATION OR WHAT YOU GOT THE RECORDS
>FROM IA.
SHE RELAYED THE CONVERSATION SHE HAD HAD WITH
DETECTIVE ARNESON AND GAVE HODGMAN THE NAMES OF SERGOJAN AND
BURKE AS D.A.'S WHO HAD ALSO HEARD SOME PORTIONS OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS. HODGMAN AND SHE HAD THREE OR FOUR CONVERSATIONS
THAT NIGHT, AND THAT'S IN FEBRUARY OF 1995. HODGMAN SAID THAT
DETECTIVE LANGE WOULD BE CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THESE
ALLEGATIONS. LATER, HODGMAN SAID THAT INTERNAL AFFAIRS WOULD BE
CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION.
SHE CALLED BURKE AND SERGOJAN TO TELL THEM THAT SHE
HAD GIVEN HODGMAN THEIR NAMES AND THAT INTERNAL AFFAIRS WOULD BE
CONTACTING THEM SHORTLY.
ON FEBRUARY 14TH, YOUR HONOR, 1995, WHILE SHE WAS ON
VACATION, SHE GOT A CALL FROM PURDY AT HOME, AND PURDY SAID THAT
HE HAD DESTROYED THE LOGS AGAIN AND THAT HE WOULD NOT TESTIFY
AGAINST THE PROSECUTION NO MATTER WHAT. PURDY SAID THAT THE LAPD
WAS PROTECTING MARK FUHRMAN BECAUSE IT FELT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS
USING FUHRMAN AS A SCAPEGOAT. PURDY SAID THAT HE COULD LOSE HIS
JOB FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST FUHRMAN IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
LAPD AND SHE QUOTES, "WAS CIRCLING THE WAGONS," END QUOTE.
ON FEBRUARY 15TH, SHE WAS IN FACT INTERVIEWED BY
INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY BE THE DATE YOU
WILL FIND IF YOU LOOK BACK. SHE INDICATES THIS INTERVIEW WAS
MORE LIKE A -- WAS MORE THAN AN INTERVIEW. IT WAS MORE LIKE AN
INTERROGATION BECAUSE OF THE HOSTILE TONE OF THE QUESTIONING AND
THE TYPE OF QUESTIONING FROM THESE SO-CALLED INVESTIGATORS FROM
IA.
SHE SAID SHE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, "ISN'T IT TRUE THAT
YOU THINK O.J. SIMPSON IS INNOCENT AND YOU WANT TO HAVE HIM
ACQUITTED? AND DID ANYONE BESIDES YOUR HUSBAND EVER HEAR YOUR
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICER PURDY?"
ON FEBRUARY 16TH TO FEBRUARY 24TH, THIS DEPUTY D.A.
REQUESTED OF HER OFFICE A COPY OF THE TAPE OF HER INTERVIEW WITH
INTERNAL AFFAIRS. ON FEBRUARY 24TH, MR. HODGMAN INDICATED TO HER
THAT A TAPE MIGHT AVAILABLE FOR HER THAT DAY.
LATER THAT DAY, MR. HODGMAN CAME TO HER AND INFORMED
HER THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH ASSISTANT D.A. FRANK
SUNDSTEDT AND THAT IT HAD BEEN DECIDED THAT NO COPIES OF THE TAPE
SHOULD BE RELEASED WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING, WHILE THIS CASE
WAS PENDING BECAUSE THE TAPE MIGHT BE BRADY MATERIAL AND WOULD
THEN HAVE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE.
HODGMAN FURTHER INDICATED THAT IT HAD ALSO BEEN
DECIDED THAT THE TAPE SHOULD ONLY BE TURNED OVER AS PART OF A
PITCHESS MOTION BY THE DEFENSE AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE GIVEN
TO ME AT THAT TIME. SHE STILL TO THIS DATE DOES NOT HAVE THAT
TAPE AND HAS TOLD ME THAT THEIR OFFICE WILL NOT ASK FOR THE TAPE
UNTIL THE SIMPSON CASE IS OVER.
"I TOLD THE OFFICERS" -- SHE GOES ON TO SAY TO
INTERNAL AFFAIRS -- "EVERYTHING I HAD BEEN TOLD, INCLUDING THE
FACT THAT PURDY HAD KEPT LOGS AND HAD TOLD ME THAT HE HAD
DESTROYED THEM AS HE WOULD NEVER TESTIFY AGAINST THE
PROSECUTION."
INTERNAL AFFAIRS ASKED HER IF SHE THOUGHT PURDY HAD
DESTROYED EVIDENCE. I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THAT PURDY WOULD DO
ANYTHING TO AVOID TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE AND FURTHER THAT PURDY
HAD SPECIFICALLY TOLD HER HE DID NOT WANT TO TESTIFY UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS LADY CAME TO OUR OFFICE THE OTHER DAY. I DIDN'T
WANT TO PUT HER IN A COMPROMISING POSITION. I DIDN'T ISSUE A
SUBPOENA FOR HER.
SHE GAVE US THIS DECLARATION. I ASKED HER NOT NOT TO
SIGN IT, BUT TO VERIFY THAT IT WAS TRUE BECAUSE SHE WAS TOLD, HAS
BEEN TOLD BY ONE OF HER SUPERVISORS THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE WANTS
TO GO SLOW ON THIS AND THAT IF SHE BELIEVES THAT IF SHE SIGNS
THIS AND SHE HAS TO APPEAR IN THIS COURT -- LET ME QUOTE.
DURING THE COURSE OF HER CONVERSATION JUST LAST NIGHT
WITH SHAWN CHAPMAN, SHE'S BEEN TOLD, THAT AT LEAST ONE OF HER
SUPERVISORS TOLD HER TO GO SLOW ON THIS MATTER, AND IT'S HER
FEELING THAT IF SHE SIGNS THIS DECLARATION, APPEARS IN THIS
COURT, IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT HER STATUS OF A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
HOWEVER, SHE SAID SHE'S WILLING TO MAKE THAT
SACRIFICE BECAUSE WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS WRONG. IT'S FROM ONE OF
THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
THE COURT NEEDS TO TAKE THIS AND LOOK BACK AT WHAT
YOU GAVE US. THE REDACTED VERSION WE HAVE BEARS NO SEMBLANCE OF
THIS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO THIS INFORMATION. WE SHOULD HAVE HAD
IT BACK IN JULY AND AUGUST. WE SHOULD HAVE HAD IT IN FEBRUARY.
WHAT WE GOT IS A TRAVESTY. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE
GOT, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL AND WE NEED THIS BEFORE WE
CAN GO FORWARD WITH FUHRMAN.
THEY CAN TALK ALL THEY WANT ABOUT WITNESSES AND
MOVING AHEAD. WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT IN DEFENDING OUR CLIENT
TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION.
THIS SUPPOSEDLY IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH. I HAVE MY
DOUBTS, BUT I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN FOR MY CLIENT IN THIS
INSTANCE. AND WHEN THESE KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN, WE HAVE TO
DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION.
IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME IF WE WORK ON SATURDAY,
SUNDAY, HOLIDAYS OR WHATEVER. WE DO THAT ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR.
THAT DOESN'T MATTER. BUT THE POINT IS, WE NEED TO HAVE THESE
MATTERS RESOLVED BEFORE WE CAN GO FORWARD AND EFFECTIVELY
REPRESENT OUR CLIENT.
AND I MENTIONED IN COURT THE OTHER DAY THAT WE WERE
GOING TO ASK YOUR HONOR TO PROVIDE US WITH THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF
THE D.A.'S IN CAMERA REGARDING THE MEETING WHERE DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN WAS PREPARED BECAUSE WE THINK THAT NOW WITH THE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE THINK IT'S ENTIRELY RELEVANT. THE
COURT MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS TO ASK.
ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS HAVE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD HERE AND TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE
THE JURY. BECAUSE I DON'T HARDLY HAVE TO POINT OUT TO THIS
COURT, THIS IS A JURY TRIAL. THIS IS NOT A COURT TRIAL. THE
JURORS WILL DECIDE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND WE HAVE A
RIGHT IN REPRESENTING MR. SIMPSON, IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION UNDER BRADY.
AND YOU'VE SEEN OTHER EXAMPLES SUCH AS THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS WHERE WE HAVE POSSIBLE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. WE WANT
IT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT BEFORE WE GO FORWARD IN THIS
CRITICAL PART OF OUR CASE AT THE VERY END.
AND NOW WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THEIR OWN OFFICE. AND
THERE ARE OTHER D.A.'S WHO I THINK WILL ALSO BACK HER UP. SHE'S
A VERY CREDIBLE PERSON WHO PUTS HER JOB ON THE LINE IN THE
INTEREST OF TELLING THE TRUTH AND BEING HONEST IN THIS MATTER,
AND WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO COVER IT UP. SO
-- THAT'S THE ONLY ONE WAY TO PUT IT.
