Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:368
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 9/05/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 23:31:17 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 8639
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
9:05 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO APPEARING, TAYLOR J.
DAIGNEAULT, ESQUIRE, FOR KATHLEEN
BELL; MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE,
AND RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE, FOR LAURA
HART MC KINNY.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(PAGES 43806 THROUGH 43813,
VOLUME 216B, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(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 BEFORE THE COURT WITH
HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY AND MR.
BLASIER.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MR. HODGMAN, MR.
YOCHELSON, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
COUNSEL, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THIS MORNING,
AS A CONTINUATION OF A HEARING THAT BEGAN LAST WEEK, THE COURT
CONDUCTED A 1054.7 HEARING WITH THE PROSECUTION AND I WILL ADVISE
DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS BY THE COURT:
AS TO DR. DE FOREST, THE COURT WILL ORDER THE
DISCLOSURE OF THE PACKAGE OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND NOTES BY DR. DE
FOREST AS THEY RELATE TO THE SOCK EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED BY DR.
DE FOREST.
MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. HODGMAN, IS THE PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT YOU INTEND TO TURN OVER ARE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU TURNED
OVER TO THE COURT FOR EXAMINATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. HODGMAN: YES.
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I WILL GIVE THIS TO MRS. ROBERTSON FOR TURNING OVER
TO THE DEFENSE.
I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO TURN OVER ANY WRITTEN
MATERIALS FROM DR. DE FOREST BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY.
MY RECOLLECTION IS YOU INDICATED THAT THOSE HAD TO BE
NUMBERED FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I HAVE TURNED OVER TO
MR. NEUFELD THIS MORNING AN UNNUMBERED SET OF NOTES. WE WILL
NUMBER THEM PER OUR FORMAL DISCOVERY PROCEDURES AND PROVIDE A
SECOND COPY LATER IN THE DAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, THE -- WHERE IS MR. DOUGLAS?
MR. DOUGLAS?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN ADVISED THE COURT THAT DR. DE
FOREST WOULD BE TESTIFYING ONLY TO THE SOCK OR VERY LIMITED
AVENUES OF INQUIRY.
I HAD A CONCERN, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF NOTES THAT DR.
DE FOREST HAD, THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME BRADY MATERIALS, SO MR.
HODGMAN HAS GIVEN TO ME A COMPLETE SET OF DR. DE FOREST'S NOTES,
PLUS THE NOTES THAT HE HAS TURNED OVER TO YOU, SO THAT I CAN
COMPARE BOTH, AND I WILL HAVE TO EXAMINE THOSE OVER THE NOON
HOUR, OR PERHAPS THIS EVENING, TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY BRADY
MATERIAL OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT I THINK SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.
MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO REMIND ME OF THAT LATER
THIS WEEK.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, POINT OF CORRECTION IF I MAY.
MR. DE FOREST WILL BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THE
SOCKS, BUT IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE HE WILL BE COVERING SOME OTHER
LIMITED AREAS AS WELL, SO FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE COURT AND
COUNSEL, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER AREAS INVOLVED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SECOND ITEM WAS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. SIMPSON WEARING A
GLOVE AND THE COURT NOTED THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO
WITHHOLD DISCOVERY OF THIS ITEM UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN
COMPLETED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. YOCHELSON: YES, YOUR HONOR. IN ESSENCE, YES.
THE COURT: THE PHOTOGRAPH AND NOTES YOU TURNED OVER TO THE
COURT, THIS IS THE COPY YOU INTEND ON TURNING OVER TO THE
DEFENSE, CORRECT?
MR. YOCHELSON: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I WILL LIKEWISE DIRECT MRS. ROBERTSON TO GIVE
THIS TO THE DEFENSE.
ALL RIGHT.
AS TO MR. BODZIAK, MR. HODGMAN?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
WE HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT, AS WELL AS COUNSEL,
THAT WE DO INTEND TO CALL MR. BODZIAK IN OUR REBUTTAL CASE. WE
HAVE NO REPORT FROM MR. BODZIAK, NOR DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS AS OF
YET.
IF AND WHEN WE RECEIVE THOSE WE WILL TURN OVER THOSE
OVER TO THE DEFENSE IN PROMPT FASHION.
THE COURT: THIS IS A REBUTTAL CASE.
WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF AS TO MR. BODZIAK?
MR. HODGMAN: MR. BODZIAK WILL BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO
HIS IMPRESSION OF SOME IMPRESSIONS AND THE -- AT THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE ON THE WALKWAY, AND IN ADDITION TO -- IN A LIMITED FASHION
TO SOME GENERAL TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT ONE CAN PERCEIVE OR CAN'T
PERCEIVE WITH REGARD -- IN CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS.
AND THEN BASED UPON SOME INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS
BOOK, WHICH I BELIEVE THE DEFENSE HAS, VARIOUS LIMITATIONS OF
WHAT ONE SHOULD TESTIFY TO BASED UPON WHAT CAN BE DEPRIVED FROM
PHOTOGRAPHS.
SO THIS IS STILL BEING REFINED, YOUR HONOR. AS IT
BECOMES MORE REFINED WE WILL -- AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE GET
NOTES, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT TO THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS TO MR. POPOVICH, DO YOU INTEND OR HAVE YOU MADE
YOUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE GOING TO CALL MR.
POPOVICH?
MR. HODGMAN: WE INTEND TO CALL MR. POPOVICH.
WE HAVE TURNED OVER NOTES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM
MR. POPOVICH. AT THE MOMENT THE DEFENSE HAS WHAT WE HAVE AND NO
MORE. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE GET ANYTHING IN ADDITION FROM MR.
POPOVICH, WE WILL TURN THAT OVER AS WELL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF SINCE IT IS LIKEWISE
GOING TO BE A REBUTTAL WITNESS? WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF AS
TO MR. POPOVICH?
MR. HODGMAN: AS CONTAINED IN THE NOTES THAT WE HAVE TURNED
OVER TO THE DEFENSE, MR. POPOVICH'S TOURS, IF YOU WILL, OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIME LAB, AS WELL AS THE LAPD CRIME LAB
AND OBSERVATIONS OF BOTH THOSE LOCATIONS AND SOME RELATED
TESTIMONY REGARDING CONTAMINATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND LASTLY, IN RESPONSE TO MR. NEUFELD'S QUESTION,
YOU WERE GOING TO ADVISE DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE COURT WHETHER OR
NOT AT THIS TIME YOU INTEND ON CALLING AN EDTA WITNESS.
MR. HODGMAN: AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR, WE DO NOT INTEND TO
CALL ANY EDTA WITNESSES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS -- WHERE DID MR. DOUGLAS GO?
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT AS TO THESE DISCOVERY
MATTERS?
MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR.
READY TO PROCEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE
JURORS TO REJOIN US?
MR. DAIGNEAULT: YOUR HONOR, I WONDER IF I MAY BE HEARD
BRIEFLY ON BEHALF OF MISS BELL?
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
MR. DAIGNEAULT: MY NAME IS TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT. I AM THE
ATTORNEY FROM MISS BELL.
AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS FROM THE DECLARATION THAT MISS
BELL PROVIDED AT AN EARLIER TIME THERE HAS BEEN AN INTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION OF MISS BELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MORNING
AND -- BEFORE THE JURY CAME IN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT IF I
COULD BE HEARD ON OBJECTIONS CONCERNING RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND
POSSIBLY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
MY CONCERN, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF
MISS BELL HAS BEEN VERY INTENSE, BUT AS I HAVE SEEN THE THINGS
THAT HAVE UNFOLDED IN THIS COURTROOM IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS, I
THINK THAT HER TESTIMONY IS -- IS ALMOST BEYOND QUESTION THE
TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY, AND I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO GIVE SOME
QUARTER TO PROTECTING HER PRIVACY RIGHTS, IF THE NEED ARISES, IN
TERMS OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OR HER DIRECT EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, I WILL ALLOW YOU TO SIT INSIDE THE BAR AT
THE TIME THAT MISS BELL IS BEING QUESTIONED AND YOU MAY OF COURSE
RAISE ANY -- ON HER BEHALF, ANY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE
OBJECTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ISSUES OF PRIVACY, THOUGH, ARE A DIFFERENT QUESTION,
AND IF YOU WISH TIME TO CONSULT WITH YOUR CLIENT AND CONSULT WITH
OTHER COUNSEL, I WILL ALLOW YOU LEAVE TO DO SO.
MR. DAIGNEAULT: I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH
ANY MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE
GOING TO INQUIRE INTO IN TERMS OF HER PERSONAL PAST.
I DO KNOW THAT THE TELEPHONE RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED,
THE NUMBERS WERE CALLED, HER SOCIAL FRIENDS HAVE BEEN CONTACTED.
SEVERAL INVESTIGATORS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CALLED
HER HAIR DRESSER, OR SO I HAVE BEEN ADVISED, AND I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEY HAVE DISCOVERED ALONG THE WAY, BUT I
WOULD -- IF THEY ARE GOING TO INQUIRE INTO HER PERSONAL LIFE, SHE
HAS -- SHE HAS A FAMILY LAW FILE THAT IS SOME TWENTY YEARS OLD, I
BELIEVE, OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO THAT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME LIMITATIONS INTO THIS FIELD,
ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF DEVELOPMENTS RECENTLY.
HER TESTIMONY I THINK IS -- IF YOUR HONOR WOULD WEIGH
THESE FACTORS, I THINK HER TESTIMONY IS NOT ALL THAT REMARKABLE
IN LIGHT OF WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT
RECENTLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THE COURT IS APPRISED OF THE ISSUE.
MR. DAIGNEAULT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT OVER NEXT TO MR.
REGWAN OVER THERE.
MR. DAIGNEAULT: YES.
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, GOOD MORNING.
MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
A COUPLE OF BRIEF MATTERS. FIRST I BELIEVE THAT
NATALIE SINGER IS HERE OR AVAILABLE CERTAINLY TO THE DEFENSE,
SINCE SHE HAS BEEN MOVED TO SECOND ON THEIR WITNESS LIST FOR THIS
MORNING.
THE FIRST REQUEST IS THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
INTERVIEW HER, WHICH WE HAVE NOT HAD PREVIOUSLY. THE SHORT BREAK
THAT WAS TAKEN FRIDAY MR. DARDEN WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
DURING THE SHORT BREAK TAKEN FRIDAY, SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE
BE PERMITTED TO INTERVIEW HER SOMEWHERE UP IN OUR OFFICES OR
WHEREVER IS CONVENIENT.
THE COURT: IF SHE IS WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: NO PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WE WILL PROBABLY TAKE A RECESS BETWEEN
WITNESSES, I SUSPECT, GIVEN OUR LATE START THIS MORNING.
MS. LEWIS: THAT IS NATALIE SINGER. MR. BAILEY WAS JUST
INQUIRING.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS ON THEIR CURRENT WITNESS LIST
KATHLEEN BELL, THEN NATALIE SINGER, THEN ANDREA TERRY.
IT IS MY EXPECTATION, AND THESE ARE MR. DARDEN'S
WITNESSES SO I DON'T MEAN TO -- BUT IT IS OUR EXPECTATION THAT WE
WILL BE BRINGING A MOTION AFTER KATHLEEN BELL TESTIFIES RENEWING
IN ESSENCE THE MOTION I ARGUED A FEW WEEKS AGO WITH REGARD TO THE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES BEING CUMULATIVE.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS CROSS-EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO
ANDREA TERRY, AND IF THEY CHOOSE FOR TACTICAL REASONS TO TRY AND
WEDGE IN MISS SINGER --
THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS AN ISSUE WE NEED TO ADDRESS ONCE
WE SEE MISS BELL.
MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COURT, THE COURT HAD
RULED THAT NO ONE ELSE -- THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBLE ISSUE THAT
THEY BE CUMULATIVE ONCE BELL AND TERRY TESTIFIED.
THE COURT: I WOULDN'T CALL IT A RULING THAT THERE IS A
POSSIBLE ISSUE, BUT YES, THE ISSUE IS THERE.
MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS AD NAUSEAM FRIDAY.
MS. LEWIS: I HEARD THE DISCUSSION. I WASN'T PRESENT, BUT
I DID HEAR OF IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. LEWIS: THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION, YOUR
HONOR, IS THIS MORNING I FILED A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO THE DEFENSE
MOTION, RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE, AND I HAVE NOTED IN THE DEFENSE LINE-UP THEY ANTICIPATE
REACHING ARGUMENT ON THAT AT SOME POINT TODAY.
AND OF COURSE THE COURT MUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
READ OUR RESPONSE BEFORE I'M SURE WE WILL BE ABLE TO ASSESS THE
ISSUES AND TO RULE ON THE MATTER, AND I JUST WANTED TO ALERT THE
COURT THAT IT HAD BEEN FILED AND IT HAD BEEN AVAILABLE.
THE COURT: I THINK THAT IS AN OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO
TIMEWISE.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. BAILEY, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?
MR. BAILEY: I AM, YOUR HONOR, BUT FIRST LET ME POINT OUT
YOU ARE NOT BEING GIVEN THE FACTS.
ON FRIDAY I PUT ON THE RECORD THAT MISS SINGER HAD
BEEN INQUIRED OF AS TO WHETHER SHE WISHED TO BE INTERVIEWED AND
HER RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ME FOR SIX MONTHS, I
HAVE A LAWYER IN NASHVILLE, I HAVE ONE HERE WHO WENT OUT OF TOWN
FOR THE WEEKEND, AND THEY ARE TOO LATE. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
THEM. FURTHERMORE, WHY SHOULD I BE TRASHED THE WAY KATHLEEN BELL
WAS?
I GET A CALL FROM MR. HODGMAN LAST NIGHT WANTING TO
INTERVIEW HER. I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. I CAN'T
SPEAK FOR HER LAWYER. SHE HASN'T CHANGED HER MIND. THAT WAS
TRUE THIS MORNING.
SO TAKING A RECESS TO INTERVIEW HER, WHICH THEY KNOW
FULL WELL IS AN IMPOSITION ON A MUCH BELEAGUERED JURY --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE THAT UP.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE A 402 AS RELATES TO
MISS SINGER. WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC DETAILS AS TO WHAT SHE IS GOING
TO TESTIFY TO. WE HAVE NO OFFER OF PROOF.
THE COURT: LIKE I SAID, WE WILL TAKE THIS UP AFTER WE
FINISH MISS BELL.
ALL RIGHT.
ARE YOU READY?
MR. BAILEY: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: JUDGE ITO, I HAVE A MESSAGE TO YOU
>FROM GOD. GOD WANTS YOU TO PLAY THE TAPES. THIS IS A MESSAGE
>FROM GOD.
(AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IS ESCORTED
FROM THE COURTROOM.)
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(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 WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: GOOD TO SEE ALL OF YOU BACK.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE BACK ON TRACK AND WE ARE
GOING TO PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CALL THE DEFENSE NEXT WITNESS.
MR. BAILEY: THE DEFENSE CALLS KATHLEEN BELL, IF IT PLEASE
THE COURT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS BELL.
KATHLEEN BELL,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS KATHLEEN BELL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS BELL, IF YOU WOULD JUST SIT BACK AND THEN PULL
THE MICROPHONE TOWARD YOU, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
THE WITNESS: KATHLEEN BELL, K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N, THANK YOU,
B-E-L-L.
MR. BAILEY: TRY AND KEEP YOUR VOICE UP,
MISS BELL, SO THE LAST PEOPLE IN THE JURY BOX CAN HEAR YOU.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.
DEPUTY LONG, WOULD YOU PULL THE EASEL BACK THERE. I
THINK IT IS IN THE WAY -- BLOCKING JUROR 7.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. BAILEY.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAILEY:
Q MISS BELL, WITHOUT GIVING A STREET ADDRESS, CAN YOU
TELL US WHERE YOU LIVE?
A IN LONG BEACH.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THAT AREA?
A SINCE, LET'S SEE, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN 1985 AND '6 WHERE WERE YOU LIVING?
A IN PALOS VERDES.
Q AND DID YOU HAVE AN OCCUPATION OR PROFESSION AT THAT
TIME?
A YES, REAL ESTATE AGENT.
Q ON WHO DID YOU WORK FOR AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT?
A CENTURY 21, BOB MAHER REALTY IN REDONDO BEACH.
Q CAN YOU PULL THAT MIKE IN JUST A LITTLE BIT?
THE COURT: CAN YOU SPELL "MAHER" FOR THE COURT REPORTER,
PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: M-A-H-E-R.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. BAILEY.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHEN DID YOU BEGIN WORKING FOR BOB
MAHER AT CENTURY 21?
A I RECEIVED MY REAL ESTATE LICENSE IN SEPTEMBER OF
1985 AND I STARTED WORKING FOR BOB MAHER I BELIEVE IN OCTOBER.
Q CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY OF YOUR REAL ESTATE OFFICE THERE WAS LOCATED A MARINE
RECRUITING STATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW ANY OF THE PERSONNEL WHO WORKED IN THAT
STATION?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU NAME ANY OF THEM?
A JOE FOSS AND RON ROHR.
Q AND HOW WOULD YOU ENCOUNTER THEM IN YOUR DAILY
BUSINESS?
A UMM, AS PART OF MY REAL ESTATE PRACTICE WE WERE
SUPPOSED TO MAKE COLD CALLS AND KNOCK ON DOORS AND ALL OF THAT
AND SO DURING THE COLD CALLING SESSIONS I WOULD TRY TO AVOID THAT
AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND SO I WOULD GO WALKING AROUND THE
BUILDING.
AND AT ONE TIME I ENCOUNTERED THE MARINES AT THE
MARINE RECRUITING CENTER AND I JUST STOPPED INTO SAY HELLO AND
KIND OF TO TAKE UP SOME TIME.
Q WHERE WAS THIS STATION LOCATED, THE RECRUITING
STATION?
A I WAS ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND THEY WERE ON THE FIRST
FLOOR OF THIS MARINE RECRUIT -- OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
Q WAS YOUR OFFICE IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THEIRS?
A UMM, IT WAS ABOVE THE MARINE RECRUITING CENTER.
Q HOW DID YOU GET TO AND FROM YOUR OFFICE?
A DRIVING.
Q ONCE YOU GOT TO THE AREA?
A OH, I WENT AND I JUST WALKED TO THE MARINE RECRUITING
CENTER DOWN THE STAIRS AND THEN BACK UP.
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING?
Q ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU KNOW A PERSON NAMED MARK FUHRMAN?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE MR. FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO YOUR
BEST RECOLLECTION?
A UMM, BETWEEN THE TIME THAT I WAS WORKING FOR BOB
MAHER REALTY CENTURY 21, IT WAS BETWEEN 1985 AND '86.
Q AND WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FIRST TIME YOU
SAW HIM, AS OPPOSED TO ENCOUNTERED HIM?
A THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM I WALKED DOWN TO THE MARINE
RECRUITING CENTER JUST TO SAY HELLO TO THE MARINES AND THEY HAD A
MAN SITTING THERE AND I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE IN A MEETING, SO
I JUST KIND OF TAPPED ON THE WINDOW AND WAVED AND WENT BACK
UPSTAIRS.
Q WERE YOU INTRODUCED TO MR. FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME?
A NO.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM OR ANYONE ELSE
INSIDE THE STATION?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q COULD YOU SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING AS YOU WALKED BY?
A THEY WERE JUST SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER.
Q DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN AT
THAT TIME?
A UMM, I THOUGHT THAT HE WAS HANDSOME.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A AND I DID NOTICE THAT.
Q DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ABOUT HIS HEIGHT?
A HE WAS SITTING IN A CHAIR BUT I COULD TELL THAT HE
WAS TALL, YES.
Q WHAT WAS THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU ENCOUNTERED MR.
FUHRMAN?
A THE NEXT TIME WAS AT THAT SAME MARINE RECRUITING
CENTER AND I CAME DOWN, AND PRIOR TO
THIS TIME THE MARINES TOLD ME THAT IT WAS OKAY FOR ME TO -- THAT
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY FOR ME TO COME IN THAT -- THE PREVIOUS
TIME.
Q YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT THE MARINES TOLD YOU.
A I'M SORRY.
Q YOU CAN TELL US THAT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM
AFTER YOU FIRST SAW MR. FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q WITHOUT SAYING WHAT WAS SAID, AS A RESULT OF THAT
CONVERSATION, WHEN YOU NEXT SAW MR. FUHRMAN IN THEIR OFFICE, WHAT
DID YOU DO?
A I WENT INSIDE THE MARINE RECRUITING CENTER AND I
INTRODUCED MYSELF AND I JUST BEGAN SPEAKING TO ALL OF THE MEN.
Q WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME?
A JOE FOSS, RON ROHR AND MARK FUHRMAN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAD YOU AT THAT TIME ANY SPECIAL REASON FOR WANTING
TO MEET MR. FUHRMAN?
A I THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MEETING MY
GIRLFRIEND ANDREA TERRY.
Q WHAT IS THERE ABOUT ANDREA TERRY THAT YOU THOUGHT
MIGHT MATCH UP WELL WITH MR. FUHRMAN?
A SHE IS SIX FEET TALL AND REALLY BEAUTIFUL AND I
THOUGHT THAT -- SHE LIKED TALL MEN AND SO I THOUGHT THAT SHE
MIGHT WANT TO MEET HIM AS WELL.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HOW DID YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO MR. FUHRMAN?
A UMM, I JUST SAID HELLO AND THE MARINES ACTUALLY
INTRODUCED ME AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE FIRST KIND OF SHOOTING THE
BREEZE KIND OF FIRST PART OF THE CONVERSATION. IT WAS JUST VERY
MILD AND I WAS TALKING ABOUT ANDREA. I BEGAN TALKING ABOUT
ANDREA.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM ABOUT ANDREA TERRY?
A I SAID THAT I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
Q DID YOU TELL MR. FUHRMAN SOMETHING ABOUT A GIRL NAMED
ANDREA TERRY, WITHOUT SAYING PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN THE COURSE OF GIVING HIM THAT INFORMATION DID YOU
MENTION THE NAME OF ANYONE WHO IS A PUBLIC FIGURE?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THAT NAME?
MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MARCUS ALLEN.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE
NAME MARCUS ALLEN TO MARK FUHRMAN?
A HIS DEMEANOR CHANGED AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD ME
CHANGED.
Q AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE SAY?
A HE SAID THAT IF -- WHEN HE SEES A BLACK MAN WITH A
WHITE WOMAN DRIVING IN A CAR HE PULLS THEM OVER.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU SAY?
A I WAS TAKEN BACK A LITTLE BIT AND SO I KIND OF PAUSED
AND I LOOKED AT THE MARINES AND I JUST SAID, "WELL, WHAT IF THEY
DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG?"
Q WHAT DID HE SAY?
A HE SAID HE WOULD FIND SOMETHING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU TALK ANY FURTHER ABOUT THAT HYPOTHETICAL
OF A BLACK MAN RIDING WITH A WHITE WOMAN BEING PULLED OVER?
A YES.
Q WHAT ELSE WAS SAID?
A I ASKED, "WHAT IF THEY ARE IN LOVE?"
Q AND WHAT DID HE SAY TO THAT?
A HE SAID, "THAT IS DISGUSTING."
Q THE FACT THAT A BLACK MAN MIGHT BE IN LOVE WITH A
WHITE WOMAN WAS DISGUSTING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS LEADING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
Q WHAT WAS HE REFERRING TO IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHEN
HE USED THE WORD "DISGUSTING"?
A THAT I SAID -- I ASKED HIM WHAT IF THEY WERE IN LOVE
AND I THINK THE IDEA OF THEM BEING IN LOVE WAS DISGUSTING TO HIM.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, OBJECTION TO STRIKE, CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: AFTER THE WORD "DISGUSTING" WAS
UTTERED, WHAT WAS NEXT SAID BY EITHER OF YOU?
A WELL, AGAIN I LOOKED AT THE MARINES BECAUSE I HAD
SPOKEN TO THEM BEFORE AND THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE MEAN PEOPLE, AND
SO I WAS WAITING FOR SOME KIND OF REACTION FROM THEM, AND THEN,
UMM, I JUST WAS KIND OF -- I JUST KIND OF PAUSED AND THEN HE
SAID, "IF I HAD MY WAY I WOULD GATHER" -- "ALL THE NIGGERS WOULD
BE GATHERED TOGETHER AND BURNED."
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT HE
WOULD GATHER THE NIGGERS ALL TOGETHER AND BURN THEM?
A UMM, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T -- I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS
-- NOBODY EVER SAID THAT TO ME BEFORE.
I HEARD THE "N" WORD BEFORE, BUT NOBODY EVER SAID
SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ME BEFORE.
Q HAD YOU EVER USED, IN YOUR CONVERSATION, THE "N" WORD
WITH MARK FUHRMAN?
A OH, WITH MARK FUHRMAN?
Q RIGHT.
A NEVER, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU RESPOND IN ANY WAY, OTHER THAN BECOMING UPSET
WHEN MR. FUHRMAN TOLD YOU WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH REFERENCE
TO BURNING AN ENTIRE RACE?
A I JUST -- I LOOKED AT THE MARINES AND I KIND OF --
THEY WEREN'T SAYING ANYTHING. THEY KIND OF JUST SHRUGGED THEIR
SHOULDERS, AND SO I KIND OF GOT TEARY-EYED AND I LEFT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, CAN YOU HELP US WITH THE DATE OF THIS ENCOUNTER,
THE FIRST ENCOUNTER, THE SECOND TIME YOU SAW MARK FUHRMAN, BEST
RECOLLECTION?
A THE -- I KNOW IT IS BETWEEN THAT YEAR THAT I WORKED
AT CENTURY 21 BOB MAHER AND I KNOW THAT ANDREA -- SHE WAS AT BYU
GOING TO SCHOOL AND SHE ONLY RETURNED FROM SCHOOL DURING
HOLIDAYS, SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS WITHIN THE HOLIDAY TIMES, AND
I -- I REALLY CAN'T BE EXTREMELY ACCURATE.
Q MISS BELL, WITHOUT GOING INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID
BETWEEN YOU AND ANDREA, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT HER
EDUCATIONAL SCHEDULE DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME?
A SHE WOULD COME BACK FOR HOLIDAYS, LIKE I THINK
THANKSGIVING, MAINLY EASTER AND CHRISTMAS, AND THEN THE SUMMER.
Q OKAY.
A AND I THINK IT WAS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT SHE WAS
BACK.
Q ALL RIGHT.
ARE YOU ABLE TO RELATE THIS EXPERIENCE WHERE MR.
FUHRMAN SURPRISED YOU WITH THAT LANGUAGE TO ANY PERIOD OF THE
YEAR THAT WOULD HELP US DETERMINE WHICH OF HER VACATIONS IT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN?
A I TRIED TO -- TRY TO -- BY THE WEATHER, BUT THE
WEATHER IS ALL THE SAME IN CALIFORNIA, AND I REALLY THINK IT IS
MORE TOWARD THE SUMMERTIME OR MAYBE -- MAYBE EASTER VACATION AND
THEN SUMMER VACATION, BECAUSE I SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO
ANDREA QUITE A BIT THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND SHE REALLY
WASN'T HOME FOR ANY LONG PERIOD OF TIME EXCEPT FOR THE SUMMER.
Q HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN ANDREA TERRY?
A I HAVE KNOWN HER FOR MANY YEARS. SHE WENT TO MY HIGH
SCHOOL AND WE WEREN'T CLOSE FRIENDS UNTIL A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER
HIGH SCHOOL.
Q AND BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY WHEN SHE WAS THERE
ATTENDING, WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?
A IN UTAH.
Q IS SHE A RESIDENT OR NATIVE OF UTAH OR OF CALIFORNIA,
IF YOU KNOW?
A I BELIEVE SHE WAS BORN IN CALIFORNIA.
Q AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU HAD TALKED TO HER SEVERAL
TIMES IN THIS GENERAL TIME FRAME?