WE NEED A HEARING ON THIS. THEY CAN TAKE AS MUCH
TIME AS THEY WANT. SHE'S ON CALL. SHE CAN COME DOWN HERE TODAY
IF THEY WANT. WHAT I INDICATED TO YOU SHE WILL SAY ON THE STAND,
AND WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, THE TWO MATTERS
THAT YOU FIND OF INTEREST IN THIS DISCUSSION WITH MISS COLEMAN IS
THE OBSERVATION BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REGARDING NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON'S ANATOMY AND, SECONDLY, THE RACIAL ANIMOSITY REGARDING
JEWS; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, REGARDING JEWS --
THE COURT: THOSE ARE THE TWO --
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YES. WELL, THE SWASTIKAS AND THAT SORT
OF THING. BUT ALSO, YOUR HONOR, THE LOG. I THINK --
THE COURT: AND PURDY'S LOG.
MR. COCHRAN: OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S A LOG OF ALL HIS
MISCONDUCT IN WEST LOS ANGELES, I'M SURE IT WILL TRACK SOME OF
THE THINGS HE'S TELLING LAURA MC KINNEY ABOUT. WE HAVE A RIGHT
TO THOSE THINGS, JUDGE. I MEAN I THINK --
THE COURT: LET ME ASK A QUESTION THOUGH.
IF YOUR RECOLLECTION IS CORRECT THAT IN MARCH,
FEBRUARY OR MARCH, THESE NAMES WERE TURNED OVER TO YOU -- AND MY
RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS IN THE HEARINGS THAT I CONDUCTED,
I RECOLLECT DETECTIVE MAXWELL, DETECTIVE PURDY, OBVIOUSLY MISS
COLEMAN, MISS SERGOJAN, MISS BURKE, DETECTIVE ARNESON, THESE
NAMES COMING UP. AND THOSE NAMES WERE DISCLOSED TO YOU. AND MY
RECOLLECTION OF THE COMMENT ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BREAST
ENLARGEMENT WAS MENTIONED IN THOSE REPORTS.
I DON'T RECOLLECT IF THERE WAS INQUIRY ABOUT THE
SWASTIKA INCIDENT. I DON'T RECOLLECT THAT, BUT I RECOLLECT
SOMETHING ABOUT SWASTIKAS.
HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW ALL OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS BESIDES MISS COLEMAN, MISS SERGOJAN?
MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVEN'T. LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, YOUR
HONOR.
FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, LET ME SAY THIS AS
RESPECTFULLY AS I CAN. YOU MIGHT FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT
SOME OF US BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.
POLICE OFFICERS AREN'T GOING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS
CASE. THEY DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY. THERE ARE SPECIAL RULES
REGARDING THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO
US ABOUT THIS CASE.
DEPUTY D.A.'S, WHERE THEIR JOB IS ON THE LINE, IT'S
VERY HARD TO TALK TO THEM ALSO. THIS LUCIENNE COLEMAN IS A VERY
UNIQUE PERSON, AND THERE ARE SOME VERY FINE DEPUTY D.A.'S UP
THERE WHO WELL MAY DO THIS, WHO MAY SPEAK OUT REGARDING THIS.
BUT THERE'S NO MENTION. AND THE POINT WE HAVE, WE
HAD TO RELY UPON YOUR HONOR LOOKING AT THIS STUFF. AND I THINK
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME MENTION ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
ANATOMY. NOTHING ABOUT THESE LOGS. I'M PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT THAT,
AS I RECALL, THAT WE EVER GOT, AND WE CAN SHOW YOU THE REDACTED
COPY.
WHAT WE GOT LEFT -- BECAUSE, LET ME TELL YOU, IN
TALKING TO MISS COLEMAN, THE REDACTED VERSION WAS SOMETHING SHE
COULD HARDLY RECOGNIZE. SHE WANTS THE TAPE. SHE SAYS IF YOU GET
THE TAPE, YOU WILL SEE HOW IA WORKS.
THEY CAME AT HER AS THOUGH SHE WAS THE WORST PERSON
IN THE WORLD. IT WAS AN INTERROGATION WHERE SHE WAS MADE TO FEEL
LIKE SHE WAS SOME SORT OF A TRAITOR IN THIS INSTANCE AND IT'S
OUTRAGEOUS. THAT'S WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE.
SO I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO PUT THAT BACK
ON US. WE KNEW ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS AND WE'RE NOW TRYING TO SAY
TO YOU THAT IF THESE THINGS ARE COVERED UP -- AND THERE ARE OTHER
THINGS, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS ALTOGETHER, YOUR
HONOR.
JUST WITH REGARD TO HENRY LEE, AS BARRY SCHECK HAS
POINTED OUT, THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE BEEN
ENHANCED, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THERE'S NO LOG AND NOW WE FIND OUT ALL
THESE THINGS THAT HENRY LEE LOOKS AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND CAN TELL
THERE ARE IMPRINTS WALKING IN THE BACK.
THEY HAVE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAY NOT EVEN
KNOW ABOUT. I MEAN, MAY BE PARTLY INADVERTENCE, PARTLY MAY BE
NEGLIGENCE, PARTLY MAY BE HIDING IT, BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO MR.
SIMPSON. WE CANNOT GO ANY FURTHER WITHOUT THIS.
THE COURT: SO SPECIFICALLY -- LET ME JUST -- LET'S JUST
GET BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL WHAT YOU'RE ASKING HERE FOR.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THEN IS TO MAKE
INQUIRY OF DETECTIVE PURDY REGARDING THIS LOG AND HIS
RECOLLECTION; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, WE WANT TO DO THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND WHAT ELSE SPECIFICALLY?
MR. COCHRAN: WE WANT -- ASSUMING THE THINGS THAT MISS
COLEMAN HAS INDICATED, WE WANT TO LOOK AT --
THE COURT: BECAUSE THE INTERESTING -- I MEAN, THE EVIDENCE
THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO YOU AND YOUR CLIENT WOULD BE
OBSERVATIONS, DIRECT OBSERVATIONS BY ANOTHER LAPD OFFICER,
SUPPOSEDLY PURDY OR MAXWELL, REGARDING RELEVANT MISCONDUCT OR
RACIAL ANIMOSITY BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: AND ESPECIALLY -- AND IT ALSO BECOMES VERY
RELEVANT IF THE PROSECUTION KNEW ABOUT THIS EARLY ON BECAUSE THEY
EMBRACED THIS WITNESS. AND SO WE HAVE -- THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD
STARTING POINT. PURDY, COLEMAN IF NECESSARY. WE HAVE HER
DECLARATION.
THE COURT: WELL, COLEMAN IS INTERESTING ONLY BECAUSE SHE'S
THE HEARSAY SOURCE FOR, YOU KNOW, "SOMEBODY TOLD ME THAT FUHRMAN
SAID THIS."
MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. OR FUHRMAN DID THIS --
THE COURT: SHE DIRECTS THE INQUIRY, BUT SHE'S NOT
FIRSTHAND.
MR. COCHRAN: SEE, JUDGE, THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU RECALL --
AND I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE THIS FOR YOU. WHAT WE GET FROM YOU IS A
LITTLE REDACTED THING. EVERYTHING'S ALL CUT OUT, YOU KNOW. AND
SO YOU MAY WANT TO GO BACK YOURSELF AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
WE WANT THOUGH PURDY, MAXWELL, ARNESON, WE WANT ALL
THOSE PEOPLE UNDER OATH. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE WANT THEM
UNDER OATH. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRUST WHAT THEY TELL US. WE'RE
NOT GOING TO TRUST THEM. WE WANT THEM UNDER OATH. AND WE THINK
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS
MOTION UP NOW.
YOU KNOW THE WITNESSES. I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR
THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF THE WITNESSES I HAVE AT THE END. BUT WE
HAVE -- AND SO THERE'S NO SECRET ABOUT THAT.
BUT IN VIEW OF YOUR HONOR'S RULING AND WHAT YOU'VE
CUT OUT OF WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO, WE HAVE TO -- WE CANNOT GO
FORWARD UNTIL WE PURSUE THESE THING. AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
DO THAT.
SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE DON'T MIND WORKING EVERY
DAY. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A HEARING AND HAVE THESE OFFICERS HERE
TOMORROW, WE'LL BE HERE. YOU WANT TO HAVE IT TONIGHT, WE'LL BE
HERE. YOU WANT TO HAVE IT SUNDAY MORNING AFTER I GO TO CHURCH,
WE'LL BE HERE.
BUT THE QUESTION IS, LET'S -- LET'S GET IT ON. BUT I
THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS. AND AS SOON AS WE CAN, I WANT TO
TAKE A BREAK BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK TO MR. MUNGER ALSO AS I
INDICATED TO THE COURT. THAT'S ANOTHER THING WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGMAN.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE TO CONFESS I'M A MIGHT
PERPLEXED BY THE DEFENSE BRINGING A MOTION AT THIS PARTICULAR
TIME.
AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, I
BROUGHT THESE MATTERS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT. THE COURT
REVIEWED IN CAMERA A VARIETY OF MATERIAL. I'M NOT SURE WHAT
MATERIAL, BUT PRESUMABLY STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES INVOLVED AND
VARIOUS TAPES.
THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER ON MARCH THE 8TH, 1995,
DIRECTING THAT THESE MATERIALS BE GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE. THE
DEFENSE HAD THESE WITNESSES' NAMES APPARENTLY AND IS QUITE
OBVIOUS. THEY'VE INTERVIEWED MISS COLEMAN. THEY'VE HAD OFFICER
PURDY'S NAME, DETECTIVE MAXWELL AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE'S
NAMES PER THE COURT'S ORDER SINCE MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AND I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE NOW.
I PRESUME THAT THE COURT WILL MAKE INQUIRY OF THE
DEFENSE, HAVE THEY INTERVIEWED DETECTIVE PURDY OR OFFICER PURDY,
HAVE THEY INTERVIEWED DETECTIVE MAXWELL.
THE COURT: THEY INDICATED NO, THEY HAVE NOT.
MR. HODGMAN: WELL, THEY RAISE THIS NOW. THEY INDICATE
THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE A SATURDAY SESSION IN ORDER TO PURSUE THESE
MATTERS.
WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN WITH THIS INFORMATION FOR THE
LAST FIVE MONTHS? I BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT
LAST FEBRUARY. THIS INFORMATION WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE DEFENSE
BEFORE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EVEN TESTIFIED.
SO I ASK THE COURT TO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AS
THEY REVIEW THIS MOTION. BUT THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THESE
MATERIALS. APPARENTLY THEY'VE HAD TAPES, THEY'VE HAD REDACTED
REPORTS THAT THE COURT PROVIDED TO THEM.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE NOW FILING
THIS MOTION. I CAN SUSPECT CERTAIN THINGS, BUT I LEAVE THAT
UNSTATED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, WOULD YOU PROVIDE TO THE COURT A COPY OF
THE REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED?
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL. I JUST ASKED MR. DOUGLAS.
APPARENTLY IT'S IN MY OFFICE. I'M GOING TO HAVE IT BROUGHT DOWN
HERE AS SOON AS I CAN. HE'S GOING TO CALL AND GET IT DOWN.
LET ME JUST RESPOND BRIEFLY TO MR. HODGMAN'S
QUESTION.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU'LL FIND -- AND I DON'T
RECALL EVER SEEING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS LOG UNTIL MISS COLEMAN
TOLD US ABOUT THE LOG KEPT OF FUHRMAN'S ACTIVITIES. ALSO, YOUR
HONOR, AS LUCIENNE COLEMAN WILL TELL YOU --
THE COURT: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I
ASKED IF YOU WOULD PRODUCE THOSE MATERIALS, BECAUSE MY
RECOLLECTION OF READING THOSE MATERIALS WAS THAT THE LOG WAS
MENTIONED AND THAT PURDY'S DESIRE NOT TO GET DRAGGED INTO THIS
CASE WAS APPARENT FROM THE STATEMENT OF MISS COLEMAN.
BUT BE THAT AS IT -- LET ME SEE WHAT'S THERE, AND
THEN WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THAT POINT.
MR. COCHRAN: LET'S DO THAT.
THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE
COURT, I MEAN, IT'S THE HEIGHT OF NAIVETE TO STAND HERE AND SAY
THAT -- WE'VE BEEN TOLD PURDY IS GOING TO LIE. HE TELLS THE D.A.
HE'S GOING TO LIE, DEPUTY D.A. LUCIENNE COLEMAN -- HE'S REALLY
GOING TO TELL US THE TRUTH.
THE QUESTION IS, IF HE'S GOING TO LIE, YOU KNOW, WE
NEED HIM UNDER OATH. WE'VE SEEN OTHER -- WE KNOW THAT FUHRMAN
HAS LIED. AND WE NEED HIM UNDER OATH. THIS WHOLE THING HAS
BROUGHT OUT THE WORST IN THESE PEOPLE AND WE NEED TO GET THEM
UNDER OATH AND SEE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING.
AND SO WE CAN'T BE HELD TO THAT STANDARD. I MEAN, WE
KNOW ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. ARE WE GOING TO GO OVER TO THE STATION
AND TALK TO ARNESON? THEY'D STONEWALL IA AND IA TAKES THIS
HOSTILE TONE TOWARD THIS ONE WITNESS WHO IS TRYING TO TELL THE
TRUTH AND SAYS GETS THIS STUFF OUT. IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. THAT'S
THE POINT.
THE COURT: GIVE ME THE STUFF.
MR. COCHRAN: I'LL GET IT FOR YOU.
CERTAINLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I THINK THAT WRAPS IT UP AT THIS POINT AS FAR
AS ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THE THING WE NEED TO ADDRESS FIRST IS WHETHER
OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING.
THE COURT'S PREVIOUS RULING REGARDING KATHLEEN BELL
WAS THAT HER TESTIMONY WAS RELEVANT FOR THIS REASON. WE HAVE A
UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MET MR. SIMPSON AND
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN 1985, THAT MR. FUHRMAN IS AGAIN IN
CONTACT INDIRECTLY WITH THE DEFENDANT IN 1989 AT THE REQUEST OF
THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A STATEMENT
REGARDING THE 1985 INCIDENT.
MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT STATEMENT THAT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN PROVIDED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR USE IN THE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROSECUTION WAS THAT IT WAS AN INCIDENT THAT
WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED UPON HIS MEMORY OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.
THEN WE HAVE THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE IN 1994 OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN THEN BEING BROUGHT TO -- BROUGHT INTO THIS CASE, BEING
CALLED OUT FROM HIS HOME AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR.
SO WE HAVE THAT UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE FIRST. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS CAUCASIAN AND THAT MR.
SIMPSON IS AFRICAN AMERICAN.
THE OFFER OF PROOF AS TO KATHLEEN BELL WAS THAT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN HER PRESENCE AND DIRECTLY TO HER, MADE A
STATEMENT THAT WAS INDICATIVE OF RACIAL ANIMUS, THAT WAS
INDICATIVE OF CONTEMPT OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND WAS INDICATIVE
OF A WILLINGNESS TO HARASS AND UNLAWFULLY DETAIN INTERRACIAL
COUPLES BECAUSE OF THAT FACT. AND I INDICATED AT THAT TIME THAT
I FELT THAT THAT WAS A SUFFICIENT UNUSUAL AND UNIQUE COMBINATION
OF EVENTS TO MAKE KATHLEEN BELL'S TESTIMONY RELEVANT.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT FINDING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT IN FACT REFER TO AFRICAN AMERICANS IN A
-- WITH A PARTICULAR RACIAL EPITAPH, AND IT APPEARS THAT THE
OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING MR. HODGE DOES INDICATE THAT HE WAS
ARRESTED BY MR. FUHRMAN, THAT MR. FUHRMAN REFERRED TO HIM IN A
RACIALLY DISPARAGING WAY AND MADE TWO COMMENTS TO HIM THAT ARE
DISPARAGING IN NATURE AND USING THE PARTICULAR RACIAL EPITAPH IN
QUESTION.
SO THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE DIRECT IMPEACHMENT
EVIDENCE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. SO I THINK THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT
BASIS, A BASIS INDEPENDENT OF MISS BELL, THE ISSUE BEING, ARE YOU
AVAILABLE -- ARE YOU READY TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. HODGE.
MR. DARDEN: I'VE NEVER GOTTEN THE DISCOVERY TO
CROSS-EXAMINE MR. HODGE ON THIS ISSUE. I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS
STUFF FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THE COURT: IS THERE A STATEMENT?
MR. BAILEY: INVESTIGATORS' NOTES ARE THE ONLY THING THAT
WAS EVER TAKEN DOWN. THEY WERE TURNED OVER OTHER THAN THE
ATTORNEY INTERVIEW. THAT'S IT.
MR. DARDEN: NOT ONLY AM I NOT BEING ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PREPARE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS --
THE COURT: WAIT. DO YOU HAVE -- DID YOU HAVE THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF MR. HODGE?
MR. DARDEN: DO I HAVE A NAME AND ADDRESS FOR MR. HODGE?
YES, IN CHICAGO, SOME PLACE IN ILLINOIS.
THE COURT: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO INTERVIEW MR. HODGE?
MR. DARDEN: NO, I DID NOT. MR. HODGE -- I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT MR. HODGE, HIS NAME
CAME UP IN OUR DISCUSSIONS BACK IN JANUARY IF I RECOLLECT
CORRECTLY.
MR. DARDEN: I THINK HIS NAME CAME UP IN APRIL FRANKLY AND
HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A 352 MOTION AND HEARING FILED BY THE
PROSECUTION AND ARGUED BY CHERIE LEWIS. THE COURT SAID HE
COULDN'T TESTIFY. SO WHY WOULD I GO OUT AND INTERVIEW HIM,
JUDGE?
THE COURT: UNTIL KATHLEEN BELL HAD TESTIFIED.
MR. DARDEN: THE COURT THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE THAT THERE MIGHT
BE A 352 ISSUE, IT MIGHT BE CUMULATIVE.
THE COURT: WELL, KATHLEEN BELL HASN'T TESTIFIED AND MR.
HODGE HAS TESTIMONY WITH REGARDS TO THE -- THAT IS DIRECTLY
IMPEACHING.
MR. DARDEN: WE ARE JUST GOING TO ACCEPT MR. BAILEY'S --
THE COURT: WELL, IS MR. HODGE HERE?
MR. BAILEY: HE IS HERE. SO IS MISS SINGER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO TALK TO MR.
DARDEN.