A YES.
Q AND WOULD YOU TALK TO HER WHEN SHE WAS AT COLLEGE ON
A REGULAR BASIS OR ONLY WHEN SHE WAS HOME?
A NOT VERY OFTEN AT COLLEGE; ONLY WHEN SHE WAS HOME.
Q CAN YOU TELL US HOW MUCH TIME TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THE
MOMENT THAT YOU FIRST NOTICED MARK FUHRMAN TALKING TO THE MARINES
BUT DID NOT INTERVENE, UNTIL YOU INTRODUCED YOURSELF TO HIM?
A AT LEAST A WEEK PROBABLY, NO MORE THAN THREE WEEKS.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU SEE MARK FUHRMAN AGAIN?
A AFTER THE SECOND --
Q AFTER THIS FIRST ENCOUNTER?
A AFTER THE FIRST ENCOUNTER, YES.
Q I'M TRYING TO DISTINGUISH SEEING HIM FROM
ENCOUNTERING HIM WHERE YOU INTERACT OR HAVE A CONVERSATION.
A RIGHT.
Q OKAY. NOW TIME NO. 3?
A YES.
Q IS THE SECOND ENCOUNTER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHERE YOU HAVE SOME TALK TOGETHER?
A I DIDN'T REALLY SPEAK TO HIM. WE KIND OF EXCHANGED
GLANCES.
Q WHERE DID YOU SEE HIM ON THIS THIRD OCCASION?
A AT HENNESSEY'S TAVERN ON CATALINA AVENUE IN REDONDO
BEACH.
Q WAS THIS AN ESTABLISHMENT WITH WHICH YOU WERE
FAMILIAR?
A SOMEWHAT, YES.
Q HAD YOU BEEN THERE BEFORE?
A OH, YES.
Q HAD YOU ANY PREARRANGEMENT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, EITHER
YOU OR ANDREA TERRY, TO MEET
MARK FUHRMAN AT HENNESSEY'S THAT DAY?
A OH, NO, NO PRIOR ARRANGEMENT.
Q ARE YOU ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE THESE MEETINGS AS
BETWEEN '85 AND '86? YOU HAVE SAID THAT IT OCCURRED IN ONE YEAR
OR THE OTHER. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION?
A PROBABLY '86.
Q EITHER THE SPRING OR SUMMER?
A PROBABLY THE SUMMER.
Q OKAY.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, YOU SAW HIM IN THE MARINE CORPS
RECRUITING STATION ON MORE THAN 10 OCCASIONS DURING THIS PERIOD?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, TELL ME THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR MEETING AT
HENNESSEY'S TAVERN. WHO WERE YOU WITH?
A I WAS WITH ANDREA.
Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OR OCCASION FOR YOU BEING WITH
HER? ANYTHING SPECIAL?
A NO, WE JUST STOPPED.
Q OKAY.
WHY DID YOU GO TO HENNESSEY'S THAT DAY?
A UMM, JUST TO -- IT IS KIND OF LIKE A LOCAL PUB,
ALMOST LIKE A CHEERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND WE JUST WANTED
TO VISIT WITH PEOPLE.
Q CAN YOU TELL US THE TIME OF DAY?
A I CANNOT.
Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU WERE -- ARRIVED AT HENNESSEY'S, WHAT DID YOU
DO?
A WE JUST SAT DOWN AND WE JUST STARTED TALKING, AND
USUALLY THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WE GREW UP WITH THAT VISIT
THERE AND SO WE SAY HELLO TO THOSE PEOPLE AND THAT IS IT.
I REMEMBER WHERE WE WERE SITTING AND ALL OF THAT.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FLOOR LAYOUT AT HENNESSEY'S
TAVERN?
A UH-HUH, YES.
Q CAN YOU GIVE THE COURT AND JURY SOME BRIEF
DESCRIPTION AS YOU WALK IN THE DOOR?
A YOU WALK IN HENNESSEY'S AND THERE ARE SOME -- THERE
ARE SOME TABLES ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND THE BAR IS ON THE LEFT
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT THERE ARE TABLES AS WELL AND THEN KIND OF
JUST ONE BAR GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE, AND UMM, ANDREA AND I
WERE SITTING FACING THE DOOR.
Q WERE YOU IN A BOOTH OR AT A TABLE?
A IT IS CONSIDERED A BOOTH, YEAH.
Q HOW MANY BOOTHS ARE IN THE BAR?
A OH, I DON'T KNOW.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A PROBABLY A GOOD GUESS WOULD BE ABOUT TEN.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT DID DO YOU AFTER YOU SAT DOWN?
A WE --
Q DID YOU ORDER SOMETHING?
A JUST WERE TALKING -- YES. WE ORDERED -- I PROBABLY
ORDERED CRANBERRY JUICE WITH LIME AND ANDREA I DON'T -- I DON'T
EVEN KNOW. WE ARE NOT REAL DRINKERS.
Q DID EITHER OF YOU ORDER ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES THAT
DAY?
A PARDON ME?
Q DID EITHER OF YOU ORDER OR CONSUME ANY ALCOHOL WHILE
YOU WERE IN THE BAR?
A I DID NOT. I DON'T THINK ANDREA DID EITHER.
Q AFTER YOU HAD BEEN THERE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME DID
YOU NOTICE SOMEONE YOU HAD SEEN BEFORE?
A YES.
Q WHO WAS THAT?
A MARK FUHRMAN.
Q WAS HE WITH ANYONE?
A YES, HE WAS.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PERSON THAT HE WAS WITH?
A SLIGHTLY. SHE WAS -- IT WAS A WOMAN AND WITH SANDY
BLOND HAIR.
Q AND CAN YOU GIVE ANY FURTHER DESCRIPTION AS TO HER
HEIGHT AND WEIGHT AND SO FORTH?
A NO, I REALLY CAN'T. PROBABLY ABOUT 5-7.
Q HOW WAS MARK FUHRMAN DRESSED ON THAT OCCASION?
A I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q HOW HAD HE BEEN DRESSED WHEN YOU
TALKED TO HIM IN THE MARINE RECRUITING STATION, IF YOU RECALL?
A I THINK AT ONE TIME HE WAS WEARING SWEATS AND THAT IS
ALL I CAN REMEMBER.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE HIM WEARING A POLICE UNIFORM?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN IN HENNESSEY'S WHEN HE SAT
DOWN?
A I DON'T RECALL.
Q AND WHEN HE SAT DOWN WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID DO YOU OR
SAY?
A HE AND THIS WOMAN SAT DOWN FACING US AND SO I SAW HIM
IMMEDIATELY AND IT WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, SO I TOLD ANDREA THAT
THAT IS THAT MAN THAT I TOLD HER ABOUT THAT I AT FIRST WANTED TO
SET HER UP WITH, AND THEN I FOUND OUT WHAT HE BELIEVED AND, UMM,
THEN I ASKED HER IF WE COULD LEAVE.
Q DID HE SHOW ANY SIGNS OF RECOGNITION WHILE LOOKING IN
YOUR DIRECTION?
A I DON'T KNOW IF HE DID AT FIRST, BUT AS I LEFT DID
HE.
Q OKAY.
IN WHAT WAY DID HE INDICATE THAT HE MIGHT HAVE SEEN
YOU BEFORE?
A HE JUST GAVE ME KIND OF A NASTY LOOK.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU SAID TO ANDREA THAT YOU
FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AND WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE ESTABLISHMENT?
A SHE SAID "OKAY" AND I THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS GOING WITH
ME, AND UMM, SHE -- WE STARTED WALKING TOWARD THE DOOR. MARK
FUHRMAN AND THIS WOMAN WERE SITTING AS YOU WALK INTO HENNESSEY'S
AND YOU TAKE YOUR FIRST RIGHT. HE WAS SITTING AT A TABLE TO THE
RIGHT AND HE WAS SITTING FACING US.
SO ANDREA AND I STARTED WALKING TO THE DOOR AND WHEN
WE WERE WALKING TOWARD THE DOOR WE WERE WALKING TOWARD MARK
FUHRMAN AND THIS WOMAN, AND SHE STARTED KIND OF V'ING OFF TOWARD
HIS TABLE, AND I WAS TRYING TO CATCH HER AND TELLING HER, YOU
KNOW,
DON'T -- WHAT ARE YOU DOING, YOU KNOW, AND SHE KIND OF HAD A --
KIND OF A GRIN ON HER FACE LIKE SHE WAS GOING TO GO GET HIS GOAT
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q UH-HUH. DID YOU STAY WITHIN EARSHOT OF THE TWO?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I WENT TO THE DOOR. I'M NOT SURE IF I WAITED IN MY
CAR OR WAITED OUTSIDE, BUT I KNOW I LEFT.
Q CAN YOU RECALL HEARING ANY CONVERSATION FROM EITHER
ANDREA TERRY, MARK FUHRMAN OR THE LADY THAT WAS WITH HIM THAT
DAY?
A I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW HER SIT DOWN
AS YOU WALKED OUT THE DOOR?
A I THOUGHT SHE WAS STANDING FACING THEM, BUT, UMM, I
THINK SHE WAS JUST STANDING FACING THEM.
Q OKAY.
AND HOW LONG WAS IT BEFORE SHE REJOINED YOU WHEREVER
YOU WERE?
A I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANY MORE THAN TEN MINUTES,
PROBABLY FIVE TO TEN MINUTES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU STOOD EITHER OUTSIDE THE BAR OR WENT AND GOT IN
YOUR AUTOMOBILE?
A RIGHT.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
WHAT KIND OF AUTOMOBILE WERE YOU DRIVING AT THAT
TIME?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: IRRELEVANT.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
Q DID YOU AT ANY TIME HAVE CONVERSATION WITH MARK
FUHRMAN CONCERNING ASTROLOGY?
A AS EMBARRASSING AS IT IS, YES. WHEN I MET HIM --
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS TIME.
HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
THE WITNESS: BRIEFLY, YES.
THE COURT: WHEN WAS THIS?
THE WITNESS: THE SECOND TIME I MET HIM I FOUND OUT HE WAS
AQUARIUS.
MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
Q WHEN ASTROLOGY IS RELEVANT, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW
ABOUT A PERSON BEFORE LOOKING AT THEIR ASTROLOGICAL SIGNS?
A I REALLY -- I DON'T KNOW. THERE IS THIS BOOK THAT I
WAS GIVEN BY SOMEONE TO READ AND IT WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE
RELATE TO EACH OTHER, SO I BRIEFLY READ IT AND I ASKED WHEN HIS
BIRTHDAY WAS AND I REMEMBER THINKING IN MY HEAD THAT HE WAS
AQUARIUS.
Q WHAT WAS HIS SIGN?
A AQUARIUS.
Q AQUARIUS.
WHAT BIRTHDATES DOES THAT COVER? WHAT RANGE?
A OH, BOY. LET'S SEE. I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
IT IS JANUARY --
Q LET ME PUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY. IS FEBRUARY 5TH
WITHIN THE RANGE OF AQUARIUS?
A YES, IT IS. IT IS.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY TALK WITH MR. FUHRMAN ABOUT THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS ASTROLOGICAL SIGN, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER?
A VERY BRIEFLY. I JUST --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DID THAT OCCUR BEFORE THE REMARKS
WERE MADE IN THE MARINE RECRUITING STATION?
A ABOUT THE BLACK MAN WITH THE WHITE WOMAN?
Q ABOUT HIS BIRTHDAY?
A I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
Q I'M TRYING TO PLACE THE TIME THAT YOU LEARNED HIS
BIRTHDAY.
A OKAY.
Q WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
A IT HAPPENED WHEN I STARTED TALKING ABOUT MY
GIRLFRIEND ANDREA.
THE COURT: THIS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE TO SEE IF THEY WERE
COMPATIBLE?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: AFTER ANDREA CAME OUT, AND WITHOUT
TELLING US WHAT SHE SAID, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH HER
ABOUT WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED WHILE YOU STEPPED OUT OF HENNESSEY'S
AND SHE WAS STILL INSIDE AT FUHRMAN'S TABLE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
A I JUST ASKED WHAT -- ACTUALLY I DIDN'T REALLY EVEN
ASK WHAT WAS SAID. SHE JUST SAID, "OH, GOD."
Q DON'T TELL US WHAT SHE SAID.
A ALL RIGHT.
Q MY ONLY QUESTION IS DID SHE TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT
THE CONVERSATION?
A YES, SHE DID.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU TWO DO AFTER THAT?
A I DON'T RECALL. WE PROBABLY JUST WENT HOME.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE MARK FUHRMAN AGAIN?
A I SAW HIM DRIVING IN HIS CAR ONCE AND I SAW HIM ON
TELEVISION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, APART FROM THE TELEVISION, WHEN YOU SAW HIM
DRIVING IN HIS CAR DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT KIND OF
VEHICLE HE WAS DRIVING?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL SCOUT, LIKE A
UTILITY VEHICLE, AND IT WAS KIND OF A PEA GREEN AND WHITE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER HE
OWNED THAT VEHICLE OR WAS SIMPLY DRIVING IT?
A I DON'T KNOW, BUT I SAW IT IN FRONT OF THE MARINE
RECRUITING CENTER AND I SAW HIM DRIVING IT LATER AND I SAW IT
PARKED IN FRONT OF HENNESSEY'S AND THAT PREVENTED ANDREA FROM
GOING IN, ANDREA AND ME.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU EVER PERSONALLY SEE MARK FUHRMAN AGAIN?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOUR SECOND SEEING OF MARK
FUHRMAN AND YOUR FIRST ENCOUNTER WAS PROBABLY WITHIN THREE WEEKS
OF YOUR FIRST NOTICING HIM IN THE STATION, WHEN YOU DIDN'T STOP?
A PROBABLY.
Q CAN YOU RELATE THE HENNESSEY'S BAR ENCOUNTER TO THE
ONE IN THE MARINE CORPS RECRUITING STATION IN TERMS OF TIME?
A PROBABLY AGAIN ABOUT THREE WEEKS OR A MONTH.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THE OCCASION IN WHICH YOU SIMPLY SAW HIM DRIVE BY
AND HAD NO CONVERSATION WITH HIM, HOW MUCH AFTER HENNESSEY'S BAR
MIGHT THAT HAVE OCCURRED?
A I DON'T KNOW, BUT AGAIN ANDREA WAS STILL IN TOWN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHAT IS THE LONGEST YOU WOULD EXPECT ANDREA TO BE IN
TOWN IF SHE WERE ON OTHER THAN A SUMMER VACATION FROM BRIGHAM
YOUNG?
A SHE MAY HAVE SKIPPED A QUARTER AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE
IF THEY ARE ON THE QUARTER SYSTEM THERE, BUT SHE MAY HAVE SKIPPED
A QUARTER, AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN THAT WAS, WHEN THAT FELL.
Q HOW DID YOU LEARN MARK FUHRMAN'S NAME? DID SOMEONE
TELL YOU THE NAME OR DID HE TELL YOU?
A WHEN I WAS INTRODUCED TO HIM AT THE MARINE RECRUITING
CENTER I WAS INTRODUCED TO HIM AS MARK.
Q WHO DID THE INTRODUCTION?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS RON ROHR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AS A RESULT OF THE REMARKS THAT MARK FUHRMAN SAID TO
YOU ON YOUR FIRST ENCOUNTER --
A UH-HUH.
Q -- WHERE HE TALKED TO YOU, DID YOU DO ANYTHING WITH
RESPECT TO THE LAPD THAT YOU CAN RECALL?
A YES --
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A -- I DID.
WHAT DID I DO? I CALLED THE LAPD. I TRIED ANYWAY.
AND IT WASN'T 911, BUT IT WAS -- I SEEM TO RECALL CULVER OR
OLYMPIC, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS A STREET OR A DISTRICT OR
I DON'T --
Q DO YOU REMEMBER HOW YOU GOT THE NUMBER THAT YOU
CALLED TO PLACE THIS COMPLAINT?
A I CALLED I THINK THE OPERATOR OR 411.
Q AND ASKED FOR WHOM, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER?
A I ASKED FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IN
WESTWOOD BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE HE SAID THAT HE WORKED AT THAT
TIME, AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS SUCH A THING, AND SHE WAS
SAYING, WELL, I CAN GIVE YOU OLYMPIC OR CULVER OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
Q DID YOU GET A NUMBER AND EVENTUALLY CALL IT?
A I DID.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHOM YOU MAY HAVE
SPOKEN WITH?
A UMM, I BELIEVE IT WAS A WOMAN, AND I HATE TO BE SO
VAGUE, BUT I REALLY DON'T RECALL, BUT I TRULY BELIEVE IT WAS A
WOMAN.
Q AND CAN YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MARK FUHRMAN'S NAME
WAS USED DURING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH WHATEVER WOMAN YOU SPOKE
TO?
A WELL, I SAID THAT THERE IS A POLICE OFFICER --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AS HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I SAID THAT THEY HAVE A POLICE OFFICER NAMED
MARK AND I TOLD HER THAT HE HAD A RACIAL PROBLEM AND THAT I
THOUGHT THEY SHOULD KNOW, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION
ABOUT HIM AND I WAS AFRAID TO ASK THE MARINES HIS LAST NAME.
Q WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT TO ASK THE MARINES?
A I DIDN'T WANT TO SEEM LIKE I WAS TRYING TO GET
INFORMATION ABOUT HIM TO GET HIM INTO TROUBLE, BECAUSE I WAS
AFRAID OF HIM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU EVER FOLLOW UP ON THAT CALL OR GO SEE ANYONE?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WERE YOU ASKED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER BY THE WOMAN AT
THE OTHER END OF THE POLICE LINE?
A NO, NOT AT ALL.
Q WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME YOU SAW, EITHER PERSONALLY OR
ON TELEVISION, MARK FUHRMAN?
A I DID SEE HIM ON TELEVISION LAST YEAR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WAS THAT PERHAPS DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q MIGHT IT HAVE BEEN IN JULY OF '94?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q OKAY.
AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU NOTICED MARK FUHRMAN ON
THE SCREEN?
A I WAS AT HOME.
Q AND WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU FIRST NOTICED HIM?
A HE WAS SITTING AS A WITNESS.
Q AND WAS HE TESTIFYING?
A YES, HE WAS TESTIFYING.
Q NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FROM THE TIME YOU LAST
SAW HIM DRIVING THE PEA GREEN INTERNATIONAL SCOUT, UNTIL YOU SAW
HIM ON TELEVISION, YOU HAD NO DIRECT ENCOUNTERS OR INDIRECT
ENCOUNTERS WITH MARK FUHRMAN?
A NOT, NO.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU WERE
AFRAID OF HIM IN A WAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS SO?
A I THINK THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS --
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS DEMEANOR WHEN HE SPOKE THE WORDS
USING THE "N" WORD ABOUT THE BLACK RACE? HOW DID HIS FACE
APPEAR?
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: HE SEEMED DISGUSTED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE ANY SIGNS WHATSOEVER OF
JOCULARITY IN HIS FACE AS IF HE WERE PULLING YOUR LEG WITH THESE
OUTRAGEOUS REMARKS?
MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU SAW MARK FUHRMAN ON TELEVISION, DID YOU
RECOGNIZE HIM IMMEDIATELY?
A IMMEDIATELY.
Q AND HOW DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?
A I JUST -- I SAW HIM AND IT ALL CAME BACK, EVERY BIT
OF IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WERE REMEMBERING NOW WHAT ABOUT THE MARK FUHRMAN
YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED BACK IN '85 OR '6?
A I REMEMBERED WHAT HE SAID.
Q DID YOU REMEMBER HIS FACIAL APPEARANCE?
A OH, YES.
Q HE WAS A HANDSOME MAN?
A YES.
Q AND HIS HEIGHT?
A HE WAS SITTING AGAIN, BUT I SAW HIM AND HIS FACE.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, MISS BELL, WOULD YOU ALLOW MR. BAILEY
TO FINISH ASKING THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START ANSWERING, AND MR.
BAILEY, WOULD YOU ALLOW HER TO FINISH ANSWERING BEFORE YOU START
TO ASK THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO AFTER
SEEING MR. FUHRMAN TESTIFYING IN THE SIMPSON CASE?
A I CALLED THE NEWS SHOW THAT I FIRST SAW HIM ON. THAT
WAS THE FIRST THING THAT I DID. I WASN'T SURE WHAT TO DO, AND I
JUST KNOW THAT I FELT AFRAID AGAIN. I FELT THAT SAME FEELING
THAT I FELT IN THAT MARINE RECRUITING CENTER WHEN I SAW HIM ON
TELEVISION, AND I THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE SHOULD KNOW AND I DIDN'T
KNOW WHAT TO DO.
SO I CALLED THE NEWS COMPANY AND I TOLD SOME YOUNG
PERSON ON THE PHONE THAT -- WHAT THEY JUST SHOWED WAS TRUE, THERE
IS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS MAN THAT IS --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS IS HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DON'T TELL US WHAT YOU SAID.
A OKAY.
Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE NEWS PROGRAM AND WHY CALLED THAT
PROGRAM?
A IT WAS CHANNEL 9 AND I CALLED BECAUSE I SAW HIM.
Q NOW, MISS BELL, WHEN YOU SAY YOU SAW HIM ON THE
CHANNEL, DO YOU MEAN ON THE WITNESS STAND IN COURT OR BEING
INTERVIEWED OUTSIDE OF COURT?
A ON THE WITNESS STAND, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THERE IS
-- IF HE WAS SAYING ANYTHING. I THINK THAT THE NEWS BROADCASTER
WAS SPEAKING OVER THE FILM OF HIM.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIS ROLE WAS, IF ANY, IN
THE CASE AT THAT POINT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT CAUSED YOU TO CALL THE NEWS
MEDIA? WHY DID YOU THINK THAT WAS IMPORTANT, CHANNEL 9?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I JUST REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
TO DO AND I THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE SHOULD KNOW THAT IT WAS --
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON AND SOMETHING WAS SAID, AND I
WAS VACUUMING KIND OF AND CLEANING AT THE TIME, AND I DIDN'T HEAR
EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, BUT SOMETHING ABOUT A RACIAL ISSUE, SO I
THOUGHT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS PERSON HAS A PROBLEM.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT WAS SAID, DID
YOU CONTACT ANYONE AT CHANNEL 9?
A ONLY THIS YOUNG MAN WHO ANSWERED THE PHONE.
Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH ANYONE AT
CHANNEL 9?
A A REPORTER LATER ON.
Q A WHEN DID THAT OCCUR?
A MUCH LATER ON.
UMM, I WAS WALKING OUT FROM MY OFFICE WHERE I WORK
AND HE KIND OF TRACKED ME DOWN IN HIS NEWS VAN.
Q OKAY.
NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU WRITE A LETTER TO MR.
COCHRAN?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT LETTER HAS BEEN
DISPLAYED TO THIS JURY EARLIER IN THE CASE?
A IT HAS BEEN DISPLAYED?
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING YOU IF YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE OR
DON'T?
A YOU KNOW, I'M NOT REALLY SURE. I DON'T THINK SO.
Q HAVE YOU SEEN THE LETTER RECENTLY?
A I JUST SAW IT THIS MORNING.
Q OKAY.
WHY DID YOU WRITE MR. COCHRAN A LETTER?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT -- I DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE
TO BE TRIED WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION AND I THOUGHT THAT THERE
MIGHT BE SOME REASON THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT MARK FUHRMAN
SAID THESE THINGS TO ME.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
WITHOUT SAYING WHAT WAS SAID, WERE YOU ACTING ON THE
ADVICE OF ANYONE OR ON YOUR OWN INITIATIVE WHEN YOU WROTE THE
LETTER?
A NO, ON MY OWN INITIATIVE.
Q THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN AT ABOUT WHAT DATE, AS YOU
BEST RECALL?
A JULY 18, I BELIEVE OR JULY 19.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WAS THIS AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS OVER, TO
YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A I DON'T KNOW. I HADN'T BEEN WATCHING THE CASE. I
WOULD LISTEN TO IT ON THE RADIO ON MY WAY HOME, BUT I REALLY
WASN'T WATCHING IT VERY MUCH.
Q OKAY.
AS A RESULT OF THAT LETTER DID SOMEBODY CONTACT YOU?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU GIVE US THE NAME OF THE PERSON THAT CONTACTED
YOU?
A MR. DOUGLAS.
Q CARL DOUGLAS?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT WAS SAID, DID YOU HAVE
SOME CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU THEREAFTER TALK WITH ANYONE ELSE AFFILIATED
WITH THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND CAN YOU NAME THAT PERSON?
A UMM, OKAY. I SPOKE WITH A PAT MC KENNA, BUT BEFORE
THAT I SPOKE WITH A MAN -- UMM, EXCUSE ME, I DON'T REMEMBER HIS
NAME.
Q COULD IT HAVE BEEN PAVELIC?
A YES, MR. PAVELIC.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU SPEAK AT LENGTH WITH EITHER OF THESE TWO
DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS?
A UMM, NOT -- MR. PAVELIC I SPOKE TO QUITE A BIT.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU TELL HIM ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS IN THE CONTENTS
OF YOUR LETTER?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WILL YOU TELL US WHO THIS GENTLEMAN IS RIGHT
HERE, (INDICATING)?
A THAT IS MY FAMILY'S ATTORNEY AND MY ATTORNEY.
Q HE HAS REPRESENTED THE FAMILY FOR SOME YEARS NOW?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, COUNSEL, DO YOU WANT TO
IDENTIFY HIM, COUNSEL.
MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY. HE WAS IDENTIFIED OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS MR. TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT
WHO PRACTICES IN REDONDO BEACH.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: AT SOME POINT DID YOU CONTACT MR.
DAIGNEAULT, WITHOUT GOING INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU RELATE TO US A TIME WHEN THAT OCCURRED WITH
RESPECT TO MARK FUHRMAN?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WITH RESPECT TO SEEING HIM ON TELEVISION?
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR WHOLE
INVOLVEMENT IN LETTING THE DEFENSE KNOW WHAT HE HAD DONE YEARS
BEFORE, WHEN DID YOU SEEK THE ADVICE OF MR. DAIGNEAULT ON THIS
POINT?
A YES, UMM --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BAILEY: SORRY.
A PROBABLY -- GOSH, LET'S SEE. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE
REPORTERS STARTED FINDING ME, BUT THIS IS -- AFTER THE CHANNEL 9
REPORTER FOUND ME, THAT IS WHEN I -- I CONTACTED HIM AND I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THAT TIME FRAME WAS. PROBABLY A MONTH LATER OR THREE
WEEKS LATER.
Q ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
NOW, AT ANY TIME DID YOU CONTACT ANYONE AFFILIATED
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THIS INFORMATION, OR ATTEMPT TO
CONTACT?
A AFTER THE -- YOU MEAN SINCE I SAW HIM?
Q YES.
A I SENT MY SAME LETTER. I FAXED MY SAME LETTER TO THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
Q DID YOU GET A RESPONSE FROM ANYONE IN THE L.A.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AFTER YOU FAXED A COPY OF THE LETTER
TO MR. COCHRAN?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TALKED TO ANYONE FROM THAT OFFICE?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TALKED TO MYSELF PRIOR TO THIS MORNING?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q OR ANY OTHER LAWYER AT THE DEFENSE TABLE OR
AFFILIATED WITH THE DEFENSE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN THE
ONE CALL FROM MR. DOUGLAS?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
HAVE YOU BEEN INTERVIEWED BY EITHER SIDE, THAT IS TO
SAY, LAWYERS FOR EITHER SIDE?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER HEARD FROM ANYONE CONNECTED WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT SINCE YOU SENT THAT LETTER OUT?
A NO.
Q NOW, DID YOU FOLLOW THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE AT
ALL, THIS TRIAL?