MR. BAILEY: SURE.
MR. DARDEN: SO THE COURT'S PRIOR RULING IS OUT THE DOOR, I
DON'T GET TO ARGUE IT, I DON'T GET TO PREPARE. WE JUST JAM THE
PROSECUTION AND PUT THIS MAN UP HERE AND HAVE HIM TESTIFY IN
FRONT OF THE JURY, JUDGE?
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, IF YOU'VE KNOWN ABOUT HIM FOR
FIVE MONTHS AND YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO INTERVIEW HIM, THAT'S A
PROBLEM, I AGREE.
MR. DARDEN: YOU SAID HE WASN'T GOING TO BE A WITNESS.
THE COURT: UNTIL KATHLEEN BELL HAD TESTIFIED.
ALL RIGHT.
THE OFFER OF PROOF THAT I'VE HEARD HERE TODAY IS THAT
HE HAS DIRECT IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY. WE MAY NOT SEE KATHLEEN
BELL.
MR. DARDEN: SO THE COURT --
MR. BAILEY: IS YOUR HONOR SUGGESTING THAT KATHLEEN BELL
WOULDN'T COME TO COURT AS I PROMISED YOU SHE WOULD?
THE COURT: NO. NO. I JUST SAID WE MAY NOT SEE HER
TESTIFY. YOU MAY MAKE A TACTICAL DECISION AFTER CERTAIN
WITNESSES ARE CALLED NOT TO CALL HER. I DON'T KNOW.
MR. BAILEY: I WANT YOU TO BET YOUR LIFE ON THE FACT THAT
THAT DECISION WILL NOT BE MADE.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE A 402 ON THIS WITNESS'
TESTIMONY NOW. ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT TODAY? I HAVE TWO BOXES
OF MATERIAL ON MR. HODGE. HOW MUCH TIME WILL I GET TO PREPARE?
MR. COCHRAN: HE SAID HE WAS READY.
MR. BAILEY: HE PROMISED A MINI TRIAL. LET'S HAVE IT.
MR. DARDEN: YEAH, THERE WILL BE A MINI TRIAL.
THE COURT: THERE ARE NO MINI TRIALS. WHAT WE'LL DO IS --
WE'VE HAD TWO REQUESTS NOW FOR A RECESS FOR MR. COCHRAN TO TALK
TO MR. MUNGER. AND, MR. BAILEY, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO MAKE
MR. HODGE AND MISS SINGER AVAILABLE TO MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. I
APOLOGIZE. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE HODGE AND SINGER AS WELL?
THE COURT: AT LEAST MR. HODGE.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN: AND THEY'RE GOING TO TESTIFY --
THE COURT: THEY MAY WELL.
MR. DARDEN: -- POTENTIALLY TESTIFY TODAY?
THE COURT: UNLESS YOU CAN TELL ME A GOOD REASON WHY, SINCE
YOU'VE KNOWN ABOUT THEM, THAT YOU'RE NOT READY.
MR. DARDEN: BECAUSE YOU SAID THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE A
WITNESS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT RULED THAT THEIR
TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
FIFTEEN.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE 20 MINUTES?
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT
PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH MR. MUNGER?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, I DID, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE -- YES. LET
ME APPROACH THE MIKE.
YES. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
WE WERE ABLE TO TALK TO HIM OVER IN DEPARTMENT 104.
NOT AS MUCH TIME AS WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE OBVIOUSLY, SO
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION AFTER THIS IS OVER THIS
EVENING OBVIOUSLY WITH MR. MUNGER.
BUT WITH REGARD TO MR. HODGE AND MISS SINGER, THEY
ARE PRESENT AND WE CAN PROCEED NOW WITH MR. HODGE IF THE COURT
PLEASES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'LL HEAR FROM MR. DARDEN.
AND, COUNSEL, JUST SO WE'RE STRAIGHT, I WENT BACK AND
REVIEWED THE RECORD REGARDING OUR DISCUSSIONS REGARDING HODGE AND
SINGER, AND THAT WAS AFTER THE COURT HAD MADE ITS RULING ON
TERRY AND BELL INDICATING THAT IT WAS PREMATURE TO MAKE A RULING
AS TO HODGE AND SINGER BECAUSE THE OBJECTION WAS ALSO 352,
CUMULATIVE, AND THAT THE COURT WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE
A RULING ON THAT UNTIL -- UNLESS AND UNTIL I HEARD THE TESTIMONY
OF BELL AND TERRY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE I AM AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, HAVING
NO INDICATION, NO FIRM INDICATION THAT THESE WITNESSES WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW MR.
HODGE AND MISS SINGER?
MR. DARDEN: MR. HODGE REFUSES TO SPEAK WITH US. HE IS
HERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL FROM ILLINOIS AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
WHOM I HAVE NOT MET AS WELL.
I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO MISS SINGER. I
WAS ATTEMPTING TO GATHER MY DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HODGE, A DISCOVERY PROBLEM
THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP WITH THE COURT. ALSO, WE HAVE A
FOUNDATIONAL MATTER AS I THINK -- AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I'D LIKE
A 402 --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE DISCOVERY?
MR. DARDEN: THE PROSECUTION FILED ITS 352 MOTION ON JULY
14, 1995 AS IT RELATED TO MR. HODGE, AND WE INCLUDED IN THAT
MOTION A COPY OF THE DISCOVERY WE WERE GIVEN AS IT RELATED TO
ROGER HODGE. NOWHERE IN THAT DISCOVERY FROM WHAT I CAN DISCERN
--
I SHOULD MENTION THAT THESE ARE HANDWRITTEN NOTES.
THEY ARE DIFFICULT -- SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO READ. I ONLY HAVE A
XEROX COPY. THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT WERE CUT OFF OR CUT OFF
DURING THE XEROXING AND I COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS ON MORE THAN ONE
OCCASION TO THE COURT AND ON THE RECORD.
AT ANY EVENT, NOWHERE IN THIS DISCOVERY IS THERE ANY
MENTION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHILE TRANSPORTING THIS MAN TO
THE POLICE STATION, TURNED TO HIM AND MENTIONED ANY RACIAL
EPITAPH. AND THIS IS A DOCUMENT OR REPORT I ASSUME WAS PREPARED
BY EITHER MR. BAILEY HIMSELF OR A DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR. AND SO
WE ARE SURPRISED TODAY TO HEAR OF THIS ADDITIONAL ALLEGATION.
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION THOUGH IS THAT IN OUR
DISCUSSION BACK IN MARCH OF 1995, THAT MR. BAILEY DID IN FACT
MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING MR. HODGE AND THAT THAT OFFER OF
PROOF DID INCLUDE THAT FIRST PORTION.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: PERHAPS MR. BLASIER CAN FIND THAT. I'M LOOKING
SOMEWHERE ON 18599.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
CAN MR. HODGE BE ASKED TO STEP OUTSIDE?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IS MR. HODGE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGE, WOULD YOU STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM,
PLEASE?
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS AN OFFER OF PROOF ON
JULY 27TH, 39039.
THE COURT: JULY 27TH?
MR. BLASIER: YES.
MR. BAILEY: PRECISE LANGUAGE, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK IS
IN THERE. --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS CORRECT. 39039 STARTING AT LINE 8.
DO YOU HAVE THAT, MR. --
MR. DARDEN: I SEE THAT NOW, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE. NOT
HAVING A MOMENT TO PREPARE FOR THIS, I OVERLOOKED THAT.
WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE --
THE COURT: WELL, HERE'S -- LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MY DILEMMA
IS.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO GET
PREPARED, I AGREE. I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO THIS
JURY TODAY.
THE JURY I'M TOLD ARE NOT HAPPY CAMPERS. APPARENTLY
THEY CAME BACK FROM CATALINA BARKING AT THE SEALS. THAT'S A
SEAMAN'S TERM, A FISHERMAN'S TERM, "BARKING AT THE SEALS." IT'S
BEING SEASICK.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, IT'S NOT OUR FAULT --
THE COURT: NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. DARDEN: -- THE DEFENSE HAS NO WITNESSES.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU CAN
ACCOMMODATE ME AND GET READY ON SOME OF THIS THOUGH.
BUT THE DILEMMA THAT YOU POSED AND THE DILEMMA THAT
WE CREATE IS THAT BY CALLING MR. HODGE FIRST, THAT MAY MAKE BELL
CUMULATIVE. SO I MEAN THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE IN.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SUGGEST SOMETHING?
CERTAINLY WE DON'T INTEND TO MAKE BELL CUMULATIVE.
WE DON'T THINK ANY -- YOUR HONOR, LET ME JUST SAY THIS. IF YOU
HAVE 69 -- 60 -- SO MANY I CAN HARDLY REMEMBER -- 61 INCIDENTS ON
TAPE WHICH WE NO LONGER HAVE, 59 HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT, AND WE
HAVE SOME LIVE WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: THAT'S NOT CORRECT, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I READ YOUR ORDER, YOUR HONOR, AND WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT ORDER, THERE ARE SOME PARTS THAT ARE
INCOHERENT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION OF THAT
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT SOMETIME TODAY, IF
POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE EXPECT PERHAPS IN A MOTION IN
RECONSIDERATION ON TUESDAY TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE CERTAIN PARTS
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID THAT'S NOT CORRECT. SO MAYBE
WE'RE STILL ENTITLED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT IS NOT TOTALLY
CLEAR THAT WE CAN DO. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE INDICATING?
THE COURT: NO. MY ORDER IS VERY CLEAR.
MR. COCHRAN: NOT TO US, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, MAYBE IT'S -- WELL --
MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT CLEAR TO US. LET ME MAKE THAT
CLEAR.
BUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, WE HAVE MISS SINGER
HERE. WHY DON'T WE START OFF -- I HAVEN'T HEARD A COMPLAINT
ABOUT MISS SINGER. LET'S START BY CALLING MISS SINGER.
WE DON'T WANT -- BY CALLING SINGER AND HODGE, WE'RE
NOT SAYING THIS -- WE DON'T WANT TO BE DUPED BY ANYTHING WHERE
LATER THAN TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY, YOU SAY, WELL, YOU CALLED THEM.
NOW YOU CAN'T CALL KATHLEEN BELL AND TERRY.
THE COURT: I'M WARNING YOU, COUNSEL, I'M JUST BEING -- I
TOLD -- THIS ISSUE WE BROUGHT UP VERY EARLY, THAT HODGE AND
SINGER OR ANYBODY ELSE MIGHT BE CUMULATIVE AFTER TERRY AND BELL
BECAUSE IT IS A COLLATERAL ISSUE AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IT
GETS TO BE REDUNDANT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL --
THE COURT: SO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU THE TESTIMONY OF
BELL, TERRY, MC KINNEY. MC KINNEY CAN COME IN AND TESTIFY THAT
SHE INTERVIEWED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OVER THIS NINE-YEAR PERIOD,
THAT SHE TAPE-RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED THESE CONVERSATIONS, THAT
DURING THE COURSE OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, ON 41 OCCASIONS THAT
SHE CAN DOCUMENT, HE REFERRED TO AFRICAN AMERICANS WITH A RACIAL
EPITAPH IN A NEGATIVE AND DISPARAGING MANNER, TWO EXAMPLES OF
WHICH ARE X AND Y, AND THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT -- AND THAT THE
SUBPLOT OF THIS PARTICULAR SCREENPLAY WAS NOT -- THE RACIAL
ANIMOSITY WAS NOT A SUBPLOT. THAT'S WHAT SHE CAN DO.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, LET ME JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION
REGARDING THAT.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH IS THAT THE FACT
THAT THE TWO INSTANCES YOU PICKED -- FIRST OF ALL, YOU PICKED AN
INSTANCE ON THE TAPE THAT YOU CAN HARDLY HEAR THE WORD. WE DON'T
THINK THAT'S FAIR. THE TWO MORE INNOCUOUS INSTANCES, WE DON'T
THINK THAT'S FAIR. HOW -- MAY I ASK HOW COULD YOU ARRIVE AT JUST
THESE TWO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WE'RE NOT REVISITING THAT AT THIS
POINT. THE POINT IS, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IT BECOMES
CUMULATIVE.
SO YOU WILL HAVE -- IN THE RECORD, AFTER BELL, TERRY
AND MC KINNEY, YOU WILL HAVE THREE WITNESSES THAT MAY DETERMINE
-- THAT YOU CAN REASONABLY ARGUE FROM THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS,
A, A LIAR AND, B, A RACIST.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: AND THAT IS A COLLATERAL ISSUE.
MR. COCHRAN: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THEN, IF YOU WANT TO BRING IN
HODGE AND SINGER ON A COLLATERAL ISSUE, AT SOME POINT IN TIME,
IT'S GOING TO BE CUMULATIVE. IF YOU MAKE A TACTICAL JUDGMENT WHO
YOU WANT TO BRING ON FIRST, WHO YOU WANT TO BRING ON SECOND,
THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. BUT THE CARDS ARE ON THE TABLE. WE
ALL KNOW WHO THE WITNESSES ARE. BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME,
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, YOU JUST FINISHED TELLING US HOW THE
JURORS CAME BACK BARKING AT SEALS, YOU WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE
TODAY. WE'VE INDICATED TO YOU --
THESE WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR, ALL LIVE OUT OF STATE
NOW. WE'RE BRINGING THESE PEOPLE BACK ALL AT HIS EXPENSE.
NOBODY IS PAYING FOR THIS EXCEPT MR. SIMPSON.
SO WE HAVE TWO WITNESSES THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE
WEDNESDAY IN AN EFFORT TO FINISH THIS CASE. SO WE SAY TO YOU AS
AN OFFER OF PROOF THIS MORNING WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE AVAILABLE.
WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE COURT. WE WERE
SITTING FOR TWO DAYS FOR THIS ORDER. NOW, YOU SAY TO US WELL,
YOU MAKE A TACTICAL DECISION.
TERRY AND BELL, YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID WE COULD CALL.
THE OTHER TWO WE THINK ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. REASONABLE MINDS
MAY DIFFER ABOUT WHAT IS COLLATERAL. AND PERHAPS WHEN YOU HEAR
THE ARGUMENT --
THE COURT: I'M JUST TELLING -- MR. COCHRAN, UNDERSTAND
WHAT I'M SAYING.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
THE COURT: IT MIGHT MAKE THE SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES
REDUNDANT. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I DON'T KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, LET ME SAY THIS, YOUR
HONOR. YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL ULTIMATELY KNOW THAT.
IT WILL NEVER BE REDUNDANT TO US BECAUSE WE THINK
WHEN WE HAVE THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AGAINST THIS MAN HAVING
PERJURED HIMSELF AND BEING A RACIST AND THIS MAN BEING A KEY
WITNESS IN THIS CASE, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW THIS.
I JUST REMIND THE COURT THAT WE HAVE BEEN SIX WEEKS,
THEY HAVE BEEN SIX MONTHS, AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO MR. SIMPSON THAT
ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE HAVE TO RUSH THROUGH EVERYTHING NOW WHEN WE
GET TO THE END OF THE CASE. NOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE
WEREN'T -- THE OTHER SIX MONTHS, THEY WERE PUTTING THEIR CASE ON.
AND SO I'D ASK THE COURT TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU MAKE THESE
KINDS OF JUDGMENTS.
WE WANT TO GET THIS CASE TO THE JURY ALSO. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR OUR CLIENT TO GET A FAIR
TRIAL ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, JUDGE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO.
SO I MEAN, SO YOU PUT US IN THIS QUANDARY. WE COME
TO YOU AND SAY WE GOT THESE TWO PEOPLE HERE. THEY'RE HERE FROM
-- ONE IS FROM -- THEY'RE BOTH FROM BACK EAST, WAY BACK EAST.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE SCENARIO THAT YOU SET FOR ME WAS
THAT MISS MC KINNEY WAS GOING TO TESTIFY NEXT.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. AND THEN -- BUT
THEN WE GOT YOUR ORDER LAST NIGHT AT 4:30 OR SO. WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT ORDER CLEARLY. WE'RE GOING TO OBVIOUSLY BE ASKING
YOU TO RECONSIDER THAT ORDER. WE ARE GOING TO POINT OUT TO YOU
-- YOU MAY THINK IT'S CLEAR -- WHERE IT'S NOT CLEAR. WE PLAN TO
DO THAT FOR EARLY TUESDAY MORNING. WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU --
THE COURT: WELL, I JUST EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK THAT AMONG US, WE STILL HAVE
SOME DIFFICULT WITH IT AND WE STILL WOULD ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER
CERTAIN ASPECTS.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO MC KINNEY, IF WE ARE TOLD -- LET
ME JUST SAY THIS ONE THING, IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT IN THIS
CASE IS MISLEADING THE JURY. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE BE PART OF
YOUR ORDER AND PLAY THOSE TWO INSTANCES THAT, "I GREW UP IN
WASHINGTON WHERE THERE WERE NO BLANK WORDS," THE OTHER THING,
"THAT'S WHERE THEY LIVE," WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE BLACK MUSLIMS?
THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENS.
THIS MAN HAS BEEN PAINTED AS A CHOIR BOY, YOUR HONOR,
TO THIS JURY AND THE JURY ULTIMATELY MAKES THE DECISION. WE'RE
NOW LEFT WITH -- SURE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT 41 REFERENCES, BUT YOU
PICKED INSTANCES WHERE IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO SHOW WHAT HE'S DONE
AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE A REAL
PROBLEM WITH. WE DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT
I'M SAYING.
THE TWO INSTANCES -- AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PICKED
THEM -- THOSE ARE NOT THE INSTANCES THAT WE THINK ARE
APPROPRIATE, NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE 18 THINGS OF MISCONDUCT ON A
THEORY THAT IS -- THE PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE
PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE NOW EXCEPT TO SAY WHEN YOU
MAKE THAT KIND OF BLANKET ORDER IN THIS KIND OF A CASE WHERE
PERHAPS NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CRIMINAL JURIST PRUDENCE
HAS THERE BEEN THIS LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT OUT OF SOMEBODY'S MOUTH,
THAT CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR THE DEFENSE. I THINK YOU MIGHT
UNDERSTAND THAT AND YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND THAT WE STAND BEFORE
YOU TODAY NOT HAVING A LOT OF SLEEP --
THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. THIS IS
NOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AT THIS POINT.