A SINCE I SAW MARK FUHRMAN I DID. I WAS A LITTLE BIT
MORE INTERESTED, SO I STARTED FOLLOWING IT.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL A TIME WHEN HE TESTIFIED WHEN YOUR
NAME WAS BROUGHT INTO THE TRIAL?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL THINGS THAT WERE SAID ABOUT YOU BY THE
PROSECUTION AT THAT TIME?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BAILEY: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, EXHIBIT 102 HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY SHOWN TO THE JURY IN AN ENLARGED FORM DURING MR.
FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY AND I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT UP BEGIN NOW.
Q AND MISS BELL, IT WILL APPEAR ON A LITTLE TELEVISION
SET DOWN TO YOUR RIGHT AND ALSO UP ON THAT BIG SCREEN, BUT I
THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ IT BETTER.
A OKAY.
Q NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT WITH YOU AND ASK
YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECOLLECT THIS AS BEING A LETTER THAT YOU
ORIGINATED.
FIRST, DID YOU HAVE ANY HELP IN DRAFTING THIS LETTER?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT MR. COCHRAN WOULD BE A GOOD
PERSON TO WRITE TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU
HAD?
A I CALLED THE INFORMATION OPERATOR AND I TRIED TO GET
MR. SHAPIRO'S PHONE NUMBER, AND HE JUST KIND OF LAUGHED AND SAID,
WELL, YOU CAN'T GET THAT PHONE NUMBER.
Q THE OPERATOR SAID YOU CAN'T GET SHAPIRO'S PHONE
NUMBER?
A RIGHT.
Q I SEE. SO WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A ON THAT SAME NEWS BROADCAST THEY HAD MENTIONED AN
ATTORNEY NAMED JOHNNIE COCHRAN AND I DIDN'T KNOW EVEN IF HE WAS
IN CALIFORNIA OR NOT, SO I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD TRY, AND I DID
GET THAT PHONE NUMBER AND HE HAD AN ANSWERING SERVICE AND I ASKED
FOR THE FAX NUMBER.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU GET IT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHEN YOU COMPOSED THIS LETTER CAN YOU TELL US
MECHANICALLY HOW YOU DID IT? WAS IT HANDWRITTEN, TYPED OR
COMPUTER?
A NO, I JUST WENT ON A COMPUTER.
Q DID YOU TYPE IT YOURSELF?
A YES.
Q AND PRINT IT OUT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH DOWN TO
YOUR RIGHT.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q YOU MENTION THAT YOU WERE WRITING IN REGARDS TO A
STORY YOU SAW ON THE NEWS LAST NIGHT AND YOU PREVIOUSLY TOLD US
THAT YOU THINK THIS LETTER WAS SENT OUT ON JULY 18TH WHEN YOU GOT
MR. COCHRAN'S FAX NUMBER; IS THAT RIGHT?
A I THINK I ACTUALLY WROTE THE LETTER ON JULY 18TH OR
19TH AND THEN I ENDED UP STAYING UP SO LATE THAT IT ENDED UP
BEING THE 20TH THAT I ACTUALLY FAXED IT.
Q OKAY.
WELL, CAN YOU HELP US WITH WHAT DATE IS MEANT BY
"LAST NIGHT" IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OR FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT
LETTER?
A I HAVE THIS AT HOME, I'M SORRY. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE
19TH THAT I STARTED WRITING IT AND I SAW THE NEWS BROADCAST THE
19TH, AND THE 20TH IS WHEN I ACTUALLY SENT IT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION, MISS BELL, AS TO WHAT
NEWS PROGRAM YOU WERE WATCHING THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IN THAT
FIRST SENTENCE?
A CHANNEL 9 NEWS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IS THAT A STATION THAT YOU GENERALLY WATCH?
A I WAS -- YES, I GUESS, SURE.
Q THE NEXT SAYS:
"I THOUGHT IT RIDICULOUS THAT THE SAME DEFENSE
TEAM WOULD EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE MIGHT BE RACIAL MOTIVATION
INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL AGAINST MR. SIMPSON."
NOW, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE TEXT OF WHAT YOU HAD
HEARD BEFORE, HAD YOU HEARD SUCH A CLAIM ADVANCED BY SOMEBODY?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: THE NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY:
"I THEN GLANCED UP AT THE TELEVISION AND WAS
QUITE SHOCKED TO SEE THAT OFFICER FUHRMAN WAS A MAN THAT I HAD
THE MISFORTUNE OF MEETING."
WHEN YOU GLANCED UP AT TELEVISION, AS YOU DESCRIBE IN
THAT SENTENCE, DID YOU RECOGNIZE MR. FUHRMAN IMMEDIATELY?
A IMMEDIATELY.
Q HAD ANYONE IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE ON A FIRST GREETING
EVER TREATED YOU THE WAY THAT YOU WERE TREATED BY HIM IN THAT
MARINE RECRUITING STATION?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NEVER.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
YOU SAY:
"YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM YOUR
ANSWERING SERVICE LAST NIGHT THAT I CALLED TO SAY THAT MR.
FUHRMAN MAY BE MORE OF A RACIST THAT YOU CAN EVEN IMAGINE."
HAD YOU LEFT A MESSAGE ON AN ANSWERING SERVICE THE
NIGHT BEFORE THAT YOU BELIEVED TO BE THAT OF MR. COCHRAN?
A YES.
Q AND DID THE ANSWERING MESSAGE CONTAIN GENERALLY THE
INFORMATION THAT IS IN THAT SENTENCE? DID IT USE THE WORD
"RACIST"?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID ANYTHING -- ACTUALLY I DO KNOW
THAT I SAID SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
Q OKAY.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE NOT SURE THAT YOU TOLD THE
ANSWERING MACHINE WHAT IS IN THAT LETTER ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN,
SIMPLY THAT YOU CALLED TO MAKE CONTACT; IS THAT RIGHT?
A IT WAS AN ANSWERING SERVICE.
Q SERVICE?
A RIGHT. I SPOKE TO THE WOMAN.
Q THE ONE THAT GAVE YOU THE FAX NUMBER.
YOU DON'T RECALL IF YOU TOLD THE WOMAN THE TEXT OF
YOUR --
A RIGHT.
Q YOU SAID:
"BETWEEN 1985 AND 1986 I WORKED AS A REAL ESTATE
AGENT."
DO YOU MEAN BY THAT DURING '85 AND '86?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THE COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS AT THE TIME YOU
WROTE THIS LETTER, AS YOU HAVE SAID?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU HAVE TOLD US, I BELIEVE, THAT YOUR OFFICE
CENTURY 21 WAS IN FACT LOCATED ABOVE THE MARINE RECRUITING CENTER
OFF OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. THAT'S CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WOULD STOP ON OCCASION TO SAY HELLO TO THE
TWO MARINES WHO WORK THERE, YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AS MR. FOSS AND
MR. ROAR, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q BY THE WAY, WERE THEY GENERALLY IN UNIFORM WHEN YOU
SAW THEM?
A THEY WERE ALWAYS IN UNIFORM EXCEPT FOR ONCE OR TWICE
I SAW JOE FOSS, WE WENT JOGGING.
Q " SAW MR. FUHRMAN THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES BECAUSE
I REMEMBER HIM DISTINCTLY BECAUSE OF HIS HEIGHT AND BUILD."
NOW, IS THAT THE HEIGHT AND BUILD YOU TOLD US YOU
NOTED BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED WITH FIXING UP YOUR FRIEND
ANDREA TERRY WITH SOMEONE OF EQUAL OR GREATER STATURE?
A YES.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.
Q WHEN YOU SAW MR. FUHRMAN AT THE RECRUITING STATION ON
THE FIRST TWO OCCASIONS, WAS HE WEARING ANY OF THE ACCOUTREMENTS
OF A POLICEMAN, LIKE A WEAPON OR THAT SORT OF THING THAT YOU SAW?
A I DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING.
Q OKAY.
YOU SAY THAT:
"WHILE SPEAKING TO THE MEN, I LEARNED THAT MR.
FUHRMAN WAS A POLICE OFFICER IN WESTWOOD AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE
WAS TELLING THE TRUTH BUT HE SAID THAT HE HAD BEEN IN A SPECIAL
DIVISION OF MARINES."
A YES.
Q I WOULD LIKE TO STOP THERE FOR A MOMENT AND SEE IF WE
CAN SORT THIS OUT.
YOU SAW MR. FUHRMAN THROUGH THE WINDOW, TAPPED ON THE
WINDOW AND WALKED ON ON THE FIRST OCCASION?
A UH-HUH.
Q YOU NOTED THAT HE WAS TALL AND A GOOD LOOKING MAN.
YOU THEN SPOKE WITH THE MARINES, WHEN MR. FUHRMAN WAS
NOT PRESENT, ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF INTRODUCING YOURSELF?
A YES.
Q AND SUBSEQUENTLY YOU DID INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO BE
GREETED BY HIS VIEWS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION
ABOUT HIS HAVING BEEN IN A SPECIAL DIVISION OF THE MARINES CAME
>FROM THE TWO MARINES OR ONE OF THEM OR CAME FROM FUHRMAN HIMSELF?
A I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM ONE OF THE MARINES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY RELATED THIS TO YOU BEFORE YOU
EVER TALKED TO HIM?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION?
A AFTER THE FIRST TIME THAT I MET HIM -- THAT I SAW
HIM, I SPOKE TO THEM AND AT THAT TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE
BIT.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU INQUIRE OF THEM AS TO ANY OTHER INFORMATION
RELATING TO MR. FUHRMAN, HIS MARITAL STATUS, WHAT HE DID, ET
CETERA?
A NOT HIS MARITAL STATUS. I -- I JUST SAID THAT I WAS
UNCOMFORTABLE WALKING IN WHILE HE WAS THERE AND THEY SAID THAT HE
WAS A FORMER MARINE.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT HE WAS A FORMER MARINE THAT JUST LIKED
TO COME AND SHOOT THE BREEZE SO IT WAS FINE THAT I COULD WALK IN.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
AT THAT POINT YOU SAY:
"I DON'T KNOW HOW THE SUBJECT WAS RAISED BUT
OFFICER FUHRMAN SAID THAT WHEN HE SEES AN 'N,' AS HE CALLED IT,
DRIVING WITH A WHITE WOMAN, HE WOULD PULL THEM OVER."
NOW, THERE IS NO MENTION OF MARCUS ALLEN HERE. DO
YOU NOW REMEMBER THAT HIS NAME WAS MENTIONED BEFORE THIS
RESPONSE?
A YES, I DO.
Q OKAY.
A AND I ALSO, EXCUSE ME, REMEMBER THAT HE DIDN'T SAY
THE "N" WORD --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE WITNESS: -- AT FIRST.
THE COURT: HOLD ON. NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU SAY:
"I ASKED IF HE DIDN'T HAVE A REASON AND HE SAID
THAT HE WOULD FIND ONE."
A YES.
Q DID YOU MEAN BY THAT A REASON TO PULL THEM OVER?
A YES.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BAILEY: A MOMENT AGO YOU WANTED TO EXPLAIN
SOMETHING TO US THAT YOU HAD JUST RECALLED.
WOULD YOU TELL WAS THAT WAS?
A WHEN -- IN THIS LETTER -- I WROTE THIS IN A VERY BIG
HURRY AND I DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE SUCH A NEED TO
RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN DETAIL, SO THERE WAS A
MISTAKE THERE AND THE FIRST -- HE DID NOT SAY THE "N" WORD WHEN
HE SAID "IF I SAW A BLACK MAN WITH A WHITE WOMAN DRIVING IN A CAR
HE WOULD PULL THEM OVER." HE DEFINITELY SAID "A BLACK MAN."
Q OKAY.
DID HE USE THAT WORD LATER WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT
BURNING EVERYBODY?
A YES, HE DID.
Q DID HE USE "BLACK" OR THE WORD BEGINNING WITH "N"?
A THE "N" WORD.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THERE IS NO MENTION IN THIS PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE
QUERY SUPPOSING THEY WERE IN LOVE?
A RIGHT.
Q YOU LEFT THAT OUT OF YOUR LETTER?
A RIGHT.
Q HAVE YOU GONE OVER THIS ENCOUNTER IN YOUR MIND SINCE
THE TIME YOU WROTE THIS LETTER?
A MANY, MANY TIMES.
Q HAVE YOU DISCUSSED IT, WITHOUT SAYING WHAT WAS SAID,
WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE?
A YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE, AS YOU SIT THERE TODAY, A CLEAR
RECOLLECTION OF THE WORDS UTTERED BY MARK FUHRMAN AS YOU HAVE
DESCRIBED THEM IN YOUR TESTIMONY?
A YES, I DO.
Q OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
IF WE CAN PULL UP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, MR. DOUGLAS.
IF WOULD YOU JUST READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE AND ASK
YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU DISTINCTLY RECALL HIM USING THOSE WORDS?
A "OFFICER FUHRMAN WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE WOULD
LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN TO SEE ALL NIGGERS GATHERED TOGETHER AND
KILLED. HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE BURNING" -- EXCUSE ME --
"ABOUT BURNING THEM OR BOMBING THEM. I WAS TOO SHAKEN TO
REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS HE USED; HOWEVER, I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT
WHAT HE" -- WAIT. I'M SORRY.
"I DO REMEMBER THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS PROBABLY THE
MOST HORRIBLE THING I HAD EVER HEARD SOMEONE SAY. WHAT
FRIGHTENED ME EVEN MORE WAS THAT HE WAS A POLICE OFFICER."
Q NOW, MISS BELL, IS ALL OF THAT TRUE, EVERYTHING THAT
YOU WROTE THERE?
A I KNOW NOW THAT HE SAID "GATHER TOGETHER AND BURNED."
Q OKAY.
NEXT PARAGRAPH, PLEASE, MR. DOUGLAS.
ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE SAID IN YOUR LETTER THAT YOU ARE ALMOST SURE
YOU CALLED THE LAPD.
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER YOU
DID?
A I AM POSITIVE I DID.
Q OKAY.
AND IN THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH OF INFORMATION YOU SAY
THAT NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT MR. FUHRMAN WAS THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICER.
ARE YOU RELATING THAT TO THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND THAT INFORMATION CAME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU SAW HIM
ON TELEVISION?
A RIGHT.
Q YOU SAID:
"I'M CERTAINLY NOT A FAN OF MR. SIMPSON, BUT I
WOULD HATE TO SEE ANYONE HARM BY OFFICER FUHRMAN'S EXTREME
HATRED."
NOW, WERE YOU WRITING THIS LETTER OR BRINGING THIS
INFORMATION FORWARD IN AN EFFORT TO HELP O.J. SIMPSON IN ANY WAY?
A NO, I WAS NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU INVITE THE RECIPIENT, MR. COCHRAN, TO
CONTACT YOU FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AS IT SAYS THERE?
A YES.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BAILEY: IN ONE MORE EFFORT TO TRY AND PIN
DOWN THE TIME FRAME, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU BEGAN TO WORK FOR MR.
MAHER IN THE FALL OF '85, EARLY FALL, SEPTEMBERISH?
A YES.
Q HOW LONG DID THIS JOB LAST?
A I THINK IT WAS OCTOBER, I'M SORRY. I THINK IT WAS
OCTOBER.
Q OCTOBER OF '85?
A RIGHT.
Q WHEN DID YOU LAST WORK FOR HIM?
A PROBABLY OCTOBER OF '86.
Q SO IF THERE WERE A SPRING OR SUMMER SERIES OF
ENCOUNTERS --
A UH-HUH.
Q -- IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN 1986; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I THINK IT WOULD BE '86, YES.
Q DIDN'T WORK THERE IN THE SPRING OF '85 OR '87?
A RIGHT.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO TIME WHEN YOU FAXED THE LETTER
TO MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE, HOW SOON THEREAFTER DID YOU FAX THE SAME
LETTER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY?
A I THINK THE NEXT DAY.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q MISS BELL, DID YOU FAX THE SAME LETTER TO CHIEF
WILLIE WILLIAMS?
A NO, I DID NOT.
MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR MR. DARDEN.
THE COURT: DID SHE FAX THE LETTER TO CHIEF WILLIE
WILLIAMS.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: I TAKE IT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND IT THAT
THIS WORD, THIS EPITHET IS THE MOST VILE WORD IN THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE?
A YES.
Q YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, WOULDN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU HEARD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN USE THIS WORD,
YOU WERE OFFENDED?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE HURT BY IT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE FRIGHTENED OF HIM BECAUSE OF HIS USE OF
THIS WORD?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE HORRIFIED I THINK YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER?
A EXCUSE ME, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THE WORD,
BUT BECAUSE WHAT HE SAID --
Q AND YOU FELT --
A -- ALONG WITH IT.
Q I'M SORRY, DID YOU FINISH?
A ALONG WITH IT.
Q AND YOU FELT THE FACT THAT THIS ENCOUNTER OUGHT TO BE
MADE KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND ALSO TO THE D.A.'S
OFFICE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU HEARD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN USE THESE WORDS YOU
CRIED OR DID YOU CRY?
A SOMEWHAT.
Q SOMEWHAT?
A YES. I WAS TEARY-EYED. HE COULD SEE THAT I WAS
UPSET.
Q AND YOU IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE RECRUITING OFFICE?
A YES.
Q DESPITE THE HORROR AND THE TRAUMA DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
USE OF THIS WORD CAUSED, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU STILL INTRODUCED
ANDREA TERRY TO MARK FUHRMAN?
A I DID NOT.
Q OKAY.
IS SHE IN THE BUILDING TODAY?
A I HEARD THAT SHE WAS.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU EXPECT THAT SHE IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING
LATER.
MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT. THAT IS NOT FOR THIS WITNESS.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID USE THIS WORD,
DIDN'T HE?
A YES, HE DID.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU AND ANDREA TERRY SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
IN HENNESSEY'S BAR, DID YOU SAY TO ANDREA TERRY THAT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN WOULD BE A GOOD PERSON FOR HER TO DATE?
A NO. I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH ANDREA ABOUT THAT AFTER
THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM AT THE MARINE RECRUITING CENTER, BEFORE
HENNESSEY'S AND BEFORE THE SECOND TIME I SAW HIM AT THE MARINE
RECRUITING CENTER.
Q AND DID YOU INTRODUCE ANDREA TERRY TO DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AND DID YOU SIT AT A TABLE WITH ANDREA TERRY AND
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE OTHER WOMAN YOU DESCRIBED?
A I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
Q I'M SORRY?
A NO, NO, I DID NOT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO COME HERE AND TESTIFY; IS
THAT RIGHT?
A NO.
Q OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO TESTIFY?
A I DID NOT WANT TO TESTIFY.
Q YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HELP THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THINK HE --
MR. BAILEY: MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: NO. COUNSEL, I UNDERSTAND MR. BAILEY IS
HANDLING THIS WITNESS.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, HE IS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND HE IS ABLE TO DO THAT ADMIRABLY.
SUSTAINED.
MOVE ON.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE
GIVEN US A FULL ACCOUNT AS BEST YOU CAN AS TO WHAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THEN.
HAVE YOU?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID THIS MORNING BEFORE THIS
JURY IS TRUE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD MR. BAILEY THAT YOU HAVEN'T
-- STRIKE THAT.
DID YOU TELL MR. BAILEY THAT YOU HAVEN'T USED THE
"N" WORD YOURSELF BEFORE?
MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE NEVER USED THAT TO DESCRIBE ANOTHER
PERSON. I HAVE USED IT SEVERAL TIMES -- MANY, MANY TIMES LATELY
IN REFERRING TO MARK FUHRMAN'S CONVERSATION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
WELL, OTHER THAN YOUR REFERENCES TO MARK FUHRMAN'S
CONVERSATIONS, HAVE YOU EVER USED THAT WORD YOURSELF?
A I HAVE NEVER USED THAT WORD TO DESCRIBE SOMEONE, NO.
Q NOT ONCE IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE?
A NOT ONCE IN MY WHOLE LIFE.
Q NOT ONE TIME IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, THAT IS, OTHER
THAN IN REFERENCE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CONVERSATIONS?
MR. BAILEY: OBJECT AND ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS A
COLLATERAL ISSUE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TESTIFIED ALSO THAT NO ONE FROM
THE D.A.'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED YOU; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THIS IS TRUE.
Q BUT THERE WERE ATTEMPTS BY MEMBERS OF THE D.A.'S
OFFICE TO INTERVIEW YOU; IS THAT RIGHT?
A I -- THERE WAS -- MY ATTORNEY WAS ARRANGING
SOMETHING, BUT HE WANTED A COURT REPORTER TO BE THERE.
Q OKAY.
A THAT IS ALL I REMEMBER.
Q OKAY.
IN ANY EVENT, THE D.A.'S OFFICE DID ATTEMPT TO
INTERVIEW YOU; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAILEY:
Q MISS BELL, WHAT WAS THE INFORMATION YOU WERE TRYING
TO GIVE US ABOUT THE CONDITION THAT YOUR ATTORNEY IMPOSED ON AN
INTERVIEW RELATING TO A COURT REPORTER?
WHAT DID HE ASK YOU, IF YOU KNOW?
MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WAS THERE A REQUEST THAT A COURT
REPORTER BE PRESENT IF YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU HAVE TO --
A YES, YES.
Q THE ANSWER WAS YES, THERE WAS?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU LEARNED OF THAT THROUGH MR. DAIGNEAULT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, FROM
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT A COURT REPORTER BE PRESENT
TO TAKE DOWN WHAT WAS SAID?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
Q DID THE INTERVIEW EVER TAKE PLACE?
A NO, IT DID NOT.
Q HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO SUBMIT TO AN
INTERVIEW, PROVIDED A COURT REPORTER COULD BE PRESENT TO TAKE
DOWN WHAT WAS SAID?
A YES.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q YOU DID GIVE INTERVIEWS TO LARRY KING AND DATELINE
NBC; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I DID.
Q THERE WAS NO COURT REPORTER THERE?
A BUT THE PROOF WAS THERE.
Q ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE
TAPE-RECORD ALMOST EVERY INTERVIEW WE DO?
MR. BAILEY: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, NO.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE
OFFERED TO PROVIDE A STENOGRAPHER DURING ANY INTERVIEW THAT YOU
MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH US?
MR. DAIGNEAULT: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I DIDN'T HEAR THE
QUESTION.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP, MR. DARDEN.
MR. BAILEY: ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE
OFFERED TO PROVIDE A STENOGRAPHER TO BE PRESENT DURING ANY
CONVERSATION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH US?
A I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT, NO.
Q OKAY.
YOU NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS LEWIS?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q OKAY. BUT YOUR LAWYER DID?
A OH, YES, HE DID.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS BELL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS BELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS.
MR. BAILEY: THEY HAVE ASKED FOR A 402.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS
CONCERNED, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS JUST A LITTLE BIT
EARLY.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
AND WE WILL PROBABLY CALL YOU BACK IN ABOUT TWENTY
MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT.
(THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AND THE
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT OUT OF
THEIR PRESENCE:)
MR. BAILEY: MAY MISS SINGER BE BROUGHT IN, YOUR HONOR?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BAILEY, ARE YOU GOING TO BE HANDLING THE NEXT
WITNESS?
MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF AS TO
MISS SINGER?
MR. BAILEY: I WILL REPEAT MY OFFER OF PROOF AS OF FRIDAY,
YOUR HONOR.
MISS SINGER, WHO HAD FOR NINE DAYS BEEN THE ROOMMATE
OF A WOMAN NAMED KAREL HANNAK, WOUND UP IN A LOCAL HOSPITAL WITH
A CONDITION THAT REQUIRED EMERGENCY TREATMENT.
WHILE THERE MISS HANNAK ENCOUNTERED TWO POLICEMEN
NAMED VETTRAINO AND FUHRMAN AND MISS HANNAK BEGAN TO DATE OFFICER
VETTRAINO WHO THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WAS FUHRMAN'S PARTNER.
MISS SINGER WENT HOME, SHE DID NOT SPEND OVERNIGHT IN
THE HOSPITAL, AND A FEW WEEKS LATER WAS PRESENT IN THE LIVING
ROOM OF THE TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT WHERE SHE WAS AT THAT TIME
SLEEPING BECAUSE THERE WERE FOUR GIRLS IN THE TWO-BEDROOM
APARTMENT, AND MR. FUHRMAN ENTERED WITH MR. VETTRAINO WHO WAS
COURTING MISS HANNAK.
THE COURT: DO WE HAVE A TIME FRAME FOR THIS? REFRESH MY
RECOLLECTION.
MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.
SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL SEPTEMBER 24, 1987, AND
WITHIN ABOUT THREE WEEKS THEREAFTER, SHE HAS NO MEANS OF
ASCERTAINING THE EXACT DATE, THESE TWO MEN CAME INTO THE
APARTMENT, VETTRAINO, TO VISIT MISS HANNAK, FUHRMAN TAGGING
ALONG.
DURING THAT CONVERSATION OFFICER FUHRMAN GRATUITOUSLY
OFFERED THE FACT UPON BEEN ASKING WHAT HE DID THAT HE AND
VETTRAINO WERE ASSIGNED TO GANGS AND THAT AS PART OF HIS BUSINESS
HE WOULD TAKE "N" WORD PEOPLE INTO AND ALLEY AND HE WOULD HIT
THEM WITH A STICK OR BATON, SHE IS NOT SURE WHICH WORD HE USED,
AND THEN HE WOULD KICK THEM UNTIL HE COULD SEE THEM TWITCH AND
THAT RELIEVED HIS TENSIONS, AND HE SMILED AS HE SAID IT.
THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT HE CAME, WHEN SHE WAS AT
HOME, SHE KNOWS HE CAME A NUMBER OF TIMES WHEN SHE WASN'T AT
HOME, BUT WHEN SHE WAS AT HOME, THREE OR FOUR MORE TIMES.
AND WHEN OFFICER FUHRMAN CAME IN SHE WOULD LEAVE THE
ROOM SO AS NOT TO BE PRESENT WHEN LANGUAGE OF THE KIND SHE HAD
HEARD ON HER VERY FIRST ENCOUNTER WAS UTTERED.
AFTER ABOUT THE FOURTH OCCASION, AND PROBABLY LATE IN
1987, SHE WAS IN THE BATHROOM LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW OF THIS
SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT WHEN SHE SAW A CAR PULL UP AND OFFICER
VETTRAINO PULL UP OR GET OUT OF THE CAR WITH OFFICER FUHRMAN.
THEY STARTED UP THE WALKWAY.
AND SHE SAID OUT THE WINDOW, "HELLO, TOM," AND SHE
SAW FUHRMAN WITH AN ANGRY FACE SAY SOMETHING TO VETTRAINO. THE
PART SHE COULD HEAR WAS, "THAT FUCKING BITCH."
AT WHICH POINT SHE SAID, "THAT MAN IS NOT COMING IN
THIS HOUSE ANY MORE. TOM, YOU CAN COME IN IF YOU LIKE." MR.
VETTRAINO THEN CAME IN AND LEFT SHE BELIEVES WITH MISS HANNAK.
SHE NEVER SAW MR. FUHRMAN IN HER APARTMENT AGAIN.
THAT IS WHAT SHE WILL TESTIFY TO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: WELL, THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT THESE
COMMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO EXCESSIVE FORCE ARE HIGHLY
INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL.
I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HIDING THE BALL. IF THE COURT
FEELS THAT USE -- THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S USE OF THE "N" WORD IS
SOMEHOW RELEVANT BUT IN THE CONTEXT -- THE CONTEXT PROVIDED TO US
TODAY FINALLY BY MR. --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: -- BY MR. BAILEY, YOUR HONOR --
MR. BAILEY: HE FORGOT THE NAME.
MR. DARDEN: WHEN THEY THROW THOSE EPITHETS AROUND, JUDGE,
I JUST GO BLANK.
BUT GIVEN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE WORD WAS USED IN
THIS CASE, I THINK IT IS HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL.