MR. COCHRAN: NO.
THE COURT: YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M JUST ALERTING YOU THAT'S HAPPENING ON
MONDAY -- ON TUESDAY.
THE COURT: I EXPECT THAT. YOU ALSO CAN WALK DOWN THE
STREET A BLOCK AND A HALF AND GO TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IF YOU
DON'T LIKE THE RULING. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.
MR. COCHRAN: WE UNDERSTAND OUR REMEDIES. BUT WE GOT THE
ORDER LAST NIGHT AT 4:30 OR SO, JUDGE, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY
TO YOU.
I HAVE WITNESSES HERE AND WE ARE PREPARED TO PUT THEM
ON. AND THEN YOU SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. IF YOU PUT THEM ON,
YOU MIGHT RUN INTO CUMULATIVE. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT, JUDGE.
THE COURT: THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE
ARGUMENT. I'M JUST WARNING YOU THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
THAT'S ALL I'M DOING. YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, CALL THEM.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW --
THE COURT: WERE THESE PEOPLE ON YOUR WITNESS LIST?
MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY. THEY'VE BEEN TOLD -- WE GAVE
THEM TO THEM LAST SATURDAY.
MR. DARDEN: WE WERE TOLD THAT THE LAST WITNESSES WERE
GOING TO BE BLASINI, GOBERN AND MENZIONE AND WITH MC KINNEY AHEAD
OF THOSE. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
IT'S FRIDAY, IT'S A SHORT DAY. SO OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD
NOT BE WASTING OUR TIME PREPARING FOR HODGE AND SINGER. AND, OF
COURSE, THE PROSECUTION HAD NO IDEA AS TO WHAT THE COURT WOULD
RULE ON THE MC KINNEY ISSUE. SO WE HAD TO PREPARE ON ALL 41
INCIDENTS.
BUT MY POINT HERE IS, AGAIN, WHY ARE WE BEING JAMMED
THIS WAY JUST BECAUSE --
THE COURT: YOU'RE BEING JAMMED BECAUSE I GOT A JURY THAT'S
GOING NUTS. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BEING JAMMED.
MR. DARDEN: THEY'RE HOLDING YOU HOSTAGE, US HOSTAGE AND
THE JURY HOSTAGE AS WELL.
THE COURT: NO. NO. BUT YOU'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS WITNESS
FOR A LONG TIME, MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: AND THE NEXT REPRESENTATION I WANT TO MAKE TO
THE COURT ABOUT THIS WITNESS IS THAT THE DISCOVERY WE HAVE IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH MR. BAILEY'S REPRESENTATIONS. IF THERE ARE OTHER
REPORTS, OTHER STATEMENTS TO INVESTIGATORS, OTHER NOTES THAT IS
RELATED TO HODGE AND SINGER, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT DISCOVERY?
MR. DOUGLAS, WHO HANDLES ALL OUR DISCOVERY, GAVE THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ALL OF OUR REMAINING WITNESSES LAST SATURDAY.
THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT ALL THESE WITNESSES. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
ABSOLUTELY CALLED, GAVE THEM NOTICE LAST SATURDAY. HE'S RIGHT
HERE.
AND SO THEY'RE KNOWN ABOUT IT. THIS IS JUST A -- WE
NEED OBVIOUSLY A MOMENT TO CAUCUS WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOUR
HONOR'S INDICATED BECAUSE -- YOUR HONOR, IT'S NOT JUST US, IT'S
MR. SIMPSON. SO I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MY CLIENT.
MR. DARDEN: WHY DO THEY NEED A MINUTE TO CAUCUS? 352'S
BEEN IN THE EVIDENCE CODE FOR 50 YEARS. I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUS
THAT AT SOME POINT, ISSUES BECOME CUMULATIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: MY REMARKS ARE DIRECTED TO YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: YEAH. THEY SHOULD BE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, GUYS, WE'RE GETTING --
MR. BAILEY: CAN I PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: BRIEFLY.
MR. BAILEY: YES.
YOU HAD ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH MISS SINGER. MISS SINGER RECEIVED A
CALL FROM MR. PELLICANO, WHO INDICATED HE WAS WORKING WITH THE
PROSECUTION LAST MARCH.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS UNTRUE.
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. MR. DARDEN, DON'T INTERRUPT MR.
BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: AS A RESULT OF WHICH SHE HIRED AN ATTORNEY IN
NASHVILLE. HE AFFILIATED AN ATTORNEY HERE. SHE HAS BEEN
PREPARED TO TALK WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF HER
ATTORNEY SINCE THEN.
TODAY IS THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE EVER ASKED, NO. 1.
NO. 2, ON SUGGESTING THAT WE RUN THE RISK BY CALLING THESE TWO
WITNESSES ON THIS ONE POINT OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL LATER ON --
EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.
THE COURT: WAIT, MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE --
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I AM GOING TO INSTRUCT YOU NOT TO
INTERRUPT MR. BAILEY AGAIN ON PAIN OF BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT. DO
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE --
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
THAT YOU REMEMBER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF BELL AND TERRY. THEY ARE
COMPLETELY SEPARATE. THEY WERE BROUGHT IN BY THE PROSECUTION AT
THE OPENING OF FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, AND THE ISSUE AS TO THEM IS
NOT RACISM. IT'S WHETHER FUHRMAN LIED WHEN HE SAID HE DIDN'T
EVEN KNOW THEM, BECAUSE IF THE JURY CONCLUDES THAT THAT WAS A
LIE, THEY CERTAINLY WILL ACCEPT THAT HE MADE THE REMARKS THEY
ATTRIBUTE TO HIM.
THAT IS A BOX THEY BUILT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO
CUMULATIVELY EXCLUDE WITNESSES WHO DIRECTLY IMPEACH FUHRMAN WHO
LIED IN A CAPITAL CASE WHICH UNDER ALASKA V. DAVIS IS NOT
COLLATERAL.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: I'M JUST WONDERING IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO
ARGUE THE 352 ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE. I MEAN, YOU ISSUED A RULING
ON THIS YESTERDAY.
AS FAR AS HODGE AND SINGER ARE CONCERNED, WHAT DO YOU
WANT US TO DO? YOU WANT TO JAM US, JUDGE, PUT THEM ON. LET'S
GET ON WITH THE TRIAL THEN.
THE COURT: ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED WITH THEM?
MR. DARDEN: AM I READY? NO, I'M NOT READY. FRANKLY, I
DON'T FEEL I'M COMPETENT TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THIS MORNING AS IT RELATES TO MR. HODGE, BUT --
THE COURT: HOW LONG IS THIS TESTIMONY GOING TO TAKE?
MR. BAILEY: EACH WITNESS IS PROBABLY GOOD FOR 10 MINUTES,
15 ON DIRECT.
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID ABOUT FUHRMAN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I DON'T SEE THERE'S ANY CHANCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE --
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE JURY DOWN, I DON'T SEE ANY
CHANCE WE ARE GOING TO FINISH MORE THAN THE DIRECT THIS MORNING.
MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HEAR WHAT MR. HODGE'S TESTIMONY IS
EXPECTED TO BE?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. DARDEN: CAN ME HAVE A 402? CAN WE HEAR WHAT IT IS HE
IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO?
THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE HAD AN OFFER OF PROOF.
MR. BAILEY: WE HAVE.
MR. DARDEN: THERE'S NO RECORDS TO SUPPORT THAT, JUDGE.
MR. BAILEY: PAGE 39039.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO --
THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. I NEED TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH MR. HODGE'S DIRECT TESTIMONY.
WE WILL NOT COMPLETE THAT THIS MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I DO ONE OTHER THING, YOUR HONOR?
OBVIOUSLY -- TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY TO THE COURT.
IF YOU -- IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT BY CALLING
HODGE, YOU WILL NOT LET US CALL KATHLEEN BELL -- THEY'RE ALL
FLYING IN THIS WEEKEND -- I'VE GOT TO DISCUSS THAT WITH MR.
SIMPSON, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T JUST DO THIS JUST TO ACCOMMODATE
THEM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING ON THAT?
ALSO, THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT HODGE'S TESTIMONY
I SHOULD INDICATE AS AN OFFER OF PROOF. I TALKED TO HIM DURING
THE BREAK. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- PUT ON THE RECORD.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT?
MR. COCHRAN: THAT -- AND I'M NOT SURE THE ORIGINAL OFFER
OF PROOF CONTAINED ALL THIS.
MR. HODGE WILL TESTIFY THAT HE HAD NUMEROUS CONTACTS
WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BETWEEN 1985 AND 1987, THAT IN ADDITION TO
THESE NUMEROUS CONTACTS, HE MADE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WITH
INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW HE'S BEEN HARASSED BY THIS
OFFICER AND THAT -- THE OTHER THINGS MR. BAILEY INDICATED.
HE REFERRED TO HIM AS -- WITH THE "N" WORD, HE HAD
HIM BEND OVER AND TAKE HIS PANTS DOWN, ALL THOSE THINGS HE WILL
TESTIFY ABOUT. BUT HE HAD NUMEROUS CONTACTS WITH THIS OFFICER.