IF THEY WANT TO CALL MISS SINGER IN TO SAY THAT HE
UTTERED THE EPITHET IN A DEROGATORY MANNER, IN A DISPARAGING
MANNER --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: -- IN 1987 OR THREE WEEKS AFTER SEPTEMBER 17,
1987, I WILL NOT OBJECT AT THIS POINT; HOWEVER THESE ARE
HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THINGS THAT MISS SINGER WILL TESTIFY WERE SAID
BY MR. FUHRMAN AND I THINK IT TAKES IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL, A HIGHER
LEVEL OF EMOTIONALISM, AND I THINK THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS
DISCRETION UNDER 352 AND LIMIT --
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
MR. DARDEN: -- THIS TESTIMONY.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD SAY THIS:
IF MISS MC KINNY IS ALSO GOING TO TESTIFY TO 42 OR 41
USES OF THE WORD, I THINK WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE THIS IS
CUMULATIVE.
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, WHEN THE PROSECUTION
THOUGHT IT COULD GET AWAY WITH TRASHING MISS BELL AND CALLING HER
A LIAR, AS THEY DID IN THIS COURT, THEY THOUGHT IT A SMART TACTIC
TO INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE 102 IN WHICH GENOCIDE IS MENTIONED, A
SOMEWHAT MORE INFLAMMATORY EVENT THAN MERELY BEATING SOMEONE UP
UNTIL HE TWITCHED BUT PRESUMABLY LEAVING HIM ALIVE.
SUDDENLY THEY HAVE A QUEASY STOMACH BECAUSE THE
TABLES HAVE TURNED AND THEY ARE IN NO POSITION TO START CALLING
THESE PEOPLE LIARS BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARE FAIRLY OBVIOUS.
THE TAPES ARE CORROBORATIVE AND COULD THEN BE ADMITTED.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FACT THAT THEIR STRATEGY HAS
BACKFIRED, THE FACT THAT AN OFFICER THEY HAVE LONG KNOWN,
ACCORDING TO COMMANDER BALL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SINCE 1978
WAS A BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE OF HIS ATTITUDE, WAS PUT ON THIS
WITNESS STAND AND VOUCHED FOR IS ANY BASIS FOR THEM TO COME
WHINING IN HERE WITH ESTOPPEL.
MR. FUHRMAN CHOSE THOSE WORDS. HE CHOSE ON THIS
LOCATION, AS HE DID BEFORE, TO VISIT THEM ON A TOTAL STRANGER ON
A FIRST ENCOUNTER. IT SAYS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHO HE IS AND HOW
MUCH HE IS TO BE TRUSTED.
AND TO WITHHOLD THIS INFORMATION FROM THE JURY
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T LIVE WITH IT I THINK IS PUSHING THE ENVELOPE A
LONG WAY UP. THEY THOUGHT THE JURY COULD HEAR ABOUT BURN OR BOMB
THEM ALL. NOW THEY THINK KICKING IS TOO BAD BECAUSE THEY REALIZE
THAT FUHRMAN IS LYING IN HIS TEETH AND THESE PEOPLE ARE TELLING
THE TRUTH AND THEY ARE STUCK WITH IT.
THAT WASN'T A LEGAL ARGUMENT HE GAVE, THAT IS TUCKING
YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT AND AS
THE COURT YOU OUGHT NOT TO PERMIT IT.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SAVE THE HEATED REMARKS
THAT I HAVE FOR MR. BAILEY FOR ANOTHER DAY AND ANOTHER TIME WHEN
IT IS JUST MR. BAILEY AND I WHEN WE CAN TALK THIS OVER.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RIGHT UNDER THE LAW TO ASK THE
COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 352, AND BY THE WAY, MR.
BAILEY, WE DIDN'T CALL KATHLEEN BELL A LIAR, AND THE LETTER WAS
INTRODUCED BECAUSE HIS HONOR --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS YOUR REMARKS
TO ME, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: THE LETTER WAS INTRODUCED BECAUSE HIS HONOR
RULED THE LETTER RELEVANT.
WE TAKE THE EVIDENCE AS IT COMES. WE DEAL WITH IT.
OKAY? WE ARE NOT RUNNING WITH OUR TAILS TUCKED BETWEEN OUR LEGS,
MR. BAILEY.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT -- I WOULD SAY TO THE
COURT, SO THAT MR. BAILEY CAN HEAR AND UNDERSTAND, BUT I LIVE
WITH THIS EVERYDAY, MR. BAILEY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD
MEANS. I CAN'T RUN AWAY FROM IT AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T RUN AWAY
>FROM IT IN THIS COURTROOM WHEN IT IS THROWN ABOUT IN THE CARELESS
MANNER THAT IT IS BY MR. BAILEY.
IN ANY EVENT, 352 IS IN THE EVIDENCE CODE FOR A
REASON AND IT HAS BEEN THERE MANY YEARS. THIS IS NOT THE TRIAL
OF PEOPLE VERSUS FUHRMAN, NOT YET, AND WHEN IT IS THE TIME FOR
MR. FUHRMAN'S PROSECUTION, IF THERE IS ONE, THEN THEY CAN DEAL
WITH THAT ISSUE, BUT THIS IS THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS SIMPSON.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO LIMIT MISS SINGER'S
TESTIMONY.
MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE CASE OF A LEADING
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, A BADGE CARING DETECTIVE WHO
PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH AND FOUND EVIDENCE WHICH
PURPORTS TO POINT TO THIS DEFENDANT, VERY SEVERELY LYING TO THE
COURT AND LYING TO THE JURY.
AND I THINK WITHIN LIMITS, AND CERTAINLY THERE IS A
POINT AT WHICH YOU MIGHT FIND IT CUMULATIVE -- UNLESS THEY ARE
WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE BAR AND SAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE
MADE A MISTAKE, THIS GUY IS A PERJURER AND WE ARE STUCK WITH IT
AND WE ADMIT IT.
UNTIL THAT HAPPENS I THINK WE ARE ENTITLED TO
PROVIDE, AT LEAST IN TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES FROM PEOPLE
WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER, FROM PEOPLE WHO MADE THEIR STATEMENTS
BEFORE THESE TAPES EVER EMERGED, AND THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE
CORROBORATED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY CALLED LIARS BY
THIS PROSECUTION TEAM IN THIS COURT IN ARGUMENT, I THINK THE JURY
IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A SAMPLING OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS MAN'S
CONDUCT.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, JUDGE, "YET HE WITHOUT
SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE," AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS
GOING TO BE THROWING THE FIRST STONE.
IT IS HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
I WILL ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF MISS SINGER AS IT
RELATES TO 1987, THE ACQUAINTANCESHIP WITH DETECTIVE OR OFFICER
VETTRAINO.
YOU CAN LAY THE FOUNDATION THAT THAT OFFICER WAS MR.
FUHRMAN'S PARTNER AT THE TIME, THE FACT THAT HE WAS WORKING GANGS
WITH MR. VETTRAINO AND THAT HE USED THE "N" WORD IN A VILE AND
DISPARAGING MANNER AS TO AFRICAN AMERICANS.
I AM GOING TO LIMIT AND NOT RECEIVE THE TESTIMONY
REGARDING BEATING OF SUSPECTS. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THAT
OCCURRED IN THIS CASE. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. I FIND
IT HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY.
AND I WILL EXERCISE MY DISCRETION TO KEEP THAT OUT.
MR. BAILEY: MAY WE INTRODUCE THE FACT THAT HIS DEROGATORY
REFERENCE TO PEOPLE OF THE ILK OF THE "N" WORD RELIEVED HIS
TENSIONS?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO ACQUAINT THE WITNESS WITH THE
LIMITATIONS OF YOUR HONOR'S RULING?
THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. BAILEY: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ENCOUNTER WHERE HE IS
ENTERING THE HOUSE AND CALLS HER AN EPITHET, MAY SHE TESTIFY TO
THAT?
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I THINK IT IS HER AND HIS REACTION TO EACH
OTHER BASED UPON THESE DISCUSSIONS, SO I WOULD SAY YES.
MR. BAILEY: YOU WOULD SAY --
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.
MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT?
THE COURT: IT PLACES THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN CONTEXT.
MR. BAILEY: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL TAKE 15.
(RECESS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE YOU DO?
THE COURT: YES, SIR.
MR. BAILEY: THERE IS ONE THING, AND THE FAULT IS MINE,
THAT I OMITTED FROM THE OFFER OF PROOF AT LEAST TODAY, I THINK I
MAY HAVE MENTIONED IT LAST WEEK, AND THAT IS LATER ON THE DAY OF
THE FIRST CONVERSATION WITH THE REMARKS ABOUT BEATING AND SO
FORTH THAT YOU HAVE EXCLUDED WERE USED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR
OFFICER FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME MADE THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ONLY
DEAD -- ONLY GOOD "N" PERSON IS A DEAD "N" PERSON AND I WOULD
PROPOSE TO HAVE HER TESTIFY TO THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT COMES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BOMB AND
BURN THEM ALL, AS THE PROSECUTION PUT BEFORE THE JURY, AND I
THINK IT IS AN INDICATION OF HIS OVERALL ATTITUDE TOWARD THE
CASE.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- I'M GOING TO HANDLE THIS WITNESS,
I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I RECALL VERY DISTINCTLY COUNSEL'S
OFFER OF PROOF WHEN HE LAST MADE IT, AS WELL AS TODAY, AND HE
HAS NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE, AND IT IS VERY APPARENT THAT WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IS SINCE THE COURT HAS EXCLUDED THE REFERENCE TO THE
BEATINGS THEY HAVE COME UP WITH ANOTHER PHRASE THAT WILL BE
INFLAMMATORY ALONG THESE LINES.
THE COURT HAS RULED THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE USE OF
THE WORD, THAT ALL THAT CAN BE USED. THAT IS A GREAT DEAL THAT
COUNSEL HAS BEEN GIVEN.
AND TO NOW HEAP MORE ON BECAUSE THE COURT HAS RULED
THAT OTHER REFERENCES COULD NOT COME IN, IS UNFAIR AND I THINK
HIGHLY SUSPECT AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT NOT TO ALLOW THESE
BELATED OBSERVATIONS OF MISS SINGER.
MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, MISS CLARK'S
PERENNIALLY PROFESSIONALLY INSULTING CONDUCT ADDS NOTHING TO THIS
TRIAL.
THIS WOMAN TOLD ME --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
COUNSEL, COUNSEL, COUNSEL, COUNSEL, PLEASE, IF YOU
ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE'S CONDUCT, I SUGGEST
YOU NOT ENGAGE IN THAT YOURSELF.
I WILL HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT.
MR. BAILEY: MY ARGUMENT IS THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN CHARGED
WITH CONCOCTING A FABRICATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S LIMITING
RULING.
I PERSONALLY INTERVIEWED THIS WITNESS IN NASHVILLE ON
MAY 2ND, 1995, AND WAS TOLD ABOUT THE REMARKS I HAVE JUST RECITED
AT THAT TIME.
THIS WITNESS WAS INTERVIEWED IN MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE
BY A NUMBER OF LAWYERS AND WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THE REMARK.
I SIMPLY OMITTED IT BECAUSE I WAS FOCUSING ON THE
BEATING ASPECT OF IT AND THE FAULT IS MINE, BUT TO SUGGEST THAT
LAWYERS ARE MAKING UP EVIDENCE TO FRUSTRATE YOUR RULING REQUIRES
SOMETHING MORE THAN A NASTY ATTITUDE.
I THINK YOU OUGHT TO REQUIRE AN OFFER OF PROOF BEFORE
YOU TOLERATE CONDUCT OF THAT SORT IN THIS TRIAL ANY FURTHER.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF.
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF, MISS
CLARK?
MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW COUNSEL THE FACT -- NO, IT
IS VERY EASY. THERE IS NO DISCOVERY. WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE
HAVE NOTHING EVER GIVEN TO US BY COUNSEL THAT WOULD INDICATE WHAT
MISS SINGER SAID.
THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFER OF PROOF TO DATE GIVEN TO
THIS COURT IN WHICH THAT PHRASE WAS REPRESENTED AS PART OF THE
OFFER. TODAY FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, AFTER THE COURT'S RULING,
COUNSEL COMES UP WITH IT AND NOW ASSERTS TO THE COURT THAT THAT
WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN SAID BEFORE.
NOW, IF COUNSEL HAD MADE AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH
DISCOVERY, HAD MADE A GOOD FAITH TO GIVE US A PRIOR STATEMENT
ISSUED BY MISS SINGER, AND I DO NOT FAULT MISS SINGER FOR THIS, I
DO FAULT COUNSEL, HOWEVER, THEN HE WOULD STAND IN A BETTER
POSTURE BEFORE THIS COURT.
BUT TO COME BEFORE THIS COURT NOW AND REPRESENT,
HAVING GIVEN US NO DISCOVERY, NO STATEMENT FROM MISS SINGER AT
ALL, THAT SHE SAID THIS ALL ALONG, AND YET HE FORGOT TO SAY IT
UNTIL THIS VERY MOMENT, IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY
THE COURT.
IF NOTHING ELSE, COUNSEL OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T THINK IT
ALL THAT IMPORTANT IF HE DID NOT INCLUDE IT ANY PRIOR OFFER,
WHICH HE DID NOT; IF DID HE NOT SEEK TO TELL US ABOUT IT AT ANY
PRIOR OCCASION, WHICH HE DID NOT; IF HE INCLUDED IT IN NO
DISCOVERY OF ANY NOTES MADE BY ANY INVESTIGATOR, WHICH HE DID
NOT.
AND IF THAT IS CONTAINED IN NOTES SOMEWHERE, THEN WE
WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY AND WE DIDN'T GET IT UNDER THE
DISCOVERY RULES AND LAWS UNDER 1054, ET SEQ.
AND I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO SUPPRESS IT ON THOSE
GROUNDS AS WELL.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BAILEY.
MS. CLARK: AND LET ME ALSO INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT IT'S
ANOTHER HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT THAT ADDS NOTHING TO THE
EVIDENCE OF RACIAL BIAS OTHER THAN TO SEEK TO INFLAME THE
PASSIONS OF THE JURY AGAIN IMPROPERLY.
THE COURT: I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATOR'S
REPORTS, ANY NOTATIONS AS TO INTERVIEWS OF MISS SINGER THAT
HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED OVER.
MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, INVESTIGATOR'S NOTES HAVE BEEN
TURNED OVER. NO REPORT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. NO ONE WAS PRESENT WITH
ME WHEN I TALKED WITH THE WITNESS.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, ALL I ASKED FOR WAS INVESTIGATORS
NOTES.
MR. BAILEY: PARDON ME?
THE COURT: HAVE THEY BEEN TURNED OVER?
MR. BAILEY: THEY HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER. FURTHERMORE, IF I
MAY --
MR. COCHRAN: LEE, LEE.
THE COURT: I HAVE HEARD ALL I NEED TO HEAR.
MS. CLARK: THE STATEMENT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY NOTES,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHO IS AFTER MISS SINGER?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE LAWYERS ARE OUT NOW
INTERVIEWING. WE HAVE THREE OR FOUR WITNESSES AND CAN I -- MAY I
TELL YOU THAT IN A MOMENT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: MR. DOUGLAS, MR. SHAPIRO HAVE BEEN DOING
THAT. I CAN LET THE COURT KNOW THAT VERY SHORTLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
(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.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CALL THE NEXT WITNESS.
MR. BAILEY: MISS NATALIE SINGER, PLEASE.
NATALIE SINGER,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: NATALIE, N-A-T-A-L-I-E, SINGER, S-I-N-G-E-R.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS SINGER, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SIT BACK AND PULL THE
MICROPHONE CLOSE TO YOU.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. BAILEY.
MR. BAILEY: IF YOU WILL, MISS SINGER, KEEP YOUR VOICE UP
SO THAT WE CAN ALL HEAR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAILEY:
Q WHERE DO YOU PRESENTLY RESIDE, WITHOUT GIVING US A
STREET ADDRESS?
A WATER?
MR. BAILEY: YES. MAY WE HAVE A GLASS OF WATER?
THE COURT: IT IS COMING. WE ARE WAY AHEAD OF YOU.
PROCEED.
THE WITNESS: NERVOUS.
MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK SHE WOULD LIKE A
SIP.
THE WITNESS: I'M NERVOUS.
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
THE WITNESS: SORRY.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: IN WHAT AREA DO YOU PRESENTLY RESIDE?
A NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1987, WHERE DID YOU RESIDE?
A UMM, IN BEVERLY HILLS ADJACENT AREA IN LOS ANGELES.
Q IN AN APARTMENT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE ROOMMATES?
A YES, I HAD THREE.
Q NOW, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN IN LOS ANGELES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987?
A NINE DAYS.
Q AND HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN THE ROOMMATES WITH WHOM
YOU WERE RESIDING ON THAT DATE?
A WELL, TWO OF THEM I HAD KNOWN FOR YEARS, SIX OR SEVEN
YEARS. THERE WAS -- BECAUSE IT WAS A TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT,
THERE WAS A SPARE BEDROOM AND THEY RENTED THAT OUT TO ANOTHER
GIRL WHOM I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I ARRIVED AND MET HER.
Q WHAT WAS HER NAME?
A KAREL HANNAK.
Q CAN YOU SPELL THAT?
A K-A-R-E-L H-A-N-N-A-K.
Q OKAY.
WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS WERE YOU IN AT THE TIME YOU
MOVED TO LOS ANGELES?
A WELL, I HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY WORKING IN AND AROUND THE
FILM INDUSTRY. I HAD BEEN PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO CHRISTOPHER
REEVE FOR A FEW YEARS.
Q IS THAT THE SAME CHRISTOPHER REEVE THAT WAS JUST
INJURED IN A HORSE RIDING ACCIDENT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE.
A I HAD DONE SCRIPT ANALYSIS AND I WAS DOING RESEARCH
ON A BOOK. IT IS PROJECT TO PROJECT WORK. I DON'T HAVE --
Q HAD YOU WORKED FOR ANY PRODUCERS OF TELEVISION SHOWS?
A I -- WELL, THIS WAS IN NEW YORK. WHEN I CAME OUT
HERE I WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK AT TRI-STAR PICTURES HOPEFULLY AS A
SCRIPT ANALYSIS AND THEN THE WRITER'S STRIKE HAPPENED LIKE FIVE
SECONDS AFTER I STEPPED OFF THE PLANE SO THAT JOB WENT OUT THE
WINDOW.
AND SO EVENTUALLY IT WAS A BIT OF TIME BECAUSE I
FOUND A GOOD AGENCY AND I WORKED IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE FILM
INDUSTRY AND SETTLED ON AARON SPELLING, THE AARON SPELLING
COMPANY, WITH DOUG CRAMER WHO IS A PRODUCER THERE, FOR ABOUT TWO
AND A HALF YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS A TEMP JOB, BUT I STAYED
ON FOR THAT LONG.
Q ARE YOU STILL IN THE SAME LINE OF WORK,
ENTERTAINMENT, SO TO SPEAK?
A UMM, WELL, I'M CURRENTLY IN PRE-PRODUCTION AS THE
CREATIVE DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER OF A SERIES OF WOMEN'S TITLES FOR
CD ROM, SERIES OF CD ROM TITLES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A MY PARTNER IS PRESENTLY FINISHING ANOTHER TITLE SO
I'M JUST DOING THE STORY BOARDING.
Q LET ME DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987, NINE DAYS AFTER YOU HAD MOVED TO LOS ANGELES,
AND ASK YOU IF SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY HAPPENED TO YOU PERSONALLY
THAT DAY THAT YOU REMEMBER?
A IS THE KIDNEY STONE EXTRAORDINARY?
Q YES.
A YEAH. WELL, I WOKE UP -- THE NIGHT BEFORE I WAS
HAVING PAINS IN MY LOWER BACK AND THAT MORNING, WHICH IS VERY
UNUSUAL, USUALLY THERE IS AT LEAST ONE OR TWO ROOMMATES HOME, NO
ONE WAS HOME.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE EVER HAD A KIDNEY STONE,
BUT IT IS LIKE HAVING BIRTH, GIVING BIRTH, AND SO I WAS RUSHED TO
THE HOSPITAL.
AND THEY KEPT ME IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM IN THE
HOSPITAL ON INTRAVENOUS DEMEROL FOR A WHILE AND THEY WERE HOPING
IT WOULD PASS AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL
FOR HOURS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID THE KIDNEY STONE PASS SOMETIME DURING THE DAY OF
YOUR ADMISSION?
A DURING THE EVENING IT FINALLY DID.
Q WAS IT NECESSARY THAT YOU BE KEPT OVERNIGHT?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A NO.
Q WAS ONE OF YOUR ROOMMATES PRESENT IN THE HOSPITAL
WHILE YOU WERE ADMITTED THERE FOR TREATMENT?
A ACTUALLY MORE THAN ONE.
Q OKAY.
A KAREL, WHO I HAD ONLY KNOWN SEVERAL DAYS, BUT SHE IS
-- YOU KNOW, IS VERY SWEET OF HER, SHE CAME TO THE HOSPITAL AND
SAT IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WITH ANOTHER ONE OF MY ROOMMATES THAT
FOUND OUT I WAS OVER THERE. SHE STAYED THE WHOLE TIME.
AND THEN THE THIRD ROOMMATE, WELL, SHE POPPED IN JUST
TO SEE IF I WAS OKAY AND THEN LEFT, SO THEY -- KAREL AND THE
OTHER ROOMMATE STAYED ALMOST THE ENTIRE TIME WHEN KAREL GOT OFF
WORK.
Q DURING THE DAY WAS KAREL IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, TO
YOUR KNOWLEDGE, KAREL HANNAK?
A WELL, I WAS BEING KEPT IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND THE
WAITING ROOM WHERE PEOPLE SAT TO WAIT FOR NEWS ABOUT PEOPLE IN
EMERGENCY WAS VERY CLOSE, BECAUSE AS HIGH I WAS FROM THE DEMEROL,
I COULD HEAR THEIR BRACELETS. I COULD HEAR THEIR BRACELETS THE
WHOLE TIME CLANGING TOGETHER, SO YES, KAREL WAS THERE.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY POLICE OFFICERS THAT DAY?
A I DIDN'T. I WASN'T SEEING ANYTHING EXCEPT --
Q WITHOUT GOING INTO ANYTHING THAT SHE SAID, DID YOU
LEARN ANYTHING FROM MISS HANNAK LATER WITH REFERENCE TO POLICE
OFFICERS?
A WELL, I ACTUALLY LEARNED WHEN I STARTED TO COME OUT
>FROM UNDER THE DEMEROL, MY OTHER ROOMMATE CAME IN AND -- WELL --
Q DON'T TELL US WHAT ANYBODY SAID.
A IT IS JUST PERSONAL -- I DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO THAT,
BUT ANYWAY, SHE MENTIONED -- OH, I CAN'T SAY WHAT SHE SAID.
Q OKAY.
A I BECAME AWARE THAT KAREL HAD MET TWO POLICE OFFICERS
THAT HAD COME IN FOR OTHER BUSINESS IN THE HOSPITAL AT THAT
POINT.
Q DID YOU GO HOME THAT NIGHT?
A YES, I DID.
Q OKAY.
A AT APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 8:00 AND 8:30.
Q DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY MEET TWO POLICEMEN IN YOUR HOME
THAT WERE REFERRED TO AS PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE HOSPITAL THE DAY
YOU WERE?
A THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT HOW LONG IT WAS AFTER YOUR
ENCOUNTER IN THE HOSPITAL BEFORE THESE POLICEMEN CAME TO YOUR
HOME?
A THIS IS AN APPROXIMATE, BUT I WOULD SAY ABOUT THREE
TO FOUR WEEKS.
Q AND CAN YOU TELL ME --
A I HAD BEEN HEARING ABOUT THEM, BUT I HADN'T YET MET
THEM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF THESE PEOPLE BY THAT TIME?
A UMM, I KNEW ESPECIALLY TOM WHO IS MARK -- IT WAS MARK
FUHRMAN AND TOM, WHOSE NAME I STILL KEEP FORGETTING, SO BUT IT IS
TOM CATRAINO OR CATRELNO.
Q VETTRAINO OR VETREANO OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE?
A YEAH, BECAUSE KAREL AND HE WERE GETTING INTO THIS,
YOU KNOW, OH, HE IS CUTE, AND YOU KNOW, WERE GETTING TO KNOW ONE
ANOTHER, SO I WAS HEARING A LOT ABOUT THAT, AND THEY -- THEN I
MET THEM WHEN THEY CAME UP.
Q WITHOUT GETTING TOO PERSONAL, CAN YOU TELL US
BASICALLY WITHIN THIS TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT WHO SLEPT WHERE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q HOW WERE THE ROOMS ALLOCATED?
A WELL, THE TWO ROOMMATES WHOSE NAMES I HAVEN'T
MENTIONED THAT I KNEW IN NEW YORK SHARED A ROOM AND KAREL AND I
SHARED A ROOM.
Q OKAY.
BUT PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU MOVED INTO KAREL'S ROOM?
A WELL, I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE LIVING ROOM TO START
WITH, BUT BECAUSE EVERYBODY WAS -- IN THE MORNING THEY WOULD HAVE
TO PASS ME TO COME OUT OF THE BEDROOMS TO GO INTO THE KITCHEN AND
IT BECAME A LITTLE ANNOYING, SO EVERYONE KIND OF GOT TOGETHER AND
SAID DO YOU THINK WE COULD STICK HER IN THE OTHER BEDROOM, SO I
SHARED THE OTHER BEDROOM WITH KAREL.
Q DID THAT SHARING BEGIN BEFORE OR AFTER THE FIRST
VISIT BY THE POLICE OFFICERS?
A WELL, WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL I WAS STILL IN
THE LIVING ROOM BECAUSE I WAS -- I
WOULD -- THEY GAVE ME SO MUCH DEMEROL I WAS WITHDRAWING -- I AM
NOT USED TO DRUGS, SO I KNOW I WAS STILL IN THERE AND I THINK A
COUPLE OF DAYS -- IT WAS DEFINITELY BEFORE I MET THEM.
Q THAT YOU MOVED OUT OF THE LIVING ROOM?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q OKAY.
TELL ME THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS BEST YOU CAN REMEMBER
THEM, OF YOUR FIRST OR PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH MARK FUHRMAN.
A I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE VERY FIRST TWO WORDS OF
YOUR QUESTION.
Q TELL ME THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN YOUR APARTMENT
SURROUNDING YOUR FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH
MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER TOM?
A OKAY, OKAY.
YOU WALK IN THE FRONT DOOR AND THERE
IS -- THERE IS TWO COUCHES IN THE LIVING ROOM. THERE IS A LIVING
ROOM AREA. THERE IS ONE COUCH FACING THAT WALL AND THERE IS ONE
COUCH FACING THAT WALL.
KAREL WAS EXCITED. THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE FIRST
TIME, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE COMING OVER, AND I WANT YOU TO MEET
THEM, AND YOU KNOW, ALL THAT STUFF, AND THEY STOPPED BY WHILE
THEY WERE ON DUTY, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR A MAN TO
PICK UP A DATE WITH ANOTHER GUY, YOU KNOW. THEY WOULD JUST DROP
BY.
Q BUT DID THEY SAY THEY WERE ON DUTY OR THIS IS A
CONCLUSION?
A NO, THEY WERE ON DUTY. WELL, I MEAN,
I -- BEING THAT THEY HAD ALL THAT PARAPHERNALIA DANGLING OFF OF
THEM.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
WITHOUT REFERENCE AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE ON DUTY OR
OFF DUTY, WHAT TIME OF DAY, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER DID, THEY ARRIVE?
A THE FIRST TIME IT WAS DARK, DEFINITELY DARK.
Q IN THE EVENING?
A AND I WANT TO SAY I DO --
THE COURT: NO, NO.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?
THE COURT: NO, YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING EXCEPT IN
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION.
MR. BAILEY.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: JUST TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS
TIGHTLY AS YOU CAN.
AT SOME POINT DURING THAT EVENING WERE YOU SITTING IN
PROXIMITY TO KAREL HANNAK, TOM VETERANO OR VETTRAINO AND MARK
FUHRMAN?
A YES, YES, YES.
Q HOW CLOSE WAS THE GROUP?
A OKAY.
TOM AND KAREL WERE SITTING ON THIS COUCH,
(INDICATING). MARK FUHRMAN SAT HERE, (INDICATING). I SAT HERE,
(INDICATING). I -- OKAY, THAT IS IT. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO SAY.
OKAY.
Q AT SOME POINT WAS INQUIRY MADE BY SOMEONE AS TO WHAT
THESE TWO OFFICERS DID?
A YES.
Q THEIR WORK?
AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO THE TYPE OF WORK THAT
THEY DID?
A FUHRMAN SAID "WE WORK WITH GANGS."
Q ALL RIGHT.
A GANG UNIT.
Q BEING VERY CAREFUL WITH YOUR ANSWER.
DID HE, IN DESCRIBING THE GANGS THAT HE WORKED WITH,
DESCRIBE ANY PARTICULAR RACE?
A YES.
Q DID HE USE AN EPITHET WELL-KNOWN TO THE WORLD THAT
DENOTES BLACK PEOPLE AND BEGINS WITH "N"?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO HIS USE OF THAT WORD ON
YOUR FIRST ENCOUNTER?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q HOW DID YOU FEEL?
A WELL, IN THE CONTEXT THAT IT WAS IN,
THAT THAT WORD WAS USED IN, I WAS SHOCKED, STUNNED. I NEVER MET
ANYONE THAT TALKS THAT WAY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A YOU KNOW, SO --
Q WITHOUT GOING INTO THE EXACT LANGUAGE, IS IT FAIR TO
SAY THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WAY "N" PEOPLE WERE TREATED WAS
ABUSIVE?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE WAY THE "N" PEOPLE WERE TREATED, ACCORDING TO
FUHRMAN, WAS ABUSIVE?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q DO YOU RECALL HIS SAYING ANYTHING AT THE END OF THAT
DESCRIPTION ABOUT HIS REACTION TO THAT KIND OF TREATMENT?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID HE SAY?
A HE SAID -- AFTER HE DID WHAT HE SAID HE DID, HE -- HE
SAID, "OH, IT REALLY RELIEVES YOUR TENSION" AND THEN THIS -- JUST
THIS IS NAUSEATING -- "IT HITS YOU HERE" KIND OF LAUGHING LOOKING
AT TOM. THEY WERE -- DO I STOP NOW?
Q YOU CAN STOP THERE.
LATER IN THE CONVERSATION DID HE MAKE ANOTHER
REFERENCE TO "N" PEOPLE?
A YES, HE DID.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HE SAID?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YOU MAY USE THE "N" WORD, IF YOU WISH.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION?
Q BY MR. BAILEY: LET ME REPHRASE IT IF I MAY, YOUR
HONOR.
DID HE MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE
USING A WORD WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT BEGINS WITH "N"?
A AND YOU ARE NOT REFERRING TO THE FIRST REFERENCE?
Q NO, NO.
A YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT SECOND KIND OF SAYING.
Q LATER IN THE CONVERSATION?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID HE SAY?
A IT IS OKAY TO SAY THAT?
Q YES.
A HE SAID, "THE ONLY GOOD NIGGER IS A DEAD NIGGER."
Q NOW, DID HE VISIT THEREAFTER WHEN YOU WERE IN THE
APARTMENT WITH -- I ASSUME OFFICER --
A YES, THEY STOPPED BY WHENEVER AND I -- AND THEY WERE
ON DUTY AT TIMES. I KNOW THAT. I CAN'T BE SPECIFIC WHICH TIME,
WAS IT THE FIRST TIME, WAS IT THE SECOND TIME, BUT I DO KNOW THAT
THEY WERE ON DUTY.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU REMAIN IN THE ROOM ON THE
SUBSEQUENT VISITS WHERE MARK FUHRMAN WAS PRESENT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU ENGAGE IN ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A NO. WELL, IN THE --
Q IN THE ROOM?
A NO.
Q WHEN HE VISITED?
A NO.
Q DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU WERE -- BY THE WAY,
THIS APARTMENT IS ON WHAT FLOOR OF THE BUILDING?
A TWO, SECOND.
Q DID THERE COME A TIME SOMETIME LATER THAT YEAR WHEN
YOU WERE IN THE BATHROOM OF THAT APARTMENT AND HEARD SOMETHING
OUT THE WINDOW?
A WELL, YES.
Q HOW MANY TIMES, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE, HAD MR. FUHRMAN BEEN IN THE APARTMENT BETWEEN THE
FIRST ENCOUNTER ABOUT THREE WEEKS AFTER YOUR TRIP TO THE HOSPITAL
AND THIS FINAL ENCOUNTER?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q BEST ESTIMATE?
A THE ONE WHERE I HAVE SEEN HIM WHERE I KNEW FOR A FACT
HE WAS THERE?
Q YES.
A APPROXIMATELY FOUR -- THREE TO FOUR TIMES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
ON EACH OF THOSE OCCASIONS DID YOU STAY OUT OF THE
ROOM WHERE HE WAS?
A I MADE MYSELF AS SCARCE AS POSSIBLE, YES.
Q WHY DID YOU NOT GO IN THE ROOM WHEN MARK FUHRMAN WAS
THERE?
A BECAUSE I WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
THE FIRST TIME HE OPENED HIS MOUTH AND SAID THESE THINGS I WANTED
HIM OUT.
I -- IN HINDSIGHT I REALIZED I WAS A COWARD NOT TO DO
IT THEN AND THAT I HAD THE SITUATION WHERE HERE IS A WOMAN THAT
IS DATING HIS PARTNER, THAT IS GOING TO MESS THAT UP, YOU'VE GOT
FOUR GIRLS TOGETHER.
IT IS POLITICAL -- IS IT OKAY TO JUST THROW THIS GUY
OUT? I WAS THE NEW GIRL AT THE PLACE, AND -- BUT IT WAS -- IT
WAS A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AROUND THE HOUSE. EVERYONE KNEW THAT
I WAS DISPLEASED WITH HIS PRESENCE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ON THE OCCASION THAT WE JUST MENTIONED WHERE YOU
HEARD SOMETHING THROUGH THE BATHROOM WINDOW --
A YES.
Q -- DID YOU THEREAFTER LOOK OUT THE WINDOW?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A WELL, I SAW THE TWO OF THEM JUST COMING OUT. I HEARD
THEM COMING OUT OF THEIR CARS JUST CHATTING. I HEARD THEM.
Q DID THEY HAVE A VEHICLE?
A YES.
Q HOW FAR FROM THE WINDOW LOOKING DOWN WOULD YOU SAY
THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WHEN YOU SAW THEM GETTING OUT?
A OH, GOD. HERE IS THE WINDOW, THEY
WERE -- I'M NOT VERY GOOD AT FOOTAGE AND MEASUREMENTS SO --
Q CAN YOU PICK OUT SOMETHING IN THE COURTROOM OF THE
SAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE?
A RIGHT. SAY I'M ON THE SECOND FLOOR, I'M LOOKING OUT
MY WINDOW, THIS WOULD BE THEIR CAR, SAY AROUND WHERE YOU ARE.
Q WITHIN TWENTY, THIRTY FEET?
A YEAH, CLOSE, YOU KNOW, NOT THREE BLOCKS AWAY.
Q OKAY.
AS THEY EMERGED FROM THE CAR DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO
EITHER OF THEM?
A WELL, I HEARD THEM CHATTING SO I WENT TO THE BATHROOM
WINDOW AND I SAID, "HEY." I SAID,
"HI TOM."
Q AFTER YOU SAID, "HI, TOM," DID YOU HEAR MARK FUHRMAN
UTTER ANYTHING THAT CAUGHT YOUR EAR?
A IMMEDIATELY HE STARTED TALKING. HE HAS GOT A PRETTY
STRONG TONE TO HIS VOICE. HE STARTED SAYING SOMETHING AND IT
SOUNDED ANGRY AND NASTY. HIS NORMAL TONE OF VOICE ACTUALLY.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: JUST TELL US WHAT HE SAID.
MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
THAT ANSWER IS STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.
NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: JUST TELL US WHAT HE SAID.
THE COURT: JUST TELL US WHAT HE SAID.
THE WITNESS: AND THEN HE CALLED ME A -- AM I ALLOWED TO
CURSE?
THE COURT: YES, YOU ARE.
THE WITNESS: HE CALLED ME A FUCKING BITCH.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER HE CALLED YOU A FUCKING BITCH?
A THE THOUGHT WENT THROUGH MY HEAD "THIS IS IT."
Q WHAT DID YOU SAY?
A HE IS OUT. I WENT TO THE WINDOW. I SAID, "I DO NOT"
-- I CALLED HIM AN ASSHOLE.
Q AN ASSHOLE?
A I SAID, "I DO NOT WANT YOU IN THIS HOUSE ANY MORE,
NOBODY DOES. DON'T COME UP HERE. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME."
AND IT WAS GREAT, BECAUSE IT WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY
TO DO THAT.
Q WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SAY WITH RESPECT TO MR.
VETTRAINO'S RIGHT TO COME UP?
A I SAID, "YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME UP HERE."
Q DID HE COME?
A YES, HE CAME IN.
Q DID OFFICER FUHRMAN COME IN?
A OH, NO.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE OFFICER FUHRMAN AGAIN WHERE YOU HAD
CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A OH, NO.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE HIM AGAIN PERIOD PERSONALLY?
A NO, NOT UNTIL THIS PAST YEAR.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM?
A ON T.V.
Q INDIRECTLY ON TELEVISION?
A YES, ON TELEVISION.
Q DID YOU AT SOME POINT BECOME AWARE THAT HE WAS
INVOLVED IN SOME FASHION WITH THE CASE AGAINST MR. O.J. SIMPSON?
A COULD YOU REPEAT THE START OF THAT?
Q YES.
DID YOU BECOME AWARE, THROUGH THE NEWS OR ANY OTHER
MEANS, THAT OFFICER FUHRMAN --
A YES.
Q -- WAS A FIGURE IN THE SIMPSON CASE?
A YES.
Q HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT?
A THE MINUTE I SAW HIM I -- I KNEW THAT THAT WAS THE
SAME MAN.
Q RECOGNIZED HIM?
A I SAW HIM ON TELEVISION.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONTACT ANYONE TO GIVE THEM
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN THIS JURY?
A YES, I DID.
Q HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT? WHO DID YOU CALL
FIRST?
A THE VERY FIRST CALL WAS TO MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE.
Q UH-HUH.
A AND I'M NOT TO THIS DAY SURE THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY THE
RIGHT OFFICE OR NOT.
Q UH-HUH.
A I LEFT A MESSAGE. THEN I CALLED MR. COCHRAN'S OFFICE
AND APPARENTLY THEY WERE FLOODED ABOUT CALLS ABOUT SIMILAR STUFF.
Q UH-HUH.
A AND THEY SAID, "WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU." I WANTED
TO JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS PERSON.
Q UH-HUH.
A AND THEN I JUST LET IT GO. I FELT, LOOK, YOU KNOW, I
DON'T WANT TO SPEND ALL MY TIME PURSUING THIS. I JUST WANT TO
LET THEM KNOW WHAT I KNOW.
MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: AND DID YOU CALL ANYONE THEREAFTER AT
ANY TIME?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHO?
A WHEN I SAW THAT HE WAS --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. THE QUESTION WAS WHO?
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHO DID YOU CALL?
A DAN LEONARD AT YOUR OFFICE.
Q THE OFFICE IN BOSTON?
A YES.
Q DID YOU GET THE NUMBER THROUGH A LISTING?
A YES.
Q WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT WAS SAID, DID YOU HAVE SOME
CONVERSATION WITH MR. LEONARD ABOUT YOUR RECOLLECTIONS RELATING
TO MARK FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NUMBER?
A YES.
Q WERE YOU THEREAFTER CONTACTED BY SOMEONE WHO IS
DIRECTLY AFFILIATED WITH THE DEFENSE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS HIS NAME?
A THE NEXT PERSON THAT CONTACTED ME AFTER DAN LEONARD
WOULD BE PAT MC KENNA.
Q PAT MC KENNA?
A YES.
Q AS A RESULT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH PAT MC
KENNA WAS AN ARRANGEMENT MADE FOR YOU AND I TO MEET IN MAY OF
1995?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND DID WE HAVE A MEETING NEAR YOUR RESIDENCE OUTSIDE
OF NASHVILLE?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q MAY 2ND OF THIS YEAR?
A MAY 2ND.
Q DID WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CASE, WITHOUT
GOING INTO WHAT WAS SAID?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU RELATE TO ME AT THAT TIME ESSENTIALLY
WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD THE JURY?
A ESSENTIALLY.
Q OKAY.
HAVE YOU TALKED WITH ANYONE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH
THE PROSECUTION?
A YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS
DIRECTLY --
Q STRIKE THE QUESTION.
HAVE YOU TALKED DIRECTLY WITH ANYONE CONNECTED WITH
MARK FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS HIS NAME?
A ANTHONY PELLICANO.
Q AND AS A RESULT OF THAT DID YOU ISSUE ANY INVITATION
TO HIM TO HAVE THE PROSECUTION CALL YOU?
A I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT AN INVITATION. I --
Q WELL, DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER HE WAS A MEMBER
OF THE PROSECUTION OR ACTING FOR --
A WELL, HE --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DON'T TELL US WHAT HE SAID.
A OKAY.
WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN THEN?
Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM THAT YOU EXPECTED MIGHT
LEAD TO A CALL FROM A MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION?
A YES.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WERE YOU EVER, PRIOR TO LAST FRIDAY,
REQUESTED TO GIVE AN INTERVIEW TO ANYONE IN CONNECTION TO THE
PROSECUTION, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN NASHVILLE IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS MATTER?
A YES.
Q IS THE LAWYER WHO HAS REPRESENTED YOU A WELL-KNOWN
FIGURE IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY?
A I THINK SO. I GATHER THAT FROM --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU GIVE HIS NAME TO MR.
PELLICANO?
A AT THAT POINT, NO. I DIDN'T HAVE HIM AT THAT POINT.
Q AT SOME POINT DID YOU GIVE HIS NAME TO MR. PELLICANO?
A YES. OH, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, UH-HUH.
Q WHAT NAME DID YOU GIVE MR. PELLICANO?
A JIM NEAL.
Q OKAY.
AND THROUGH MR. NEAL WAS IT ARRANGED THAT AN ATTORNEY
OUT IN THIS AREA WOULD ADVISE YOU IF THAT BECAME NECESSARY?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW -- DID YOU SPEAK TO THAT ATTORNEY
AFTER YOU ARRIVED HERE LAST WEEK?
A UMM, I SPOKE TO HIM ONCE JUST TO LET HIM KNOW I WAS
HERE.
MR. BAILEY: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: ACTUALLY I HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM TWICE. JUDGE,
I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO HIM TWICE. I FORGOT.
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
MR. BAILEY, MISS SINGER INDICATES SHE NEEDS TO
CLARIFY HER LAST ANSWER.
MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.
THE WITNESS: I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO HIM TWICE SINCE I HAVE
BEEN HERE.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: MR. PELLICANO?
A NO, THE LAWYER OUT HERE. I SAID ONCE, BUT I MEANT
TWICE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, MISS SINGER.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. YOUR WITNESS.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q GOOD MORNING, MISS SINGER.
A GOOD MORNING.
Q DID MR. BAILEY FLY OUT TO NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, TO
INTERVIEW YOU?
A YES, HE DID.
Q THAT IS --
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, COULD YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP,
PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.
Q THAT IS WHERE YOU SPOKE TO HIM?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO MYSELF OR MR. DARDEN OR
MISS LEWIS?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q YOU HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS IN
THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, I HAVEN'T. YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU SPOKE TO -- DID YOU EVER CALL ANY MEMBER OF
THE PROSECUTION TEAM TO ADVISE THEM PERSONALLY OF WHO YOUR LAWYER
WAS?
A NO.
Q YOU SPOKE TO -- YOU SPOKE TO MR. BAILEY; IS THAT
CORRECT, BACK IN MAY OF THIS YEAR?
A ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE MEETING IN NASHVILLE?
Q YES.
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO MR. BAILEY?
A YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE ME A MINUTE ON THAT. IT HAS TO
BE AN APPROXIMATE AND IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY FIVE.
Q FIVE TIMES?
A RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE NOT IN PERSON ALL OF THEM.
Q OKAY.
SOME WERE ON THE PHONE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q SOME WERE ON THE PHONE?
A YES.
Q AND OF THOSE FIVE TIMES HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET
WITH HIM IN NASHVILLE?
A OH, ONE.
Q THAT IS ONCE?
A UH-HUH.
Q OKAY. WAS THAT YES?
A YES, I'M SORRY.
Q THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
AND THE OTHER TIMES YOU MET WITH HIM, WAS THAT IN LOS
ANGELES, THE TIMES THAT THEY WERE IN PERSON?
A YES. CAN I KEEP GOING?
Q NO.
A TWO MORE TIMES. ONCE LAST WEEK, ONCE TODAY.
Q OKAY.
THAT WAS BOTH IN PERSON HERE IN LOS ANGELES?
A YES.
Q AND THEY FLEW YOU OUT HERE FROM NASHVILLE?
A YES.
Q YOU ARE STAYING IN A HOTEL?
A NO.
Q YOU ARE STAYING WITH SOMEONE?
A I AM STAYING WITH A FRIEND.
Q OKAY.
NOW, AFTER THE OCCASION IN WHICH YOU HEARD MARK
FUHRMAN USE THAT EPITHET -- I'M SORRY -- THIS IS NOT A GREAT DAY
FOR ME --
A YEAH.
Q -- SPEAKING WISE.
EXCUSE ME.
AFTER YOU HEARD MARK FUHRMAN USE THE RACIAL EPITHET
ON THAT OCCASION IN YOUR APARTMENT, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE
VERY SHOCKED AND YOU
WERE VERY OFFENDED, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND IT EVEN MADE YOU FEEL NAUSEOUS, CORRECT?
A YES, UH-HUH.
Q AND AFTER THAT OCCASION HE CAME TO THE APARTMENT WHEN
YOU WERE THERE ON THREE OR FOUR OCCASIONS YOU ESTIMATE, CORRECT?
A THAT I SAW HIM, YES.
Q BUT YOU WERE AWARE THAT HE CAME ON OTHER OCCASIONS TO
THE APARTMENT WHEN YOU WERE NOT THERE, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND THEN ON THE LAST OCCASION THAT YOU SAW HIM THERE,
IT WAS ON THAT OCCASION THAT HE SAID "FUCKING BITCH," CORRECT?
DID HE DO --
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WAS THAT YES?
A YES.
Q DID HE DIRECT THAT TO YOU OR TO HIS PARTNER?
A OH, HE WAS SPEAKING TO HIS PARTNER, REFERRING TO ME.
Q OKAY. OKAY.
YOU FELT HE WAS REFERRING TO YOU WHEN
HE SAID THAT?
A OH, HE WAS.
Q OKAY.
A YEAH.
Q AND THAT WAS BASED ON WHAT -- WAS HE LOOKING AT YOU
WHEN HE SAID IT OR HAD HE LOOKED AT YOU AND THEN TURNED TO HIS
PARTNER AND SAID THAT?
A UMM, IT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT I HAD JUST LOOKED
OUT THE WINDOW AND SAID, "TOM, HI TOM, HI YOU GUYS," GOT A LOOK,
THEN HE STARTED IMMEDIATELY TALKING.
AND THE REASON I'M NOT GOING INTO SPECIFICALLY WHAT
HE WAS SAYING IS BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHAT HE
SAID PREVIOUS TO THE CURSE, AND THEN HE CALLED -- SHE IS JUST A
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Q UH-HUH. OKAY.
YOU WERE THE ONLY WOMAN IN SIGHT?
A YEAH.
Q OKAY.
A I WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN THAT MADE YOU ANGRY?
A NO, IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T.
Q YOU CALLED HIM AN ASSHOLE?
A YEAH, I THINK -- CAN I GO ON?
Q DID YOU CALL HIM AN ASSHOLE?
A YES.
Q YOU DID NOT MEAN IT AS A TERM OF ENDEARMENT I TAKE
IT?
A NO, NO. NORMALLY I DON'T USE THAT WORD AS A TERM OF
ENDEARMENT.
Q ALL RIGHT. MOST OF US DON'T.
OKAY. AT THAT POINT YOU TOLD HIM YOU ARE NOT WELCOME
HERE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q THIS WAS YOUR OPPORTUNITY AT THAT POINT WHEN HE
CALLED YOU --
A UH-HUH.
Q -- WHEN HE CALLED YOU THAT, THIS WAS YOUR OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE SURE HE COULDN'T COME BACK; IS THAT RIGHT?
A UMM --
Q AS YOU HAVE TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?
A YES, TO MAKE SURE -- YES, WE DIDN'T WANT HIM THERE
AND I CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT HIM THERE AND THAT -- YES, THIS WAS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HIM OUT.
Q OKAY.
THEN THIS WAS THE OPPORTUNITY YOU CHOSE TO MAKE SURE
HE WOULDN'T COME BACK?
A YES. UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY I FINALLY
CHOSE INSTEAD OF TELLING HIM THE TRUTH.
Q BUT THAT WAS THE ONE YOU DID CHOOSE, CORRECT?
A UH-HUH.
Q YES?
A YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, MISS SINGER.
NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAILEY:
Q MISS SINGER, YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY
DIRECT EFFORT TO CONTACT THE PROSECUTION AS YOU DID TO MR.
SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN AND MY OFFICE?
A CORRECT.
Q WAS THERE A REASON THAT YOU CHOSE NOT TO VOLUNTEER
YOUR INFORMATION TO THE PROSECUTION?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, WHEN ANTHONY PELLICANO TOLD ME THAT HE
WAS GOING TO TELL THEM, I SAID I WOULD BE WILLING --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY. MOTION TO
STRIKE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WHAT WAS THAT?
THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A I TOLD HIM, "WHEN THEY CALL I WILL SPEAK TO THEM,"
BUT I NEVER GOT A CALL.
Q WAS THERE A REASON THAT PRIOR TO TALKING TO MR.
PELLICANO AND MYSELF YOU HAD NOT GIVEN THIS INFORMATION TO THE
PROSECUTION?
A WELL, YEAH.
Q WHAT WAS IT?
A WELL, POSSIBLY INCORRECTLY I HAD -- NOT IN A MILLION
YEARS WOULD I HAVE THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO HEAR WHAT I HAD TO SAY,
THE THINGS THAT I KNEW.
I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD FALL ON DEAF EARS, AND THAT
MAY BE INCORRECT OF ME, BUT THAT IS THE WAY I FELT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN YOU HEARD MR. FUHRMAN USING RACIAL
EPITHETS, WAS IT THE MERE USE OF THAT WORD THAT UPSET YOU OR THE
MANNER WHICH --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A I GO?
THE COURT: WAS IT THE USE OR MANNER THAT OFFENDED YOU SO
MUCH?
THE WITNESS: THE MANNER MORE THAN THE USE. THE USE IS BAD,
THE MANNER IS WHAT GOT ME.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
AND WHAT, IF ANY, EXPRESSION CAN YOU RECALL BEING ON
HIS FACE AS HE DESCRIBED HIS TREATMENT OF BLACK PEOPLE?
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE QUESTION. WE ARE GOING
BEYOND HERE.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BAILEY: CAN YOU TELL US, MISS SINGER, WHAT
YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS USED," WITHOUT
GOING INTO ANY TEXT?
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THERE ARE WORDS THAT WE CAN SPEAK THAT DON'T
-- ARE NOT FOLLOWED BY -- THEY ARE MEANINGLESS WORDS. I CAN SAY
A SPECIFIC WORD AND IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY BECAUSE I DON'T MEAN
IT.
WHEN HE SAYS THE THINGS, HE SAYS IT IS BOLSTERED BY
--
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT IS BOLSTERED AND HELD UP AND PUSHED OUT OF
HIS MOUTH WITH HATRED AND ARROGANCE AND DESPICABILITY AND THAT IS
WHAT HURTS. THAT IS WHAT HURTS.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE WITNESS: COMBINED WITH THE WORDS.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, MISS SINGER.
THAT IS ALL.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS SINGER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR.
WE WILL NEXT CALL MR. RODERIC HODGE, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: WE NEED TO HAVE A 402.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME ASK YOU TO STEP BACK
INTO THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. WE ANTICIPATE CALLING MR. RODERIC
HODGE, YOUR HONOR.
I JUST SPOKE WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE THE COURT
SOME INDICATION. WE ARE AT THIS POINT ANTICIPATING CALLING MR.
HODGE, FOLLOWED BY MR. BLASINI. WE HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT HIM I
THINK BEFORE, NOT DIRECTLY RELATING TO FUHRMAN, REGARDING THE
BRONCO.
WE WILL THEN BE CALLING THE PHOTOGRAPHER, ROKAHR,
THAT IS, SUPPOSED TO HAVE HIM HERE, AND THEN MISS MC KINNY.
AS TO THE OTHER WITNESSES, THAT IS AS FAR AS WE
PERHAPS WILL GET TODAY, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME MOTIONS PRIOR TO
MC KINNY'S TESTIMONY, IF THE COURT PLEASES.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT MAY HAVE ALREADY
NOTICED, WE HAVE SAT HERE AND WE HAVE TAKEN IT ON THE CHIN WITH
REGARD TO THESE WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY AS IT RELATES TO
MARK FUHRMAN'S RACIAL ANIMUS.
THE MESSAGE IS CERTAINLY CLEAR TO ME. I THINK IT IS
CLEAR TO THE REST OF THE NATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS WATCHING
THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING. I THINK THE DEFENSE HAS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED THAT FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, AMONG MANY, MANY OTHER
THINGS.
BUT AT SOME POINT IT GETS TO BE TOO MUCH AND AT SOME
POINT I THINK THIS COURT, AND I THINK THE JURY CERTAINLY AS WELL,
MAY WELL LOSE FOCUS AS TO WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS HERE IN THIS
CASE, AND THE REAL ISSUE IS O.J. SIMPSON AND WHAT HE DID THE
NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH, AND NOT MARK FUHRMAN.
AND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT MARK FUHRMAN ESPOUSES
GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. WE HEARD ABOUT HIS
RACIAL HATRED, HIS SEXISM, HIS HATRED FOR INTERRACIAL COUPLES, HE
WILL FIND SOMETHING TO STOP INTERRACIAL COUPLES, HE WANTS TO BURN
ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS OR BOMB AFRICAN AMERICANS.
WE HAVE HEARD IT AND WE HAVE NOT DISPUTED IT. IT IS
DONE. OKAY? EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY I
THINK IS DONE.
OKAY?
THE GOLDMANS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AND HEAR ANY
MORE OF THIS AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HEAR ANY MORE OF IT.
OKAY?
WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ARGUE THIS ISSUE TO THE JURY --
WE OFFERED TO STIPULATE LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE, HE USED
THESE WORD, JUDGE. WE KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT.
NOW THE JURY KNOWS IT.
IT IS CUMULATIVE. THE COURT OUGHT TO CUT IT OFF NOW
UNDER 352 AND LET'S GET BACK TO THE MATTER OF TRYING O.J. SIMPSON
FOR KILLING THESE TWO PEOPLE. IT IS TIME TO GET BACK TO THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND?
THE COURT: YES, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
WE ARE IN FACT TRYING THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS O.J.
SIMPSON. MARK FUHRMAN HASN'T BEEN ARRESTED, HE HASN'T BEEN IN
JAIL FOR FOURTEEN MONTHS OR FIFTEEN MONTHS. THIS IS THE MAN WHO
IS ON TRIAL.