HE ALSO HAD CONTACTS WITH DETECTIVE PURDY.
PURDY WAS AT THE -- AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED,
IT WAS PURDY AND ANDERSON WHO FIRST STOPPED AND ARRESTED HIM
BEFORE FUHRMAN AND VETTRAINO CAME AND GOT HIM. SO YOU SHOULD
KNOW THAT ALSO.
BUT THE POINT I HAVE TO MAKE IS -- WITH OUR CLIENT AS
TO -- SO THAT HE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS ARE. I NEED TIME
TO DO THAT IF I CAN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BRING THE JURY DOWN.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, WOULD YOU INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE, IS
THERE MORE DISCOVERY? I MEAN, IS THERE MORE OFFERS OF PROOF?
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS INDICATED YOU HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE.
ALL RIGHT.
BRING THE JURY DOWN.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ARE WE READY TO PROCEED?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, WE ARE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE MR. HODGE AVAILABLE?
MR. BAILEY: WE'RE READY WITH MISS SINGER, NOT MR. HODGE.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT MR. HODGE.
MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND.
THE PROBLEM WITH MR. HODGE, WE'D RATHER NOT START HIM
TODAY AND FINISH HIM MONDAY. MISS SINGER, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO
FINISH TODAY WITH A COUPLE OF EXTRA MINUTES. I SENT WORD BACK TO
THE COURT THAT WE WANTED TO CALL MISS SINGER.
THE COURT: NO. OUR DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND MR. HODGE.
CALL MR. HODGE.
MR. BAILEY: YOU'RE ORDERING ME TO CALL MR. HODGE?
THE COURT: NO. I'M SAYING THAT'S THE WITNESS WE JUST
FINISHED DISCUSSING THAT I'VE INDICATED I'M GOING TO DIRECT THAT
THE PROSECUTION GO FORWARD WITH THIS WITNESS SINCE THEY'VE HAD
ADEQUATE TIME. WE DID NOT DISCUSS MISS SINGER.
MR. BAILEY: WELL, I'M SORRY. I DISCUSSED BOTH THIS
MORNING. THEY HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR BOTH.
THEY NEVER LIFTED A FINGER TO TRY AND TALK TO HIM.
THAT'S A LAWYER'S OBLIGATION. HE CAN'T COME IN HERE AND SAY
WELL, "JUDGE, I DIDN'T THINK THEY'D CALL HER." SHE'S BEEN ON THE
WITNESS LIST. WHY DOES THE COURT SAY CALL HODGE --
THE COURT: NO. MR. BAILEY, WE JUST FINISHED DISCUSSING
MR. HODGE. I JUST FINISHED LOOKING AT THE DISCOVERY NOTES
REGARDING MR. HODGE. I DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING WITH REGARDS
TO MISS SINGER. YOU WANT TO CALL MISS SINGER, YOU'LL DO IT
TUESDAY.
MR. BAILEY: FINE.
THE COURT: AFTER I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS
AND HEAR THEIR OBJECTIONS. WE JUST FINISHED --
MR. BAILEY: FINE. WE'LL CALL HER TUESDAY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ASK ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?
MR. HODGE IS MY WITNESS. I'M READY TO PROCEED.
THE QUESTION I WANT -- AND MR. SIMPSON -- DIRECTED TO
MR. SIMPSON -- IF I CALL MR. HODGE RIGHT NOW, IS THE COURT GOING
TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND GRANT A MOTION OF 352 ON KATHLEEN BELL
AND ANDREA TERRY AND NATALIE SINGER?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S THE QUESTION HE ASKED ME, AND I THINK
I HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT TO THE COURT.
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE
TESTIMONY, COUNSEL. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THIS IS GOING TO
BECOME CUMULATIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE FULLY AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE
ARE AWARE OF THAT. BUT AS MR. SIMPSON'S WANTS -- HE WOULD LIKE
TO KNOW THAT BEFORE HE PROCEEDS AND CALLS HODGE NOW, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT, BASED UPON THE PEOPLE
INTRODUCING THE LETTER, THAT KATHLEEN BELL AND ANDREA TERRY WOULD
BE CALLED AND FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A TACTICAL
DECISION BASED UPON YOUR LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. YOU
HAVE TO RELY UPON MR. BAILEY'S ARGUMENT PERHAPS THAT THERE ARE
REASONS INDEPENDENT TO CALL BELL AND PERHAPS TERRY.
IF YOU RECOLLECT, THERE WAS ALSO TESTIMONY HE HAD NO
IDEA WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE AND DENIED EVER HAVING TALKED TO THEM.
MR. COCHRAN: I RECALL THAT.
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T MAKE
THESE JUDGMENTS UNTIL I HEAR WHAT THE TESTIMONY IS. IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DEFINE THESE THINGS.
MR. COCHRAN: NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THIS HAS COME UP
BECAUSE YOUR HONOR DID MENTION IT TO US.
THE COURT: I MENTIONED IT BECAUSE THEY MADE THE OBJECTION.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR. MAY I HAVE JUST A
SECOND?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
THE DEFENDANT.)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROPOSE SOMETHING TO THE COURT? I --
AFTER TALKING WITH MR. SIMPSON AND MY COCOUNSEL, WE PROPOSE THAT
WE START TUESDAY WITH BELL AND THEN SINGER, AND THEN WE'LL COME
BACK TO HODGE AND WITH BELL AND TERRY AND THEN SINGER. THAT WAY
WE DON'T LOSE ANYTHING.
MR. SIMPSON IS ADAMANT THAT THE JURY'S BEEN TOLD
ABOUT BELL AND ABOUT TERRY AND HE DOES NOT WANT TO LOSE THAT
CHANCE. YOUR HONOR CAN'T PREJUDGE IT, YOU WON'T TELL US AT THIS
POINT. SO HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOSE THAT THING.
AND I CAN'T TELL HIM WHAT YOUR RULING IS GOING TO BE.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A TACTICAL DECISION AND I THINK TACTICALLY,
THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT TO ADVISE HIM, THAT HE WANTS TO START WITH
BELL FIRST THEN. THEY CANNOT BE HERE. SHE LIVES IN ANOTHER
STATE. SHE'LL BE HERE TUESDAY MORNING.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, ANY COMMENT ON THAT?
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE DELAYS THAT WE HAVE ENDURED
THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS, THESE ARE DELAYS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
DEFENSE.
THE COURT: WELL, NO. PART OF THE DELAY IS, I'VE GOT TO
SIT AND THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, THE OTHER PART OF THE DELAY IS, THEY
DIDN'T GET THE STUFF TO YOU LAST WEEK WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
THE COURT: LET'S NOT NIT-PICK OVER THAT.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, MY POINT IS SIMPLY THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SIX-DAY DELAY NOW. WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE THE JURY SIT -- WAIT AT THIS HOTEL FOR SIX DAYS.
THE COURT: THEY'LL BE DOING THINGS.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
MR. HODGE IS HERE. OKAY. HE IS HERE READY TO
TESTIFY --
THE COURT: WELL, IT'S THEIR CASE. IT'S THEIR CASE. THEY
GET TO MAKE THEIR DECISION.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, THE COURT OUGHT TO ORDER THEM TO CALL
HIM NOW OR PRECLUDE HIM, JUDGE.
THE COURT: NO. THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. I WISH IT
WORKED THAT WAY, BUT IT DOESN'T.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, SURELY THE WAY IT DOESN'T WORK IS THAT
THEY JUST GET TO DELAY THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR DAYS AND DAYS ON END
UNTIL THEY'RE READY TO CALL A WITNESS.
THE COURT: NO. I UNDERSTAND THEIR TACTICAL REASON FOR
WANTING TO CALL BELL FIRST BECAUSE THAT -- KATHLEEN BELL WAS
DISCUSSED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT WITNESS HAS BEEN
PROMISED BY THE DEFENSE AND THERE'S A PARTICULARLY UNIQUE FACT
SITUATION WITH HER THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE AND THEY DON'T
WANT TO RISK THAT.
MR. DARDEN: THERE'S ALSO 15 LAWYERS ON THE DEFENSE AND I'M
SURE SOMEBODY THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: THEY PROBABLY DID.
MR. DARDEN: WHAT ABOUT BLASINI, GOBERN, MENZIONE AND THE
OTHER 20 OR SO WITNESS NAMES THEY THROW THROUGH THE AIR FROM TIME
TO TIME? WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE?
THE COURT: WELL, THE COMMITMENT FROM THE DEFENSE IS, WE'RE
GOING TO START WITH BELL AND TERRY.
WHERE DO WE GO AFTER BELL AND TERRY?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE'LL DO BELL, TERRY, PROBABLY WE'LL
START WITH MC KINNEY. BY THAT TIME --
THE COURT: TERRY AND MC KINNEY.
MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL DEAL WITH THE TAPES AND WE'LL DEAL WITH
SINGER. AND WE'LL DEAL WITH --
THE COURT: HODGE.
MR. COCHRAN: -- MR. HODGE. AND WE HAVE VETTRAINO AND WE
HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGIST, MR. GOULSTON.
MS. CLARK: JUDGE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A 402 ON THAT.