WHAT MARK FUHRMAN DID ON JUNE 12TH IS WHAT IS
IMPORTANT AND WE ARE GOING TO LINK IT UP.
WHAT I WOULD OFFER TO DO -- AND WE HAVE BEEN MINDFUL
OF YOUR HONOR'S CONCERNS UNDER 352. AND THAT IS WHY YOU DIDN'T
HEAR ME CALL ANDREA TERRY. I THINK SHE WOULD BE CUMULATIVE --
CUMULATIVE IS THE WORD, YOUR HONOR -- OF PERHAPS KATHLEEN BELL,
SO YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME CALL HER.
RODERIC HODGE STANDS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, YOUR
HONOR. WE HAVE HEARD FROM THESE LADIES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS
MAN AND BEEN APPALLED AND AGHAST AT HIS BEHAVIOR, CLEARLY.
OTHER THAN LAURA MC KINNY, WE DON'T INTEND TO CALL
ANY OTHER LADIES, AND SHE, BECAUSE OF THE TAPE, AS THE COURT IS
AWARE.
RODERIC HODGE STANDS DIFFERENTLY, YOUR HONOR.
AS YOU RECALL FROM THE OFFER OF PROOF LAST WEEK, HE'S
THE MAN WHO WAS ARRESTED BY MARK FUHRMAN, AND YOU WILL RECALL
WHAT -- MARK FUHRMAN TURNS AROUND, ADDRESSES HIM AND SAYS, "I
TOLD YOU WE WOULD GET YOU" BLANK, AND I THINK IT BECOMES VERY
RELEVANT.
HERE IS A MAN WHO ENCOUNTERED THIS MAN ON THE STREET,
HAD TO DEAL WITH HIM. HE WAS STOPPED 20 TO 25 TIMES BY MARK
FUHRMAN SO HE IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION.
IT IS VERY RELEVANT. IT GOES FROM WHAT THIS MAN
TALKED ABOUT TO ACTUALLY HAVING DONE IT. THE DIRECT EXAM WILL BE
VERY BRIEF AND RIGHT TO THE POINT.
AND THEN I HAVE TOLD YOU THE OTHER WITNESSES WE
EXPECT TO CALL AFTER THAT. I DON'T THINK IT IS CUMULATIVE AT
ALL. I THINK IT GETS THE PICTURE BEFORE THE JURY.
YOUR HONOR, AGAIN WE HAVE TAKEN ONE MORNING, LESS
THAN ONE MORNING, VERSUS SIX MONTHS. WE HAVE HAD LESS THAN SIX
WEEKS AND NOW EVERYTHING BECOMES CUMULATIVE.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO PARE IT DOWN, BEING MINDFUL OF
YOUR HONOR'S ORDER.
IT SEEMS TO ME THIS WITNESS IS VERY RELEVANT FOR THE
LIMITED ISSUES I HAVE INDICATED TO YOU. HE IS THE ONLY WITNESS
WE ARE GOING TO CALL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BY THIS
MAN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHERS. AS YOU KNOW, WE COULD CALL
WITNESSES FOR THE NEXT WEEK, BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE TRIED TO PARE
THIS DOWN.
THE FACT THAT THEY NOW KNOW HE IS A BAD MAN, TOOK US
A LONG TIME TO CONVINCE THEM ALSO. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR
CLIENT'S LIFE AND WE SAY THIS MAN IS A KEY WITNESS IN THIS CASE.
WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY CHANCES AND WE WANT TO DO ENOUGH SO IT IS
REASONABLE AND SO YOUR HONOR FEELS IT IS REASONABLE AND CAN MOVE
ON AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO.
THE COURT: AREN'T WE REALLY IN DANGER NOW OF HAVING FOUR
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO THE SAME THING, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
WAS NOT TELLING US THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS USE OF THE PARTICULAR
RACIAL EPITHET AND YOU HAVE PAINTED HIS BIAS AND HIS WILLINGNESS
TO USE THIS WORD IN AN ABUSIVE MANNER?
I MEAN, AFTER -- AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME IT IS
PRETTY APPARENT, WOULDN'T YOU SAY?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK IT BECOMES APPARENT EXCEPT I
THINK YOU CAN DISTINGUISH THIS MAN, AS I HAVE TRIED TO DO.
I MEAN, CLEARLY IF IT WAS ANDREA TERRY SAID I WAS AT
HENNESSEY'S BAR AND SAID THE SAME THING, THEN I THINK THAT
ARGUMENT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE.
THIS IS A MAN WHO IS ARRESTED OUT IN THE STREET
HARASSED BY THIS MAN. THIS MAN, MR. HODGE, MADE REPEATED
COMPLAINTS TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS. HE TOLD THE LAPD ABOUT THIS MAN
FUHRMAN. EVERYBODY KNEW ABOUT HOW FUHRMAN WAS TREATING THIS MAN,
YET HE CONTINUED DOING IT, SO I THINK HE IS IN A DIFFERENT
SITUATION.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BELABOR IT. WE TOLD YOU WHAT THE
ISSUES WERE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT, I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT
HODGE WAS ASKED BY FUHRMAN, WHAT ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR MOTHER?
WHAT RACE ARE YOU? AND I THINK THAT GOES AGAIN BECAUSE HODGE HAS
I BELIEVE A WHITE MOTHER AND A BLACK FATHER.
SO IT IS AGAIN THIS SAME M.O. OF THIS PARTICULAR
OFFICER INVOLVED WHO THEY PUT SUCH CREDENCE IN EARLY ON.
SO I MEAN THAT IS ALL I'M SEEKING TO DO, THEN WE MOVE
ON, AS I TOLD YOU, TO BLASINI, TO ROKAHR, AND ONCE WE HAVE ARGUED
OUR MOTIONS, TO MC KINNY.
THE COURT: DON'T YOU RUN THE RISK, THOUGH, OF MAKING MC
KINNY CUMULATIVE?
MR. COCHRAN: THERE YOU GO AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.
I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THAT IN VIEW OF
EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE SPENT -- YOU
HAVE TAKEN TWO DAYS TO REACH A DECISION. WE HAVE BEEN AWAY FROM
JURY FOR FIVE OR SIX DAYS. I DON'T THINK SHE BECOMES CUMULATIVE.
WHEN THIS OFFICER ENGAGES 41 TIMES AND ANOTHER 18
TIMES, I THINK THAT IS THE CENTERPIECE.
YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, YOU SAID GET SOME TESTIMONY
BEFORE THIS JURY.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU GO WITH THE CENTERPIECE.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TELL YOU WHY. YOU ALWAYS WANT TO GET
TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS JURY. YOU DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANY TIME.
WE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT TODAY WHEN YOU GET TO MC
KINNY. WE HAVE GOT MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, WE HAVE GOT TO
REVISIT THE MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION, AND WE HAVE GOT FURTHER BRADY
MOTIONS, AND I DON'T WANT THIS JURY SITTING BACK THERE WRITING US
NOTES.
THERE IS NO METHOD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR. TRYING TO GET
ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES OFF THE PLATE SO THEY WILL GET SOMETHING
DONE SO THERE WON'T BE THIS LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION THAT WE ALL HAVE
FELT OVER THE LAST WEEK OR SO AND GET TO IT.
I WILL BE GLAD TO GET TO THE CENTERPIECE.
MC KINNY'S LAWYERS ARE HERE SHE IS GOING TO BE HERE
THIS AFTERNOON, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE WITNESSES, SO WE DON'T
RUN OUT, THAT ARE RELEVANT, NOT CUMULATIVE AND RIGHT TO THE
POINT, AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO, JUDGE.
THE COURT: WHY CAN'T YOU PRESENT THE CENTERPIECE IN THE --
WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE COURT'S ORDER?
IF I CHANGE MY MIND, YOU CAN COME BACK AND ADD MORE
TO IT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THE PROBLEM --
THE COURT: I AM JUST TELLING YOU IF YOU PUT HODGE ON --
I'M GIVING YOU FAIR WARNING, YOU PUT HODGE ON, YOU MAY MAKE MC
KINNY CUMULATIVE, BECAUSE THREE WITNESSES TESTIFYING ABOUT A
COLLATERAL ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS
COLLATERAL, AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN WE LINK IT UP. THE PROBLEM IS
THIS THEN:
WHY DON'T I GO WITH BLASINI AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO ARGUE HODGE BEFORE MC KINNY WHEN JERRY ARGUES THE MOTION
-- WHEN PROFESSOR UELMEN ARGUES THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
I HEAR YOU, AND --
THE COURT: WELL, YOU WILL HEARD MISS LEWIS SAYING THAT
THEY WANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THAT MOTION, SO I WOULDN'T
ANTICIPATE HEARING THAT MOTION TODAY.
MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY FILED.
MS. LEWIS: THEY JUST FILED -- YOUR HONOR, THEY JUST FILED
THEIR BRIEF THIS MORNING WITH REGARD TO THE RECONSIDERATION
MOTION, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. WE JUST RECEIVED
IT THIS MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU FILED SOMETHING YOU
WANTED HIM TO READ?
MS. LEWIS: I FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION TO REOPEN
THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THIS GOING. WE DON'T
WANT TO HAVE THE JURY FRUSTRATED. WE WANT TO MOVE AHEAD.
THE COURT: I LIKE PLAN B. LET'S GO WITH BLASINI NOW. YOU
CAN THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT BETWEEN HODGE AND MC KINNY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE A SECOND TO FIND BLASINI?
VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: IN THE MEANTIME, BEFORE MR. COCHRAN LEAVES THE
PODIUM, I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE HEARD THAT MR. FUHRMAN STOPPED HODGE
20 TO 25 TIMES. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME DISCOVERY I THINK THAT IS
OWED TO US AS MORE SEEMS TO BE HEAPED ON THE PILE AS IT RELATES
TO MR. HODGE, AND I WOULD ASK FOR THAT DISCOVERY.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THEY HAVE GOT EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT,
YOUR HONOR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE OTHER THING I AM REMINDED BY
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT IN THIS WHOLE SCENARIO WE HAVE HEARD
FROM, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM FOUR OR FIVE WHITE WOMEN WITH REGARD
TO THEIR LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION DEALING WITH THIS MAN AND THAT IS
ALL NICE, BUT YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ONE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND
THAT IS WHY I THINK THIS IS DIFFERENT.
AS I HAVE TRIED TO POINT OUT WITH HODGE, HE IS THE
FOCUS OF THIS MAN'S GENOCIDAL TALKS AND HE LIVED THIS. HE WAS
THE MAN OUT IN THE STREET ON WHO HE WAS DOING IT.
I WON'T ARGUE IT NOW. PERHAPS YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO
COME BACK TO THAT JUST PRIOR TO MC KINNY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
FIFTEEN MINUTES OF TESTIMONY, AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE THE
RELEVANCE OF THIS.
MR. DARDEN: WE ARE TALKING VERY, VERY LENGTHY
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HODGE AND STILL AN ADDITIONAL 402 ISSUES
THAT RELATE TO HIM IN PARTICULAR.
FOR INSTANCE, HE WAS APPARENTLY ARRESTED IN ONE CASE
--
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: ONE CASE WAS DISMISSED, ONE HE WAS ACQUITTED
ON, AND IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REBUTTAL BECAUSE THERE
ARE OTHER OFFICERS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH MR. HODGE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN'T -- WE ARE NOT THREATENED BY THEM
DOING THAT. I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, THAT IS THEIR
BUSINESS. THIS MAN WAS ACQUAINTED OF THIS CHARGE WHEN THIS
OFFICER WAS -- ARRESTED HIM.
SO IF THEY WANT TO BRING THAT IN, THAT IS THEIR
PROBLEM. IF THEY WANT TO ENGAGE IN THOSE TACTICS, FINE.
I AM TELLING YOU WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. I WILL
ACCEPT YOUR OFFER. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME.
THE COURT: BRING ME BLASINI.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL BRING YOU BLASINI AND THEN WE WILL
REVISIT THIS ISSUE?
THE COURT: WELL, YOU WILL HAVE THE LUNCH HOUR TO THINK
ABOUT IT.
MR. COCHRAN: WILL YOU THINK ABOUT IT ALSO, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. JUDGE. MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND?
MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO MR. BLASINI, I WOULD LIKE TO --
I HAVE THE MATERIALS BEING BROUGHT DOWN NOW. HE HAS A PRIOR --
HE HAS A COUPLE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE LEAVE OF
THE COURT TO IMPEACH HIM WITH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND I WOULD
LIKE TO SHOW THE COURT AND COUNSEL HIS RAP SHEET.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
RATHER THAN TRASHING EVERY WITNESS THAT COMES UP, MAY
WE APPROACH THE BENCH?
HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY FELONY CONVICTIONS. THIS IS
TYPICAL OF THE PROSECUTION'S BEHAVIOR.
MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH? I WANT HER TO SHOW ANY
FELONIES THEY HAVE OF THIS MAN.
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL --
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. BOTH SIDES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOFS OF PRIORS?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: PACKAGE COMING DOWN.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE IT BEING BROUGHT DOWN NOW. I THOUGHT I
HAD IT WITH ME THIS MORNING AND I GUESS I DON'T. IT IS UP ON MY
DESK. AND I WANTED TO SHOW THAT TO THE COURT.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SINCE PROP 115 AND PROP 8, WE ARE
NOT CONFINED TO FELONY CONVICTIONS. WE CAN ALSO USE MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTIONS.
THE COURT: THAT ARE EVIDENCE OF MORAL TURPITUDE.
MS. CLARK: CORRECT.
THE COURT: SO YOU WILL NEED A RULING ON THAT BEFOREHAND.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T USE -- CALL
REQUESTING THE COURT'S LEAVE -- THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO IMPEACH
A WITNESS WITH PRIOR CONVICTIONS TRASHING THE WITNESS. I HAVE
THEM AND IT IS PHYSICAL PROOF THAT I HAVE OF THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: WAIT UNTIL WE SEE THEM, YOUR HONOR.
AND WHAT IS THE DATE ON IT, MAY I ASK?
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE THEY ARE.
MS. CLARK: I WILL MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE THE PAPERWORK
HERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THESE CONVICTIONS, MR. COCHRAN?
MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY FELONY CONVICTIONS. I
KNOW HE HAD SOME PROBLEMS I THOUGHT TWENTY YEARS AGO. I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THE DATE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WOULD IT HAVE AN IMPACT -- HIS CRIMINAL RECORD, WOULD
THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO CALL HIM?
MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I CERTAINLY WANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHATEVER THEY ARE CLAIMING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I TAKE IT, MISS CLARK, IT IS ON ITS WAY?
MS. CLARK: IT IS ON ITS WAY RIGHT NOW.
WHY DON'T WE BEGIN THE EXAMINATION. IF MR. COCHRAN
IS GOING TO CALL HIM REGARDLESS OF THE COURT'S RULING, WHY DON'T
WE START.
THE COURT: NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEARD.
MS. CLARK: OH.
THE COURT: I TAKE THE SOME COURIER IS BRINGING THAT DOWN
FORTHWITH?
MS. CLARK: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I INQUIRE?
REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HIS LAWYER WAS JUST ON
THE PHONE. I DO NOT WANT TO RUN OUT OF WITNESSES, SO GIVEN THE
COURT IS AWARE OF SOME MOTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE HEARD THIS
AFTERNOON, SHALL I HAVE HIM HERE THIS AFTERNOON ALSO?
SIX O'CLOCK DAY?
THE COURT: 5:30 DAY. WHAT MOTIONS DO WE HAVE ON FOR
TODAY?
MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT WE HAD THE BRADY MOTION, THE
SUPPRESSION MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION WE FILED TODAY WITH REGARD
TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU APPROVED, I BELIEVE, THE PROFFER TO THE
D.A.'S, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT HAS BEEN RESPONDED TO YET, BUT I
THINK THAT CERTAINLY THOSE FIRST TWO.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW. THEY KEEP GIVING US
THIS WITNESS LIST WITH ALL THESE NAMES ON THEM AND HE IS DROPPING
DOWN NOW -- THERE WERE 17 NAMES ON THIS LIST. HE IS DROPPING
DOWN TO NAME 16.
WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PEOPLE THEY WANT TO HAVE IN
HERE? WHAT ABOUT RIVAS?
MR. COCHRAN: I WAS ADDRESSING YOU.
MR. MOUNGER WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
MS. CLARK: I'M SAYING, YOUR HONOR, WHY DON'T WE GET
SOMETHING REALISTIC FROM THE DEFENSE ABOUT WHO THEY INTEND TO
CALL.
THE COURT: THE ISSUE IS WHEN ARE WE GOING TO TAKE UP THESE
MOTIONS? THAT IS THE ISSUE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE READY TO GO WHENEVER YOUR HONOR SAYS.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I WAS ADDRESSING MISS
CLARK.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: WE CAN DO THEM AT ANY TIME, YOUR HONOR.
WE WANTED TO FILE A RESPONSE ON THE RECONSIDERATION
OF THE MC KINNY TAPES, BUT --
THE COURT: WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO THAT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE ALREADY I THINK VISITED
THE ISSUE THROUGH THE REQUEST OF RECONSIDERATION OF CHRISTIAN
REICHARDT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION -- EXCUSE ME -- TESTIMONY, AND I
THINK THAT ALL WE NEED TO DO IS REPRESENT THE POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE TO THE COURT AGAIN IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE MC KINNY TAPES.
AND WE DON'T NEED TO FILE PAPER. WE CAN ARGUE IT
ORALLY. WE WANT TO GET THIS GOING, TOO, AND I DON'T THINK THE
COURT NEEDS TO HAVE US FILE MORE PAPER ON THE ISSUE. I THINK
THAT WE CAN JUST SUBMIT IT TO YOU ORALLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THEN WE WILL TAKE IT UP AT THE END OF TODAY.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND THE END OF THE DAY IS?
THE COURT: 5:30 TODAY.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WHERE IS OUR PRIORS PACKAGE?
MR. COCHRAN: MY QUESTION ON FUHRMAN. I WAS ASKING THE
COURT WHAT SHALL I TELL DARRYL MOUNGER REGARDING DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW, COUNSEL. YOU ARE ASKING ME TO
READ YOUR MIND AS TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH US.
YOU HAVE MR. BLASINI. I TAKE IT THIS HAS TO DO WITH
ACCESS TO THE BRONCO IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THEN AFTER BLASINI WHO DO YOU ANTICIPATE
CALLING?
MR. COCHRAN: WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT HODGE, HOPEFULLY, AND
MC KINNY AND ROKAHR. RATHER, FIRST ROKAHR. WE WILL HAVE ROKAHR,
YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT RIVAS AND ANDREA TERRY?
MR. COCHRAN: FOR THE SUPPRESSION HEARING -- WE NEED
FUHRMAN FOR THE SUPPRESSION HEARING.
MS. CLARK: HE IS NOT NEEDED FOR THE SUPPRESSION HEARING.
MR. COCHRAN: IT IS OUR MOTION. THEY CAN'T TELL US WHO TO
CALL.
MS. CLARK: THE LAW TELLS US WHO TO CALL. I'M TELLING NO
ONE. COUNSEL MIGHT WANT TO READ THE LAW AND 1538.5(I).
THE COURT: THIS IS THAT 1538.5(I) ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AT
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND RENEWED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT? IS
THAT THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE FRAMING.
MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND UNDER THE LAW --
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE READ IT. THERE ARE
CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE STILL
WANT HIM HERE FOR THAT.
MS. CLARK: THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.
MR. COCHRAN: IF THEY WANT TO HIDE HIM, YOUR HONOR, WE CAN
DO THAT, BUT WE WANT HIM HERE.
THE COURT: LET'S SET HIM FOR TOMORROW AT 5:00.
MR. COCHRAN: WE NEED IT TODAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL DO IT TODAY INSTEAD OF THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER (1538.5(I).
MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN'T DO BOTH, YOUR HONOR? WHAT ABOUT
STARTING AT 5:00?
THE COURT: WE'VE GOT A FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME TODAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY WITNESSES. LET'S SEE
IF WE CALL ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST FOR THE DAY.
FOR INSTANCE, VETTRAINO CAN'T BE HERE IF HE HAS GOT
PROBLEMS WITH HIS LAWYER, SO LET'S GO AS FAR AS WE CAN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE THE PRIORS PACKAGE FROM MR.
GORDON?
MR. DARDEN: NO, HE IS NOT THE MINION WHO WAS ASSIGNED THAT
TASK. THEY ARE ON THE WAY.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WHY DON'T YOU LET ME GO AND GET IT.
THE COURT: NO, I WANT YOU TO STAY HERE, MISS CLARK.
MR. DARDEN: WHY DON'T YOU LET ME GO AND GET IT?
THE COURT: NO. YOU STAY HERE, TOO, MR. DARDEN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR, FOR A SECOND?
THE COURT: NO, NO. I WANT YOU GUYS TO STAY HERE.
MS. CLARK: MAY I USE THE PHONE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: ON ITS WAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, MAY I INQUIRE ABOUT A DISCOVERY ISSUE
WHILE WE ARE WAITING?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN: ON THE MC KINNY MATTER, IF THERE IS GOING TO
BE A REDACTED VIDEOTAPE OR AUDIOTAPE, CAN I HAVE THAT BEFORE
LUNCH?
THE COURT: IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPLAYED TO YOU AND THE
EXCERPTS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DELINEATED, SO I MEAN, YOU HAVE SEEN
IT.
MR. DARDEN: YES, I HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE TAPE. I'M JUST
WONDERING IF THERE IS A SHORTER VERSION THAT IS GOING TO BE USED,
AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE WE SAW LAST WEEK?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, IT APPEARS THAT MR. GORDON HAS HANDED YOU
A PRIORS PACKAGE WITH A CII RAP SHEET.
MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. HE DID NOT HAND ME
A PRIOR IN THE SENSE OF A PACKAGE WE USUALLY GET ON A DEFENDANT
WITH CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS.
IT IS A RAP SHEET WHICH INDICATES THAT MR. BLASINI
WAS ARRESTED IN 1974, JANUARY OF '74 FOR BURGLARY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MAY I SEE THE RAP SHEET, PLEASE?
MS. CLARK: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU TO SHOW
THIS TO MR. COCHRAN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, ON JANUARY 17, 1974, IN
OCEANSIDE, IT SAYS MR. BLASINI WAS APPARENTLY ARRESTED FOR
BURGLARY. THERE IS NO DISPOSITION WHATSOEVER ON THAT. UNDER
THAT THERE IS A 148 PC.
MS. CLARK: SEPARATE ARREST IN MARCH.
MR. COCHRAN: IN MARCH OF '74, YOUR HONOR, WHICH WAS A
MISDEMEANOR WHICH WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH TELLING OR
WHATEVER. WHAT GOOD FAITH BASIS DO THEY HAVE FOR THIS?
MS. CLARK: HE IS ARRESTED IN MARCH FOR RESISTING ARREST,
MARCH OF '74.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, AND IT WAS A 415, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: WOUND UP PLEADING GUILTY TO A 415.
MR. COCHRAN: IT SAYS 415, YOUR HONOR, IN 1974, 21 YEARS
AGO.
MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST INVITE THEM TO DO THIS, BUT THAT
PREPOSTEROUS, YOUR HONOR. WHERE IS THE PACKAGE? WHERE IS IT
CERTIFIED? THERE IS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, ANY PARTY WHO WISHES TO IMPEACH
SOMEBODY WITH A PRIOR CONVICTION OR PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD NEEDS
TO HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS
UPON WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH
TRADITIONALLY A RAP SHEET IS SUFFICIENT FOR
THE BASES -- AS THE BASES OF A GOOD FAITH OFFER.
THE NEXT ISSUE BEING, A, IS A 415 A CRIME OF MORAL
TURPITUDE, AND B, WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED IN 1974
IS UNTIMELY OR STALE.
MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD SAY AT THE VERY MINIMUM IT IS
UNTIMELY, STALE, AND CAN I SEE THAT ONE SECOND, PLEASE?
APPARENTLY -- LET ME JUST INDICATE WHAT HAPPENED ON
THIS. TALK ABOUT STALE, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS FROM 1974, SO IT IS
21 AND ONE-HALF YEARS AGO.
THIS MAN IS A RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSMAN IN THIS
COMMUNITY NOW AND HAS BEEN FOR SOMETIME. THIS WAS AN ALLEGED
MISDEMEANOR WHERE HE GOT THREE MONTHS, I GUESS, SUMMARY
PROBATION. IT DOESN'T EVEN SHOW A FINE FOR A 415. ANOTHER
CHARGE THERE IS NO DISPOSITION.
AND YOUR HONOR, IN THIS CASE IN 1995 WHERE WE ARE SO
CONCERNED ABOUT PREJUDICE AND THAT SORT OF THING, HOW COULD THEY
EVEN BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS? CERTAINLY IT IS STALE. CERTAINLY
THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR, DOESN'T INVOLVE TRUTH TELLING, SO CAN WE
DISPENSE WITH THIS AND PROCEED WITH THE WITNESS? WE WANT TO CALL
THE WITNESS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: SUBMIT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED WITH MY WITNESS NOW, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ACTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE JURY IN AND
TELL THEM WE ARE GOING TO START WITH THE NEXT WITNESS. I HAD TO
DEAL WITH SOMETHING.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS OUT, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: CAN WE GET SOME INDICATION, YOUR HONOR, AS TO
WHAT -- WHETHER WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE ANDREA TERRY OR ERNESTO
RIVAS ON THE WITNESS STAND?
THE COURT: I THINK THE INDICATION FROM MR. COCHRAN IS THAT
HE CONCEDES THAT ANDREA TERRY,
IN LIGHT OF KATHLEEN BELL'S TESTIMONY, IS PROBABLY CUMULATIVE.
MS. CLARK: AND ERNESTO RIVAS.
THE COURT: RIVAS WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: ACTUALLY ANDREA TERRY IS JUST --
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(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.
ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED
BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE REASON FOR THE DELAY FOR
ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES JUST NOW WAS I HAD TO WAIT DELIVERY OF
CERTAIN DOCUMENT TO THE COURT.
I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS,
I HAVE MADE A RULING AS TO A CERTAIN EVIDENTIARY ISSUE, AND WE
ARE READY TO START WITH THE NEXT WITNESS, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE COME
UP ON THE LUNCH HOUR.
SO WE WILL BE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE NEXT WITNESS
AFTER WE COME BACK FROM THE LUNCH.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, NOR ALLOW
ANYONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE.
REMEMBER, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AFTER LUNCH, ONE O'CLOCK.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN RECESS.
(AT 11:59 A.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:00 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
1:03 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(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: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
MISS LEWIS.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, I PREPARED A
RESPONSE TO THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO
THE FUHRMAN TAPES AND FILED IT JUST NOW AND SERVED IT. SO I WANT
THE COURT TO BE AWARE THAT IS THERE SO YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO READ IT BEFORE HEARING ARGUMENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
SCHEDULING?
THE COURT: YES. SCHEDULING?
MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT SCHEDULING, YES, SO WE'RE ALL ON THE
SAME WAVE LENGTH.
TWO THINGS. SO THE COURT IS AWARE, WE PLAN TO CALL
MR. BLASINI NEXT, AND I'M READY TO PROCEED WITH HIM. HE WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY MR. ROKAHR IF THE COURT PLEASES.
AND THEN, ALTHOUGH MISS MC KINNEY IS HERE, I'D LIKE
TO READ TO THE COURT SOMETHING AND FOR THE COURT TO THINK ABOUT
BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID ABOUT RODERIC HODGE.
THIS IS VERY BRIEF, AND I'LL ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW ME TO READ
THIS.
IT CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 18899 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, YOUR
HONOR.
"QUESTION BY MR. BAILEY: AND YOU SAY UNDER OATH THAT
YOU'VE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK PERSON AS A NIGGER OR SPOKEN
ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS NIGGERS IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN?
"ANSWER: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR."
WHAT I DIDN'T ARTICULATE WELL ENOUGH THIS MORNING
WHEN I WAS TALKING TO YOU WAS THIS.
HODGE IS THE ONLY WITNESS ON OUR DEFENSE LIST WHO CAN
TESTIFY THAT FUHRMAN USED THE "N" WORD IN ADDRESSING HIM AS AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN. EVERYONE ELSE TALKS ABOUT CONVERSATION. THIS
IS THE ONLY WITNESS.
AND I THINK YOU READ THAT -- READ THE QUESTION, AND
THAT IMPEACHES HIM DIRECTLY ON THAT POINT OF ADDRESSING AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN. IT'S THE ONLY ONE WE RECALL. I THINK IT MAKES
IT A LOT EASIER COURT'S DECISION FOR YOUR HONOR.
BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ASK, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE GET TO
THAT POINT TO ALLOW US TO CALL HODGE FOR THIS LIMITED AREA, AND
THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE THE MOTIONS WITH REGARD TO MC KINNEY
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WHAT YOU RULED ON THOSE MOTIONS AS THEY'RE
PREPARED WILL BEAR UPON WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE PLAY FOR THIS
JURY, IF ANYTHING. AND SO THAT'S THE ORDER WE WOULD LIKE TO
PROCEED IN, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THEN I SUGGEST WE PROCEED WITH BLASINI AND WITH --
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
THE COURT: -- ROKAHR.
MR. COCHRAN: AND WE'RE READY TO DO THAT.
THE COURT: AND THEN WE'LL TAKE UP THAT ISSUE.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
I JUST WANTED TO ALERT THE COURT BECAUSE YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT 5:00 O'CLOCK AND I THOUGHT AT 5:30, I'D BRING THIS
TO YOUR ATTENTION.
WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(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.
AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE NOW BEEN
REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CALL THE NEXT WITNESS.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE DEFENSE WILL NEXT CALL MR. WILLIE J. BLASINI, WHO
IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM.
THE COURT: MR. BLASINI, WOULD YOU STAND HERE NEXT TO THE
COURT REPORTER, FACE THE CLERK.
MRS. ROBERTSON.
WILLIAM BLASINI, JR.,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE
AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS WILLIAM BLASINI, JR.
THE CLERK: YOU HAVE TO SPELL YOUR NAME.
THE WITNESS: BLASINI, B AS IN BOY, L-A-S-I-N-I.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. BLASINI, SIR.
WOULD YOU MOVE THAT MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU
SO WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
A OKAY.
Q THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.
MR. BLASINI, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION, SIR?
A I WORK FOR PICK YOUR PART, THE WORLD'S LARGEST
SELF-SERVICE AUTOMOBILE RECYCLING CENTER.
Q AND IT'S CALLED PICK YOUR PART?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO EMPLOYED?
A ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS.
Q AND WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB TITLE WITH PICK YOUR
PART?
A I'M GENERAL MANAGER OF VEHICLE PURCHASING.
Q AND AS SUCH, TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT YOU DO AS THE
GENERAL MANAGER OF PICK YOUR PART.
A BASICALLY I GO TO AUCTIONS, POLICE AUCTIONS, IMPOUNDS
AND WE BUY CARS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR HOW LONG?
A AT PICK YOUR PART, FOR THREE AND A HALF YEARS.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY BEFORE THAT TIME?
A I WAS A WHOLESALER. I WAS WHOLESALING VEHICLES
BEFORE THIS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU'VE BEEN AROUND AUTOMOBILES FOR SOME TIME; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A 15 YEARS TO BE CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
I'D LIKE, SIR, TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE
DATE OF I BELIEVE JUNE 21ST OF 1994.
DID YOU HAVE OCCASION ON OR ABOUT THAT DATE IN THE
AFTERNOON TO BE AT VIERTEL'S GARAGE HERE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES?
A YES, I WAS.
Q AND WOULD YOU TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
JURY UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE YOU AT VIERTEL'S ON THAT DATE,
THAT TUESDAY, JUNE 21ST?
A WELL, EVERY TUESDAY, WE GO THERE AND WE BID ON CARS.
THEY HAVE FOUR LOCATIONS, AND THE LAST LOCATION IS AT TEMPLE, THE
MAIN GARAGE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE WIND UP.
AND WHEN I WALKED -- WHEN WE FINISHED BIDDING ON THE
CARS, I WAS WALKING IN TO DO THE PAPERWORK WHEN I JUST HAPPENED
TO SEE THE BRONCO INSIDE THE GARAGE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE ACCOMPANIED BY SOMEONE ELSE
AT THAT POINT?
A I WAS ACCOMPANIED BY BOB JONES, ANDREW ADLEN, MYSELF
AND SAM ADLEN I THINK. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT SAM, IF HE WAS THERE
THAT DAY.
Q LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
WE'VE HEARD THE NAME BOB JONES BEFORE. BY WHOM IS BOB
JONES EMPLOYED?
A VIERTEL'S.
Q YOU KNEW HIM PRIOR TO THIS DATE OF JUNE 21ST?
A YES.
Q AND YOU MENTIONED A MR. ADLEN.
WHAT IS MR. ADLEN'S FIRST NAME?
A ANDREW.
Q AND WHO IS MR. ANDREW ADLEN?
A HE'S A COMPETITOR. HE ALSO BIDS ON THE CARS AS WELL.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL ADLEN? DO YOU KNOW?
MR. COCHRAN: A-D-L-E-N I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR. ANDREW
ADLEN.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU MENTIONED ANOTHER ADLEN ALSO
I BELIEVE.
A IT'S HIS UNCLE. I ASSUME IT'S HIS UNCLE.
Q SO YOU WERE THERE IN THE COMPANY OF THE TWO ADLEN'S
AND YOURSELF AND BOB JONES; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I'M NOT CORRECT ON THE SECOND ADLEN, BUT THE FIRST
ONE WAS THERE, YES.
Q YOU'RE SURE ABOUT THE FIRST ONE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WERE DESCRIBING THAT YOU WERE AT VIERTEL'S AND
THIS JURY'S HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT VIERTEL'S AND THE LAYOUT THERE.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHERE YOU WERE ONCE YOU GOT
THERE ON THAT PARTICULAR AFTERNOON?
A WELL, THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES, TWO MAIN ENTRANCES, ONE
>FROM THE STREET AND ONE FROM THE BACK OF THE YARD, AND THAT'S
WHERE WE COME FROM, FROM THE BACK OF THE YARD. ONCE WE'RE DONE
BIDDING ON THE VEHICLES, WE COME THROUGH THE BACK OF THE GARAGE,
AND RIGHT THERE, AS YOU WALK IN THE AREA WHERE THEY KEEP THE
RESTRICTED VEHICLES AND AS YOU CONTINUE PAST THAT AREA, YOU GO
DOWN TO THE OFFICES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU -- YOU WERE IN THIS -- WALKING IN THIS
AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I WAS.
Q AND WHILE IN THIS AREA -- FIRST, BEFORE WE GET TO
THAT, TELL US WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS IT ON JUNE 12TH -- ON JUNE
21ST?
A IT WAS ABOUT 2:30, 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AT SOME POINT AFTER 2:30 OR 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE
AFTERNOON ON JUNE 21ST, DID YOU SEE A WHITE BRONCO?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHO WERE YOU WITH WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE BRONCO?
A I WAS WITH ANDREW ADLEN AND BOB JONES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATION AT ALL WITH MR. JONES
ABOUT THAT BRONCO?
A THE MINUTE I SAW THE BRONCO, I WAS AMAZED AT --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME.
THE QUESTION WAS, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH
MR. JONES. YES OR NO?
THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
AND WITH REGARDS TO THAT --
MR. COCHRAN: JUST BEFORE I GET TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, MAY I
APPROACH -- THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.
I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED
-- IN EVIDENCE I GUESS NOW, DEFENSES'S 1254. I WOULD LIKE TO
SHOW THIS JUST FOR -- SO WE CAN GET ACCLIMATED TO THE WITNESS.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS, SIR, IS DEFENSE EXHIBIT NO.
1254. AND HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS BEFORE?
A NOT THIS PICTURE. NO, I HAVEN'T, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THIS PURPORTS TO BE THE VIERTEL'S GARAGE HERE,
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, ON TEMPLE STREET?
A CORRECT.
Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THERE ARE VARIOUS BUILDINGS FROM T-1 THROUGH T-5.
DO YOU SEE THOSE?
A YES, SIR.
Q JUST GENERALLY -- I KNOW YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THIS
BEFORE -- CAN YOU LOOK AT DEFENSE'S 1254 AND SHOW US GENERALLY
WHERE THIS BRONCO WAS HOUSED ON JUNE 21ST ABOUT 2:30, 3:00
O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON?
A IT WAS HOUSED AT THE T-2 AREA, THE T-2 BUILDING,
WHICH IS THE MAIN BUILDING RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
HE'S HOLDING IT UP FOR THE JURY TO SEE, YOUR HONOR.
CAN YOU ALL --
MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR?
CAN YOU ALL SEE THAT? HE'S TALKING ABOUT T-2.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE VEHICLE WAS HOUSED SOMEWHERE
IN T-2?
A IT WAS IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE REAR OF T-2 AS DEPICTED ON 1254; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1386, CAN YOU SEE THAT?
JUROR NO. 1386: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
165?
JUROR NO. 165: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: SO --
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, COULD WE MOVE THAT JUST BACK SIX
INCHES, THE EASEL?
MR. COCHRAN: SURE, YOUR HONOR. I'LL TRY TO GET IT BACK
SIX INCHES, YOUR HONOR. THE BOARDS ARE ALL HERE.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU HELP US ON THAT, BECAUSE
IT BLOCKS THE DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT OF JUROR NO. 7.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THERE ARE
SOME BOARDS HERE.
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE. YOUR HONOR, WHILE HE'S DOING THAT,
I'LL --
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: I THINK I HAD JUST ASKED YOU A
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. BOB
JONES ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BRONCO, AND YOU INDICATED YES; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE -- WHEN YOU TALKED TO MR. JONES, CAN
YOU TELL US THE GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT YOU TALKED TO HIM
ABOUT, THE BRONCO, WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT HE
SAID?
A BASICALLY WHY WAS THE VEHICLE THERE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU GET SOME RESPONSE FROM HIM?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, BASED UPON THAT BRIEF CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH
BOB JONES, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO AT ANY POINT THAT AFTERNOON
GO OVER TO OR GET INSIDE OF THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE, THE BRONCO?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DESCRIBE FOR THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY
WHAT YOU DID IN THAT REGARD, IF ANYTHING.
A AS FAR AS WALKING UP TO THE BRONCO AND EXACTLY WHAT I
DID?
Q YES. YES. TELL US WHAT YOU DID.
A I OPENED THE DOOR TO THE BRONCO.
Q LET ME STOP YOU THERE.
WAS THE BRONCO LOCKED AT THAT POINT?
A NO, IT WASN'T, SIR.
Q AND SO YOU JUST WALKED OVER AND OPENED THE DOOR?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHICH DOOR DID YOU OPEN OF THE BRONCO?
A THE PASSENGER'S DOOR.
Q ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOW, YOU'VE SEEN PICTURES OF THAT BRONCO AND YOU'VE
SEEN THE BRONCO ITSELF; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN YOU OPENED THE DOOR TO THE BRONCO, THE
PASSENGER DOOR, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I LOOKED IN THE VEHICLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU WANTED
TO GO AND LOOK INSIDE THIS BRONCO?
A WELL, I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS. IT WAS --
IT WAS A BIG STORY. JUST THE FACT OF LOOKING AT THE BRONCO, O.J.
SIMPSON BEING INVOLVED IN IT. IT WAS A BIG STORY. I WAS
CURIOUS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WERE CURIOUS AT THAT POINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAD YOU READ OR SEEN ANY STORIES ON TELEVISION
REGARDING THE BRONCO BEING THERE?
A SOME STORIES.
Q WERE YOU EXPECTING TO SEE IT AT VIERTEL'S?
A NOT AT ALL.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU SAW IT AND THEN YOU HAD HEARD THINGS ABOUT IT
AND YOU WENT OVER TO IT; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHEN YOU WENT OVER TO THE BRONCO AND OPENED THE
DOOR, TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHAT YOU NEXT DID AFTER THAT.
A I LOOKED INSIDE THE BRONCO. I LOOKED AT THE SEATS,
THE FLOOR. I LOOKED AT THE DASHBOARD. I BASICALLY LOOKED ALL
OVER THE VEHICLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHY DID YOU LOOK ALL OVER THE VEHICLE?
A WELL, ANDREW AND I WERE TALKING THAT IT WAS SAID THAT
THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD IN THE VEHICLE.
Q WHO HAD SAID THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD IN THE VEHICLE?
A WELL, IT WAS SAID IN THE PAPERS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAD READ OR HEARD THAT?
A I HEARD THAT, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WERE YOU LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS A LOT OF
BLOOD IN THAT VEHICLE?
A WELL, THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I LOOKED FOR, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WILL YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW YOU -- DID YOU GET
INSIDE THE VEHICLE AT SOME POINT?
A YES, I DID, SIR.
Q DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY AGAIN HOW YOU GOT INSIDE THE
VEHICLE AND WHERE YOU WERE WHEN YOU WERE INSIDE THE VEHICLE.
A WELL, ONCE I LOOKED IN THE VEHICLE, I SAT IN THE
PASSENGER SEAT. I CONTINUED TO LOOK AROUND THE VEHICLE. I
LOOKED BETWEEN THE SEATS AND I LOOKED TO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO WHEN YOU GOT INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND SAT IN THE
PASSENGER SEAT AND LOOKED ALL AROUND THE VEHICLE, DID YOU SEE ANY
BLOOD?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.
Q WERE YOU LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR BLOOD?
A AT FIRST, YES, WE WERE.
Q NOW, YOU SAID "WE."
WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE
AND SAT IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WHAT DID MR. ADLEN, MR. ANDREW
ADLEN DO, IF ANYTHING, THAT YOU SAW?
A HE OPENED UP THE DRIVER'S DOOR.
Q AND DID YOU SEE HIM AT ANY POINT PUT ANY PART OF HIS
BODY INSIDE THE BRONCO VEHICLE?
A YES. HALF OF HIS BODY CAME INTO THE VEHICLE.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY AGAIN HOW HE DID THAT,
THAT MOVEMENT?
A THE VEHICLE SITS UP HIGH BECAUSE IT'S A TRUCK, AND HE
BASICALLY OPENED THE DOOR AND LEANED OVER THE SEAT AND LOOKED IN
THE VEHICLE.
Q AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT MOVEMENT OF LEANING INSIDE
THE VEHICLE AND LOOKING INSIDE, WERE YOU ALREADY INSIDE THE
VEHICLE?
A I WAS ALREADY INSIDE THE VEHICLE, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE SEATED IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT JUST
AS THOUGH YOU'RE SEATED IN THE WITNESS SEAT THERE?
A CORRECT, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
TAKE YOUR TIME AND DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY WHAT YOU DID
>FROM THAT PARTICULAR VANTAGE POINT INSIDE THE DRIVER'S
COMPARTMENT OF THAT BRONCO ON JUNE 21ST, 1994.
A WELL, I BASICALLY AT FIRST LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND I
LOOKED ALL OVER THE VEHICLE. UH, I LOOKED FOR FINGERPRINT DUST.
Q DO YOU RECALL SEEING ANY FINGERPRINT DUST?
A NOT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
TELL US WHAT ELSE. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT?
A I SAW SOME DUST ON THE WINDOW SILL. SO I PUT MY
FINGERS ON THE WINDOW SILL TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY DUST ON THERE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU'RE HOLDING YOUR FINGERS UP. AND I WANT YOU TO
DESCRIBE FOR THIS JURY HOW YOU DID THIS. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH
REGARD TO YOUR FINGERS ON THE WINDOW SILL AND WHICH WINDOW SILL
WAS IT?
A IT WAS THE SAME SIDE I WAS SITTING IN, THE PASSENGER
SIDE, AND I PUT MY FINGERS UP ON THE WINDOW SILL LIKE THIS
(INDICATING).
Q SO DID YOU LEAVE FINGERPRINTS THERE AS FAR AS YOU
COULD TELL?
A SMUDGES, BUT I LOOKED AT MY HANDS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU DID THAT WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THE VEHICLE;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AFTER YOU DID THIS, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, IF YOU
RECALL?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. MR. COCHRAN, DID YOU WANT TO
DESCRIBE THE MOTION THAT THE WITNESS --
MR. COCHRAN: YES. I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I SHOULD. THANK
YOU, YOUR HONOR.
HE MADE A MOTION, YOUR HONOR, AS THOUGH WITH ALL 10
OF HIS FINGERS EXTENDED OUT IN FRONT OF HIM AS THOUGH HE TOUCHED
THE WINDSHIELD.
THE COURT: PALMS FORWARD.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: PALMS FORWARD.
IS THAT CORRECT?
A FINGERS. NOT PALMS ON THE WINDOW, BUT FINGERS.
Q OKAY.
FINGERS FORWARD?
A CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU DID
THIS, YOU MADE THIS MOVEMENT WITH YOUR FINGERS FORWARD?
A I LOOKED AT ANDREW AND CAN'T REMEMBER WORD FOR WORD,
BUT BASICALLY WHAT WE SAID, WE DIDN'T FIND ANY BLOOD. AT THAT
POINT, I HAPPENED TO LOOK DOWN ON THE GROUND, AND I NOTICED THAT
THE FLOORBOARD ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE, THE CARPET ITSELF WAS CUT
OUT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY CARPET ON THE DRIVER'S
COMPARTMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, TELL THE JURY HOW LONG DID YOU STAY
APPROXIMATELY IN THIS -- INSIDE THE VEHICLE LOOKING FOR BLOOD AND
PUTTING YOUR FINGER -- FINGERS FIRST IN THE WINDOW OF THE
DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT? HOW LONG DID YOU STAY IN THIS POSITION?
A IT FELT LIKE IT WAS FOR FIVE MINUTES, BUT I REALLY
COULDN'T TELL YOU. IT PROBABLY WAS A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU LOOK -- NOW, LET'S LOOK AND SEE -- LET'S TRY
TO DETERMINE WHERE YOU LOOKED.
DID YOU LOOK ON THE DASH?
A YES, SIR.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ALL ASKED AND ANSWERED.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M TRYING TO --
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU LOOK ON THE DASH AT THAT
POINT?
A YES, SIR, I DID.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE CONSOLE?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE
DOOR?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IT'S LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE
STEERING WHEEL?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU LOOK -- COULD -- YOU
DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER YOU GOT IN AND YOU LOOKED TO YOUR REAR.
DID YOU LOOK TOWARD THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE ALSO?
A YES, I DID.
Q NOW, IF I WERE TO -- AT THE LAST BREAK, I SHOWED YOU
SOME PHOTOGRAPHS --
MR. COCHRAN: AND AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THESE PLACED UP,
CERTAIN EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR, HAVE HIM TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT 172, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAW THIS DURING THE LUNCH BREAK
TODAY, DID YOU, THIS 172?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, CAN YOU STEP DOWN FOR A
MINUTE?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: I'LL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS. LET ME
GIVE YOU ONE OF THESE POINTERS.
WHY DON'T YOU STAND OVER THERE SO YOU WON'T BLOCK ANY
OF THE JURORS. LET ME GIVE YOU A POINTER. I'LL JUST ASK A --
THE COURT: ACTUALLY, I THINK HE OUGHT TO BE ON THIS SIDE
HERE.
THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THIS IS A MOCK-UP OF THIS
PARTICULAR VEHICLE WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AROUND IT.
I WANT TO ASK YOU -- SPECIFICALLY, LET'S START WITH
THIS AREA OVER HERE, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE THE MIDDLE PHOTOGRAPH.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS
PARTICULAR EXHIBIT, IT HAS PHOTO CARD 22 AND 23 THEREON.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL LOOKING AT THAT AREA
OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR OF THE BRONCO?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU RECALL AT THE LOCATIONS OF 22 OR 23 SEEING ANY
BLOOD AT ALL AT THOSE LOCATIONS WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE BRONCO ON
THAT DATE OF JUNE 21ST, 1994?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q I WANT YOU TO LOOK DOWN AT NO. 34.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHICH IS THE THIRD PHOTOGRAPH ON
THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS EXHIBIT, APPEARS TO A SMEAR MARK
THERE.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL LOOKING IN THAT
GENERAL AREA ALSO?
A I REMEMBER LOOKING IN THE AREA, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER
SEEING THAT MARK. I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER LOOKING AT -- THAT'S
PAST THE DOOR. SO I REALLY DON'T THINK I LOOKED THAT FAR INTO
IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
22, 23, YOU SURE YOU LOOKED AT THAT?
A I LOOKED AT THIS BECAUSE I WALKED AROUND THE VEHICLE
WHEN I CAME TO THE DRIVER'S SIDE AND THE DOOR WAS OPEN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY I BELIEVE THAT PART
OF THE CARPET WAS CUT OUT AT THE TIME YOU SAW IT; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHERE WAS THAT? WOULD THAT BE IN THE AREA OF THE
DRIVER'S AREA?
A IT WAS IN THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).
MR. COCHRAN: HE'S INDICATING IN THE CENTER -- YOUR HONOR,
THE AREA OF THE CARPET IN THE -- NEAR WHERE WOULD BE NO. 33
THERE, AREA 33 THERE.
THE WITNESS: CORRECT. RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU DESCRIBED
FOR US THAT YOU LOOKED AT ITEM -- YOU LOOKED AT THE STEERING
COLUMN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE TOP THERE, LEFT, DID
YOU AT SOME POINT LOOK AT THAT AREA OF THE STEERING COLUMN?
A YES, I DID.
Q AT ANY TIME ON THAT DATE OF JUNE 21ST, DID YOU SEE
ANY WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD ON THE STEERING COLUMN?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q NOW, DID YOU IN ANY WAY TOUCH THE STEERING COLUMN
THAT DAY?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DESCRIBE THAT FOR THE JURY. AT WHAT POINT DID
YOU TOUCH THE STEERING COLUMN?
A IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY -- IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND THREE
MONTHS -- WHEN I WALKED INTO THE VEHICLE, I GRABBED THE STEERING
WHEEL TO PULL MYSELF INSIDE, AND I SAT DOWN IN THE VEHICLE AND I
HELD THE STEERING WHEEL FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND SO WE HAVE THIS SEQUENTIALLY CORRECT, LET ME BACK
UP FOR A MOMENT IF I MIGHT.
YOU HAD BEEN IN THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU TOLD US YOU STAYED IN THERE FOR WHAT APPEARED
TO BE FIVE MINUTES, IT MAY HAVE BEEN LESS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU TOLD US ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS FROM THAT
LOCATION, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AT SOME POINT, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO GET OUT OF
THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE?
A OUT OF THE DRIVER'S --
Q STRIKE THAT.
OUT OF THE PASSENGER'S COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE.
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU DID THAT, WHERE DID YOU GO, IF ANYPLACE?
A I WALKED AROUND THE VEHICLE, BUT I STOPPED AT THE
WINDOW ON THE SIDE, WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE ON HERE; AND, AGAIN, I
LOOKED FOR FINGERPRINT DUST AND I PUT MY FINGERS AGAIN ON THE
GLASS.
Q NOW, SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR AND THE JURY HAS A PICTURE
OF WHERE YOU PUT YOUR FINGERS, THIS WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE
VEHICLE OR THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE?
A THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE VEHICLE, THE GLASS IN THE BACK,
WHICH IS THE BIGGEST GLASS THAT SHOWS.
Q OKAY.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T WE REFER TO
IT AS EITHER THE PASSENGER SIDE OR THE DRIVER'S SIDE.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE COURT: DEPENDS WHICH SIDE WE'RE LOOKING AT.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PASSENGER SIDE STILL, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU PUT YOUR FINGERS IN THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR
PORTION OF THE WINDOW, IS THAT CORRECT, OUTSIDE?
A ON THE SIDE, YES.
Q AGAIN, WILL YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR THE JURY WHAT YOU DID
AT THAT POINT?
A I PUT MY FINGERS UP ON THE GLASS, PULLED THEM OFF AND
I LOOKED AT MY FINGERS (INDICATING).
Q AND WHAT DID YOU SEE, IF ANYTHING, AT THAT POINT?
A JUST DIRT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO DID YOU LEAVE YOUR FINGERPRINTS THERE AS FAR AS
YOU KNOW?
A I WOULD ASSUME SO.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WOULD ASSUME SO.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
SO AFTER YOU --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AFTER YOU MADE THIS MOVEMENT, WHERE
DID YOU NEXT GO, IF ANYPLACE, SIR?
A I WENT AROUND THE VEHICLE AND I WENT TO THE DRIVER'S
SIDE. THE DOOR WAS OPEN, AND I LOOKED ON THE GROUND, I LOOKED AT
THE RUG; AND AT THAT POINT, ANDREW AND I DECIDED THAT THAT'S
PROBABLY WHERE ALL THE BLOOD WAS, WAS ON THE RUG BECAUSE IT WAS
CUT OUT AND IT WASN'T THERE.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY RUG AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?
A EXCUSE ME?
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY CARPET OR RUG THERE AT THAT POINT;
IS THAT RIGHT?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO DID YOU THEN HAVE OCCASION TO GET INSIDE THE
VEHICLE OR WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I GOT INSIDE THE VEHICLE AGAIN, I LOOKED OVER AT THE
CONSOLE TO MY RIGHT AND I LOOKED BACK, AND THEN AT THAT POINT, I
GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND WE LEFT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HOW LONG DID YOU -- DID YOU ACTUALLY GET IN AND SIT
DOWN INSIDE THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT ON THE LEFT SIDE?
A YES, I DID. UH-HUH.
Q IS THAT A YES?
A YES, SIR. I'M SORRY.
Q OKAY.
HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN IN THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT
ON THE LEFT SIDE, SIR?
A ABOUT HALF THE TIME THAT I WAS IN THE FRONT AND ON
THE DRIVER'S SIDE -- ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. SO ABOUT TWO
MINUTES.
Q OKAY.
A MINUTE AND A HALF.
Q WHILE IN THERE, DID YOU DO SOMETHING AND TOUCH THE
STEERING WHEEL?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE STEERING WHEEL
TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY RED SPOTS ON IT?
A WELL, I LOOKED AT THE STEERING WHEEL. BUT AS YOU CAN
SEE, THE STEERING WHEEL IS BLACK. SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU IF
THERE WAS ANYTHING ON THERE. BUT I DID LOOK AT IT AND I DIDN'T
SEE ANY BLOOD.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO
THE CONSOLE ON THE --
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, ON THE UPPER PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE
FAR RIGHT, THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPHIC CARD NO. 30 AND 31, AND TO THE
LEFT OF THOSE ARE 30 AND APPEAR TO BE SOME KIND OF RED SMUDGES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AS YOU SAT IN THE VEHICLE ON THE
RIGHT SIDE, THE PASSENGER SIDE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK
DOWN AT THAT CONSOLE DEPICTED THERE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A I LOOKED AT THE CONSOLE TWICE, ONCE I WAS IN THE
VEHICLE AND BEFORE I ENTERED THE VEHICLE.
Q AT ANY TIME OR ANY POINT WHEN YOU SAT IN THAT VEHICLE
OR BEFORE YOU GOT IN THAT VEHICLE, DID YOU EVER SEE ANY RED OR
BLOOD SPOTS AT THE ITEMS 30 AND 31 INSIDE THE BRONCO ON THAT
DATE?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU LOOKED SPECIFICALLY FOR IT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND IF I WERE TO ASK YOU WITH REGARD TO THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS DOWN IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND WHAT
APPEARS TO BE THE CONSOLE NOW OUT OF THE VEHICLE, ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF IT WHERE IT SAYS 303, 306, THAT SAME AREA, YOU NEVER SAW
ANY BLOOD THOSE LOCATIONS EITHER, DID YOU?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE -- DID YOU SEE ANY RED
SPOTS WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE CONSOLE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF
THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE, 303 AND 306, SIR?