THE COURT: ON THE PSYCHOLOGIST?
MS. CLARK: WELL, DR. GOULSTON'S NEVER SPOKEN TO DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN OR ANYBODY ELSE.
THE COURT: WE'LL TAKE UP THAT MATTER --
MR. COCHRAN: THOSE ARE THE WITNESSES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
MS. CLARK: I JUST WANT TO ALERT THE DEFENSE THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE AN END TO THESE GAMES. AT SOME POINT, THE COURT'S
GOING TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HEAR FROM ONE LAWYER PER SIDE, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, DR. -- WHAT'S HIS
NAME?
MS. CLARK: GOULSTON.
THE COURT: GOULSTON. MY APOLOGIES TO THE DOCTOR.
MS. CLARK: SO WE'RE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE, CAN WE GET A FINAL LIST FROM THE DEFENSE SO WE KNOW --
BELL, TERRY --
THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST GOT.
MS. CLARK: BELL, TERRY, MC KINNEY, SINGER, HODGE AND DR.
GOULSTON AND THAT'S IT?
THE COURT: I WOULD IMAGINE --
MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S MR. MENZIONE.
THE COURT: MENZIONE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE GOING TO BE CALLING FUHRMAN, MENZIONE.
MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT GOBERN, MENZIONE, RIVAS MATSUDA?
MR. DARDEN: THEY PUT THE DEFENDANT ON THE WITNESS STAND.
WE CAN HANDLE HIM TODAY. WE'RE READY FOR THAT.
MS. CLARK: HE'S HERE.
MR. DARDEN: WE'RE READY FOR THAT.
THE COURT: NICE TRY.
MS. CLARK: MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR, ASK THE COURT TO
INQUIRE ABOUT BLASINI, GOBERN, MENZIONE, RIVAS, MATSUDA? WE HAVE
ALL THESE NAMES FLOATING AROUND AND --
THE COURT: WELL, YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN HALF A DOZEN NAMES THAT
ARE INTERESTING WITNESSES. SO BE READY.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS, BECAUSE OF ALL
THEIR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ROKAHR --
THE COURT: WAIT. WAIT. WAIT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA -- I'M SORRY. DEPUTY JEX, JURORS,
PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE BRIEF WITNESSES. THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO TAKE UP --
THE COURT: THEY'RE NOT HERE.
MS. CLARK: NO. I REALIZE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE
NEED MORE THAN THIS. THIS WON'T TAKE UP A MORNING AND WE ARE
ENTITLED TO THREE DAYS I BELIEVE OF WITNESSES. THIS IS NOT IT.
THE COURT: YOU THINK BELL'S GOING TO BE A SHORT WITNESS?
MS. CLARK: VERY.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MS. CLARK: SO I'D ASK THE COURT TO INQUIRE.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THERE'S NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT --
MS. CLARK: WAIT. YOUR HONOR, I WAS ADDRESSING THE COURT.
I ASKED THAT THE COURT INQUIRE PLEASE OF THE DEFENSE AS TO WHAT
THE REMAINDER OF THEIR WITNESSES WILL BE BECAUSE THE WITNESSES
THEY HAVE LISTED WILL NOT CONSUME THE MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL DECIDE OVER THE WEEKEND. I'VE TOLD HER
AND SHE SHOULD HAVE MR. SIMPSON'S NAME AFTER THAT IF THEY WANT
HIM SO BADLY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR
JURY PANEL HAVE REJOINED US, FOLKS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN FOR
SEVERAL DAYS. I SEEM TO RECOGNIZE MOST OF YOU.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RIDE BACK YESTERDAY WAS A
LITTLE ROUGH?
THE JURY: PRETTY ROUGH.
THE COURT: PRETTY ROUGH? I UNDERSTAND DEPUTY DINWITTIE
WAS THE WORSE OF THEM ALL. THANK YOU FOR THE CATALINA HOURGLASS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED -- AS I MENTIONED TO
YOU THE OTHER EVENING WHEN I CAME OVER TO THE HOTEL TO TALK TO
YOU ALL, THAT WE'VE HAD SOME SERIOUS EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS THAT
I'VE HAD TO RESOLVE AND THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON EVER SINCE.
AND PART OF THE PROBLEM WAS, ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS VERY COMPLEX,
AND I HAD TO TAKE TWO FULL DAYS BOTH HERE IN THE COURTHOUSE AND
AT HOME WORKING ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND WE'VE PRETTY MUCH
SHOT THE DAY RESOLVING THOSE MATTERS. SO I APOLOGIZE TO YOU.
THE BAILIFFS HAVE COMMUNICATED TO ME ON SIX SEPARATE
OCCASIONS THIS MORNING THAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY CAMPERS TO BE KEPT
ON ICE AGAIN FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD. AND THE ATTORNEYS WILL TELL
YOU, WILL NOD IN UNISON THAT MY PRODDINGS TO THEM ARE ALWAYS, WE
HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE A JURY THAT IS SEQUESTERED AND THAT
IS SITTING AND DOING NOTHING AND ESSENTIALLY GOING NUTS WHILE
WE'RE OUT HERE ARGUING THESE LEGAL POINTS.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE ALL VERY COGNIZANT
OF THE FACT THAT YOU'RE BACK THERE OR THAT YOU'RE BACK AT THE
HOTEL. WE KNOW THAT YOU DON'T ALL LIKE TO GO SHOPPING ALL DAY
EVERY DAY, AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU. I'VE TRIED TO CONVEY TO YOU
HOW PERSONALLY I FEEL FOR YOUR WELFARE.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT HAPPY TO HEAR THIS AGAIN,
BUT WE HAVE CONCLUDED THE SESSION. I HAVE OTHER SESSIONS
SCHEDULED THIS AFTERNOON WITH THE LAWYERS TO TRY TO RESOLVE THESE
MATTERS.
I HAD WANTED TO AT LEAST GET ONE WITNESS ON AND START
IT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY SO YOU WOULD FEEL THAT THE DAY WAS NOT A
COMPLETE WASTE OF YOUR TIME. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIME HAS
COME WHERE WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE DAY.
I DON'T WANT TO BE OVERLY DRAMATIC ABOUT THIS WITH
YOU, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT PAINS ME DEEPLY TO KNOW THAT
YOU'RE THERE AND THAT WE'RE NOT ACCOMPLISHING THINGS AND IT SEEMS
TO YOU THAT WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD, AND I CAN'T THINK OF ANY
OTHER WAY TO EXPRESS IT OTHER THAN TO TELL YOU THAT I'M DEEPLY
SORRY FOR THAT.
I'LL DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SOME OTHER
ACTIVITIES TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME AND WE WILL PROCEED WITH
WITNESSES TUESDAY MORNING WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER THE HOLIDAY.
SO HAVING SAID THAT -- OH, BY THE WAY, THANKS FOR THE CIGAR. I
APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.
REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE
CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS -- THIS IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT -- DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH
YOU WITH REGARDS TO THE CASE.
YOU MAY HAVE A DEEP CURIOSITY AS TO WHAT IT IS THAT
HAS INTERRUPTED THE TRIAL FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND AT
SOME POINT IN TIME, AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW
WHAT THAT IS. BUT YOU HAVE TO REMAIN STEADFAST IN YOUR
COMMITMENT TO THE COURT THAT YOU WILL NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARDS TO THESE MATTERS.
I INDICATED TO YOU WHEN WE STARTED THE TRIAL THAT WE
WOULD KEEP A COMPILATION OF THE PRESS CLIPPINGS, SOME OF THE
TELEVISION COVERAGE ON VIDEOTAPES SO THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FIND
OUT WHAT THE BIG DEAL WAS OR WASN'T AS THE CASE MAY BE WHILE YOU
WERE BEING KEPT IN THE DARK. AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT FAIR TO
YOU. IT MAY NOT SEEM FAIR TO YOU, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU
WILL BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS OCCUPYING OUR TIME
HERE.
I CAN JUST ASSURE YOU THAT THIS HAS BEEN VERY
DIFFICULT FOR ME, IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE LAWYERS AND
IT'S BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR US ALL, AND I KNOW I SHARE
THE OPINION OF BOTH SIDES THAT WE ARE DEEPLY SADDENED THAT THIS
HAS BEEN A BURDEN TO YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
HAVING SAID THAT, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS, AS FAR AS
THE JURY IS CONCERNED, UNTIL TUESDAY MORNING. AS FAR AS THE
LAWYERS ARE CONCERNED, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 2:00 O'CLOCK.
(AT 11:50 A.M., THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 2:00 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
)
VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1995
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1995
VOLUME 215
PAGES 43658 THROUGH 43767, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 43644 THROUGH 43657, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
(PAGES 43768 THROUGH 43805, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
KENNETH SPAULDING, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
ALSO PRESENT: DARRYL MOUNGER, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 215 PAGES 43658 - 43767
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 30, 1995 A.M. 43658 215
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 A.M. 43670 215
-----------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING RE DEFENSE MOTION RE DISCLOSURE 43670 215
OF EXCULPATORY INFORMATION RE MISCONDUCT OF
MARK FUHRMAN
EXHIBITS
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
(NONE THIS VOLUME)