A I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT -- 303 IS THERE AND 306 IS
THIS ONE (INDICATING)?
Q YES. THE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU SEE A BLOOD SPOT THERE?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU DID NOT?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU LOOKED THERE?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND THIS IS AS YOU WERE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR BLOOD;
IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE DASH, THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH
HERE ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER, NO. 24. DO YOU REMEMBER
WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW ANY SPOTS AT ALL ON THE DASH AREA OF THAT
VEHICLE, ANY RED SPOTS?
A NO, SIR. NO, I DON'T.
Q YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: SO THEN, MR. BLASINI, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, DURING THE TIME THAT -- ON JUNE 12TH -- STRIKE
THAT.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU GOING TO USE
THIS EXHIBIT ANYMORE?
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK I'M FINISHED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. BECAUSE IT DOES BLOCK JUROR 7.
MR. COCHRAN: ALLOW ME TO TAKE IT DOWN, YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, MR. BLASINI, DURING THE TIME
THAT YOU WERE INSIDE THAT VEHICLE EITHER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OR THE
LEFT SIDE, THE PASSENGER SIDE OR THE DRIVER'S SIDE, DID YOU EVER
SEE ANY RED SPOTS RESEMBLING BLOOD INSIDE THAT VEHICLE AT ALL?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.
Q AND WHEN YOU LEFT THAT VEHICLE AND YOU HAD LEFT -- AT
LEAST, YOU HAD ON TWO OCCASIONS PLACED YOUR FINGERPRINTS IN THE
WINDOWS OF THAT VEHICLE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. HE
CAN'T SAY HE PUT HIS FINGERPRINTS ON IT. HE SAID HE TOUCHED IT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, MR. BLASINI, YOU'VE COME HERE
TODAY PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU'VE COME HERE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN
SUBPOENAED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT, SIR.
Q YOU DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO COME FORWARD, DID YOU?
A NOT AT ALL, SIR.
Q AND IS MR. ADLEN STILL EMPLOYED IN HIS SAME WORK,
LINE OF WORK?
A YES, HE IS, SIR, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID -- WHO IS A MR. MCELROY? WHO IS MR. CHRIS
MCELROY?
A HE'S VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF OPERATIONS OF PICK
YOUR PART.
Q THAT'S YOUR COMPANY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU
WERE INSIDE THIS VEHICLE ON JUNE 21ST, 1994, WHETHER OR NOT MR.
MCELROY WAS INSIDE THAT VEHICLE?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING IF HE KNOWS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU KNOW?
A I WAS TOLD HE WAS IN THE VEHICLE.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THAT ANSWER IS STRICKEN. JURY IS TO DISREGARD.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
MR. MCELROY?
A AS FAR AS SEEN HIM IN THE VEHICLE?
Q YES.
A NO, I DIDN'T SEE HIM IN THE VEHICLE.
Q OKAY.
HE'S STILL EMPLOYED AT YOUR COMPANY NOW, IS HE?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IS MR. ADLEN STILL EMPLOYED AT A RIVAL COMPANY NOW?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THAT VEHICLE, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED
FOR THE JURY WHERE THAT VEHICLE WAS LOCATED I GUESS IN T-2 ON
1254. YOU DESCRIBED THE VEHICLE WAS NOT LOCKED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q BEFORE YOU GOT INSIDE THAT VEHICLE ON JUNE 21ST, DID
YOU HAVE TO SIGN ANY KIND OF LOG OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?
A NO, SIR.
Q WAS ANYBODY GUARDING THAT VEHICLE AT THAT TIME?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU JUST WALKED UP AND GOT INSIDE THE VEHICLE?
A YES, SIR.
Q BOTH YOU AND ADLEN?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THIS VEHICLE FOR HOWEVER
LONG IT WAS, FIVE MINUTES, SEVEN MINUTES OR WHATEVER, WAS BOB
JONES OVER THERE WATCHING YOU WHILE YOU WERE IN THE VEHICLE?
A BOB JONES WALKED OVER WITH US --
Q YES.
A -- AND THEN WALKED AWAY TO HIS OFFICE WHILE WE WERE
LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE.
Q SO YOU WERE IN THERE BY YOURSELF, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND AFTER YOU FINISHED LOOKING IN THE VEHICLE AND
MAKING YOUR OBSERVATIONS, WHERE DID YOU GO THEN, IF YOU RECALL?
A ONCE WE WERE DONE, I PROCEEDED TO PICK UP THE
PAPERWORK FROM THE VEHICLES THAT WE HAD PURCHASED AND I LEFT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU WERE THERE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF YOUR
BUSINESS TO BUY SOME ACTUAL VEHICLES FROM VIERTEL'S; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I HAVE JUST ONE SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, IN YOUR WORK IN PURCHASING
VEHICLES OVER THE LAST 15 PLUS YEARS, HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION
TO SEE BLOOD IN A VEHICLE BEFORE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q HOW OFTEN?
A WELL, PICK YOUR PART PURCHASES LIKE 8,000 VEHICLES A
MONTH. SO I COME ACROSS A LOT OF VEHICLES, AND A LOT OF THESE
VEHICLES ARE WRECKED VEHICLES THAT WERE IN ACCIDENTS, SO ON, AND
YOU GET TO SEE A LOT OF BLOOD.
Q YOU'VE DONE THAT YOURSELF IN THE PAST AND SEEN THAT
YOURSELF?
A OH, YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SECURITY, IF ANY, AROUND THIS
PARTICULAR VEHICLE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, FOR THE LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY BARRIERS OR
ANYTHING AROUND THIS PARTICULAR BRONCO AS YOU WENT IN AND GOT
INSIDE OF IT ON THAT DATE. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR US?
A YES. THEY DO HAVE -- IT'S LIKE THE CHAIN LINKS THAT
YOU SEE AT THE BANKS THAT FORM THE LINES. THAT'S WHAT THEY USE TO
BLOCK IT OFF.
Q AND WHERE WAS THAT IN RELATION TO THE BRONCO?
A IT WAS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO ALL THE WAY
AROUND THE RESTRICTED AREA.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE, HOW DID YOU GET PAST THERE?
A I THINK THERE'S A -- I CAN'T REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BUT
I THINK THERE'S AN OPENING ON EITHER SIDE THAT YOU CAN WALK RIGHT
THROUGH OR YOU CAN JUST STEP RIGHT OVER.
Q AND THAT'S HOW YOU JUST WALKED RIGHT IN; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND THERE'S NOBODY THERE TO STOP YOU, RIGHT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WAS ANYBODY THERE TO STOP YOU WHEN
YOU WERE THERE ON JUNE 21ST?
A NO, SIR.
Q IN FACT, BOB JONES WAS WITH YOU AND WALKED AWAY,
RIGHT?
A CORRECT, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TODAY, SIR.
NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. BLASINI, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU KNOWN BOB JONES?
A ABOUT THREE YEARS. MAYBE A LITTLE LESS.
Q AND YOU SAW HIM WHAT; ONCE A WEEK?
A EVERY TUESDAY.
Q SO YOU'D SEEN HIM FOR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TWO AND A
HALF TO THREE YEARS EVERY WEEK?
A WELL, OFF AND ON BECAUSE SOMETIMES OTHER PEOPLE WOULD
COME AND DO THE AUCTION.
Q HE KNEW YOU?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q YOU KNEW HIM?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q YOU SPOKE TO HIM, ON THE AVERAGE, EVERY WEEK FOR
ALMOST THREE YEARS?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q DID YOU THINK IT UNUSUAL THAT HE WOULD LET YOU LOOK
AT A CAR WITHOUT STANDING OVER YOU?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, MA'AM?
Q BY MS. CLARK: WAS THERE SOME REASON YOU FELT THAT
BOB JONES SHOULD NOT TRUST YOU TO LOOK AT THE CAR WITHOUT HIM
SUPERVISING YOU?
A NO. NO REASON AT ALL.
Q SO WHEN HE LEFT YOU ALONE, YOU DID NOT FIND THAT TO
BE IMPROPER OR UNUSUAL?
A NOT --
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: BOB JONES HAD EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT YOU WOULD BE -- YOU WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING IMPROPER INSIDE
THAT VEHICLE, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q SO WHEN HE WALKED AWAY FROM YOU AND LET YOU BE, YOU
DID NOT FIND THAT TO BE UNUSUAL?
A NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q NOW, WERE YOU -- YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING FOR PRINT
DUST?
A YES.
Q WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR PRINT DUST?
A BECAUSE IT WAS KNOWN THAT THERE WAS PRINT -- THAT THE
VEHICLE WAS PRINTED. THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE VEHICLE, AND THAT'S
BASICALLY WHAT WE HEARD AND WE JUST TOOK IT FOR GRANTED.
VEHICLES THAT ARE IN RESTRICTED AREAS USUALLY HAVE PRINT DUST ON
THEM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU SAW PRINT DUST ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE CAR;
DID YOU NOT?
A I DIDN'T.
Q YOU DIDN'T. YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY PRINT DUST ON THE
OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE, RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT?
A RIGHT. CORRECT.
Q NOW, THE VEHICLE WAS INSIDE THE BUILDING OF T-2,
CORRECT?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q IT WAS NOT OUT IN THE SUN?
A NO, IT WASN'T.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT INTO THAT CAR, WERE YOU CARRYING A
FLASHLIGHT?
A NO, MA'AM.
Q WERE YOU -- YOU'RE NOT A CRIMINALIST, CORRECT?
A NO, MA'AM.
Q NOW, IN THE CASES WHERE YOU SAID YOU SAW BLOOD IN
CARS ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, THOSE WERE CASES WHERE THE CAR HAD
BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT; IS THAT RIGHT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND SO SOMEONE HAD EITHER DIED OR BEEN SEVERELY
INJURED INSIDE THAT CAR, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND YOU SAW BIG GLOBS OF BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, SOMETIMES YOU SEE BIG GLOBS AND SOMETIMES YOU
SEE VERY LITTLE.
Q AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU WERE EXPECTING TO
SEE BIG GLOBS OF BLOOD, WEREN'T YOU?
A NO, I WASN'T.
Q YOU WEREN'T. BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU READ IN THE
NEWSPAPER THAT THERE HAD BEEN LOTS OF BLOOD?
A CORRECT.
Q THAT'S WHAT YOU READ; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A CORRECT.
Q SO YOU EXPECTED TO SEE LOTS OF BLOOD; ISN'T THAT
RIGHT?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I EXPECTED TO SEE BLOOD THAT I COULD SEE,
YES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU DID NOT GET DOWN AND INSPECT
THE DRIVER'S DOOR PANEL WITH A FLASHLIGHT, DID YOU?
A NO, MA'AM.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES A FACT
THAT A FLASHLIGHT WAS NECESSARY. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND YOU DID NOT, WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE
PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE, BEND DOWN TO INSPECT THE CONSOLE
CLOSELY, DID YOU?
A NOT UNDERNEATH, NO.
Q AND WHEN YOU WERE SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SIDE OF
THE CAR, YOUR LEG WAS PARALLEL WITH THE CONSOLE; ISN'T THAT
RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE STEERING WHEEL,
SIR, WHAT EFFORT DID YOU MAKE TO INSPECT IT CAREFULLY FOR BLOOD?
A I DIDN'T.
Q AND YOU CAN NOT TELL THIS JURY THAT THERE WAS NOT
BLOOD ON THAT STEERING WHEEL WHEN YOU LOOKED IN IT ON JUNE 21ST,
CAN YOU?
A I DIDN'T SEE ANY.
Q YOU CANNOT TELL THEM IT WASN'T THERE?
A CORRECT. NOT ON THE STEERING WHEEL.
Q NOW, ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU
LOOKED AT A CERTAIN PORTION, BUT NOT THE OTHER. DO YOU RECALL
THAT?
A THE DRIVER'S --
Q A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR PANEL.
A I DIDN'T SEE THE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR. I SAW THE
INSIDE BECAUSE IT WAS OPEN AS I WAS COMING TOWARDS IT.
THE WITNESS: YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE SOME WATER?
THE COURT: I NEED A WATER BRIGADE DEPUTY.
THANK YOU.
FORGIVE THE LACK OF HOSPITALITY.
THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T THINK I WAS GOING TO MAKE IT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU TOLD US YOU WERE LOOKING FOR
PRINT DUST ON THE BRONCO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q I TAKE IT THAT MEANS YOU'VE SEEN PRINT DUST BEFORE?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU INDICATED IN FACT YOU HAD SEEN IT BEFORE IN THE
RESTRICTED AREA OF VIERTEL'S, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND THE AREA THAT THE BRONCO WAS PARKED IN WAS A
RESTRICTED AREA; WAS IT NOT?
A CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, THAT HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY MARKED AND SHOWN AS PEOPLE'S 528.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I SEE IT?
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU WANT TO SHOW THAT TO MR.
COCHRAN?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU SEE THIS ON THE MONITOR?
A YES, I CAN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU OBSERVE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN
MERAZ, AN EMPLOYEE OF VIERTEL'S?
A PART OF IT, I DID.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM TESTIFY TO THE LOCATION IN WHICH THIS
BRONCO IS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THE PRINT SHED?
A I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LOCATION, SIR?
A THE PRINT SHED? NO, MA'AM.
Q THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON JUNE THE 14TH WAS SHOWN TO
MR. MERAZ DURING HIS TESTIMONY.
DO YOU SEE THE EXTERIOR OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR?
A I SURE DO.
Q DO YOU SEE SOMETHING AROUND THE DOORJAMB?
A I SURE DO.
Q WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE TO YOU?
A IT LOOKS LIKE PRINT DUST TO ME.
Q AND YOU'RE TELLING US, SIR, THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THAT
ON JUNE THE 21ST?
A I DID NOT SEE IT.
Q DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T THERE, DOES IT, SIR?
A CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I NEED -- I NEED MR. WOODEN'S HELP
WITH THIS. IT'S A LITTLE HEAVY.
THESE ARE MAGNETIZED, YOUR HONOR, SO I'M GOING TO ASK
THAT THE BOARD BE MARKED --
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SEE THESE, YOUR HONOR?
MS. CLARK: THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY --
THE COURT: WHICH EXHIBIT IS THIS? WHY DON'T YOU SHOW THEM
TO MR. COCHRAN REALLY QUICKLY, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: WHICH EXHIBIT IS THIS, COUNSEL?
MS. LEWIS: IT'S A BLANK BOARD.
THE COURT: 540.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MR. COCHRAN, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION?
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
WHEN WE ASKED THE QUESTION IF THESE WERE BODZIAK OR
FBI ENHANCED PHOTOGRAPHS, WE NEVER GOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER. THIS
IS AN EXHIBIT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE APPARENTLY.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY SEEM TO BE
ENHANCED OR BLOWN UP APPARENTLY. I DON'T THINK THEY'VE BEEN
MARKED BEFORE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT THEM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. LET ME TAKE A DEEP
BREATH HERE. I JUST WANT TO GET THIS THING GOING.
THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
MARKED ON OTHER EXHIBITS. THEY'RE NOT NEW TO THE DEFENSE. THEY
WERE -- WE TOOK BLOW-UPS AND PUT MAGNETS ON THEM FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PUTTING THEM ON A MAGNETIZED BOARD WITH THE WITNESS TO SHOW
THE SIMILARITY OF STAINS BETWEEN JUNE 14TH AND SEPTEMBER 1ST.
THAT'S ALL.
ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER.
THEY'VE BEEN MARKED BEFORE IN PREVIOUS EXHIBITS. I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THESE ARE BODZIAK ENHANCED. I SINCERELY DOUBT IT BECAUSE
THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE BODZIAK'S TESTIMONY. HE ENHANCED
PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAD TO DO WITH SHOEPRINTS.
THE COURT: YOU ARE HANDING ME FOUR VERY HEAVY MAGNETIZED
PHOTOGRAPHS.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
THE COURT: THE FIRST ONE APPEARS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
CONSOLE.
MS. CLARK: THESE ARE LAPD BLOW-UPS WITH MAGNETS STUCK ON
THE BACK.
THE COURT: THESE APPEAR TO BE L.A. -- FIRST ONE IS THE
CONSOLE OUT ON BROWN WRAPPING PAPER AT SID. SECOND ONE APPEARS
TO BE THE CONSOLE STILL IN THE CAR WITH GARAGE DOOR OPENER STILL
IN THE CONSOLE. THIRD ONE APPEARS TO BE THE DOOR, BUT I THINK
THE DOOR HAS PROBABLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR AT THIS POINT,
AND THE FOURTH ONE APPEARS TO BE -- EXCUSE ME. THAT WAS THE LAST
ONE, WAS OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR. THIS APPEARS ALSO TO BE THE
DRIVER'S DOOR.
AND, COUNSEL, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO BE
ENHANCED BY THESE OTHER THAN THE FACT THEY'RE BLOW-UPS. THERE'S
NOTHING --
MS. CLARK: THESE ARE NOT BODZIAK'S PHOTOGRAPHS.
MR. COCHRAN: WE HAD NEVER SEEN THESE IN THIS BLOWN-UP
CONDITION, YOUR HONOR. THE REPRESENTATION WAS, THESE ARE ALL THE
SAME PHOTOS. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME PHOTOS. THEY ARE AT LEAST
ENHANCED OR AT LEAST BLOWN UP BY LAPD. WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM
BEFORE, SO WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I'VE
SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM THAT LARGE AND IN
THIS CONDITION.
THE COURT: THEY ARE ENLARGEMENTS, BUT YOU HAVE THE
PHOTOGRAPHS. NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS.
ALL READ.
PROCEED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. COLLECTIVELY PEOPLE'S 598 AND
THEN I WILL --
THE COURT: HOLD ON A SECOND.
MRS. ROBERTSON?
THE CLERK: 601.
THE COURT: 601.
MS. CLARK: 601? OKAY. 601. AND THEN I'LL DESCRIBE THE
PHOTOGRAPHS AND LABEL THEM A, B, C, D.
(PEO'S 601 FOR ID = BOARD OF PHOTOGRAPHS)
(PEO'S 601-A, B, C AND D FOR ID = PHOTOS)
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU WANT MR. BLASINI TO STEP DOWN?
MS. CLARK: YES, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. BLASINI, WHY DON'T YOU GRAB THE POINTER AND
STEP DOWN.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH, THE LABEL IS A,
SHOWS THE DRIVER'S PANEL WITH THE NUMBERS 21, 22 AND 23.
FIRST, I'M GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU, SIR, AND ASK YOU
IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR LITTLE SMEARS OF BLOOD LIKE THOSE MARKED
IN THE MARKERS 21, 22 AND 23.
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE THE RED SUBSTANCE NEAR 22,
THE NUMBER 22?
A YES, I DO.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU SEE THE RED SUBSTANCE NEAR 21?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU SEE THE RED SUBSTANCE NEAR 23?
A YES, I DO.
Q NOW, IF YOU WERE TOLD, SIR, THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS
TAKEN ON JUNE THE 14TH, A WEEK PRIOR TO YOUR GETTING INTO THE
BRONCO, WOULD IT CHANGE YOUR OPINION OR YOUR TESTIMONY ANY THAT
YOU DID NOT SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, THE DAY THAT I SEEN THE BRONCO?
Q BY MS. CLARK: YES.
A THERE WAS NO BLOOD.
Q YOU SAW NO BLOOD IN ANY OF THESE AREAS. IS THAT YOUR
TESTIMONY, SIR?
A CAN I JUST PUT THIS UP?
Q SURE.
A I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD HERE, I
DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD HERE. THIS MIGHT BE POSSIBLE (INDICATING).
Q ALL RIGHT.
A BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING HERE (INDICATING).
THE COURT: WAIT. WAIT.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE
WITNESS JUST SAID --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: WHEN I SAY WAIT, THAT MEANS EVERYBODY WAITS.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS INDICATED HERE AS
THE AREA SHOWN BY 21 AND HERE, THE AREA SHOWN BY 22. IN THE AREA
OF 23 WHERE THERE IS THE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE ON THE INSIDE, HE
SAID THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BLOOD THERE (INDICATING). HE CAN'T SAY
THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES IT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IT DOES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THE AREA AROUND 23, SIR?
A IT'S POSSIBLE -- I DIDN'T SEE THAT, THAT SECTION
THERE. I KNOW THAT I LOOKED AT THIS. I LOOKED AT THE WHOLE
DOOR, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT (INDICATING).
Q YOU LOOKED AT THE WHOLE DOOR, BUT YOU DID NOT LOOK IN
THE INTERIOR --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO -- YOU'RE BLOCKING THE JURORS THERE.
MR. COCHRAN: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THE INTERIOR
PORTION OF THE DOOR HANDLE AT 23?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SAY SOMETHING? WHEN HE
SAYS, "I DIDN'T SEE THAT," I'M TRYING TO DESCRIBE IT FOR THE
RECORD, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK IS CONDUCTING THIS EXAMINATION.
IT'S HER RECORD TO MAKE.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL --
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
I WILL REMIND HER IF SHE DOESN'T DO SOMETHING,
BELIEVE ME.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN STEP BACK, SIR.
THE INTERIOR PORTION WHERE THE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE
IS, DID YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY INTO THIS AREA WHERE THE NUMBER 23
IS?
A NO.
Q SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, YOU ARE NOT TELLING THIS JURY
THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THAT AREA WHICH IS MARKED WITH THE
NUMBER 23, CORRECT?
A NO, I'M NOT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND ARE YOU TELLING THIS JURY YOU SPECIFICALLY GOT AS
CLOSE AS YOU COULD TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE INTERIOR DOOR PANEL
AT AREAS 21 AND 22?
A YES, I AM.
Q HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET, SIR?
A ABOUT AS CLOSE AS I AM TO YOU.
Q YOU SAT, YOU LOOKED THAT CLOSELY WHILE YOU WERE IN
THE CAR?
A YES, MA'AM.
THE COURT: INDICATING ABOUT 18 INCHES TO TWO FEET.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
SIR, NOW I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH OF
THAT AREA WHICH HAS A DATE OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, 1994 ON IT. I'M
GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH.
DO YOU SEE THE NUMBERS 298?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A RED AREA THERE?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU SEE THE NUMBER 296?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU SEE A RED AREA DOWN BELOW THAT?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q DO YOU SEE THE NUMBER 297?
A YES, I DO.
Q CAN YOU SEE A RED AREA AROUND 297?
A I SEE A SMUDGE. I DON'T SEE A RED AREA.
Q AND WHAT COLOR SMUDGE DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE?
A IT COULD BE BROWN, IT COULD BE BLACK. IT'S A DARK
COLOR.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO PUT POST-IT'S ON FOR
THE LETTERING LABELS OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. THE FIRST ONE WAS A.
THIS ONE THAT WE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBING WITH THE NUMBERS 298, 299,
296, 297 AS B.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND IF YOU WERE TOLD, SIR, THAT THIS
PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, 1994 WHICH WAS AFTER YOU
WERE IN THE BRONCO, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ANY AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE OTHER AREAS OF BLOOD IN THAT -- ON THAT
DOOR THAT YOU JUST DIDN'T SEE WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CAR?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE MY OPINION.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'M SORRY?
THE WITNESS: NO, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE MY OPINION.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE A THIRD PHOTOGRAPH I WOULD ASK BE MARKED
C, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE NUMBERS 31 AND 30. SHOWING IT TO THE
WITNESS NOW.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE THE CONSOLE
AREA OF THE BRONCO, SIR?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q AND DO YOU SEE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE RED SMUDGES ON
THAT SIDE, ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THAT CONSOLE?
A I SURE DO.
Q DO YOU SEE IT BY THE NUMBERS THERE?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q AT THE TIME YOU WERE IN THE BRONCO ON JUNE THE 21ST,
THERE WERE NO NUMBERS MARKING ANY SPOTS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, MA'AM. CORRECT.
Q NOW, ARE YOU TELLING US -- WHEN YOU SAT ON THE
PASSENGER SEAT, SIR, YOUR LEG WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT UP AGAINST
THE AREA MARKED BY 30; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND THE AREA MARKED BY 31, WHICH APPEARS TO BE TO THE
REAR OF THE CONSOLE AREA, WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY YOUR SIDE;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IF I WAS SITTING ON THE SEAT, YES. CORRECT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SO DURING THE TIME YOU WERE SITTING ON
THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE BRONCO, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
SEE THESE RED AREAS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THIS RIGHT HERE
(INDICATING) AND --
Q EXCUSE ME?
A I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE RIGHT ON THE TOP OF THE
CONSOLE --
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
FOR THE RECORD --
THE WITNESS: -- AND RIGHT ON THE SIDE.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO THE
TOP OF THE CONSOLE WHERE THERE IS NO MARKING FOR ANY RED STAIN.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND YOU'RE INDICATING WHERE ELSE COULD
YOU HAVE SEEN WHILE YOU WERE SITTING IN THE SEAT?
A RIGHT WHERE THE NUMBER IS.
Q YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THAT NUMBER?
A CORRECT, MA'AM.
Q IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
SEE THE RED STAIN LEFT OF THAT NUMBER?
A FROM SITTING DOWN IN THE CAR, NO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHEN
I SAW THE MARK.
Q OKAY.
AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS, SIR -- I'M GOING TO PUT IT UP.
A I SAW PART OF IT.
Q -- THAT YOU SAW THAT -- YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT
THAT PART OF THE CONSOLE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A WHEN I FIRST ENTERED THE VEHICLE BEFORE I SAT IN THE
VEHICLE, I PUT MY ELBOWS ON THE SEAT TO LOOK INSIDE AND I
DIRECTLY LOOKED AT THE CONSOLE, STRAIGHT AT THE CONSOLE. THAT'S
WHAT I LOOKED AT.
Q YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT THE CONSOLE?
A WELL, A BRONCO SITS A LITTLE HIGHER --
Q UH-HUH.
A -- THAN A REGULAR CAR DOES. SO WHEN YOU ENTER THE
CAR, THE SEAT'S HIGHER. SO WHEN YOU LOOK IN, YOU AUTOMATICALLY
SEE THE CONSOLE, YOU SEE THE TOP OF THE SEAT ALMOST PARALLEL WITH
THE CONSOLE.
Q AND THEN DID YOU PUT YOUR ELBOWS DOWN ON THE
PASSENGER SEAT AND STARE AT THE CONSOLE? IS THAT WHAT YOU?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I PUT MY ELBOWS OR PUT MY HANDS,
BUT I KNOW THAT I LOOKED IN FIRST BEFORE I ENTERED THE VEHICLE.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT THE AREA SHOWN IN 30?
A I LOOKED STRAIGHT AHEAD, RIGHT.
Q DID YOU LOOK AT THE AREA SHOWN IN 31?
A NO, I DIDN'T. NOT AT THAT POINT.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
I'M ASKING THAT THIS BE LABELED AS C, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU'RE TELLING THIS JURY THAT YOU
DID NOT SEE THE RED STAIN DEPICTED IN 31; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE JURY IT WASN'T THERE?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU DID NOT SEE THE RED STAIN MARKED IN 30; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE JURY IT WASN'T THERE?
A I DIDN'T SEE IT.
Q YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE JURY IT WASN'T THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: IT'S NONRESPONSIVE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED
YOU, SIR?
A ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE MARK.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE IT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US,
CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU CANNOT TELL US IT WASN'T THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WASN'T THERE WHEN I LOOKED.
Q BY MR. CLARK: YOU ARE TELLING US THEN IT WASN'T
THERE?
A WHEN I LOOKED, I DIDN'T SEE THE MARK.
Q NOW, IF I TOLD YOU THAT THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON
JUNE THE 14TH, A WEEK PRIOR TO YOUR GETTING INTO THE BRONCO, SIR,
WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ANY?
A NO, IT WOULDN'T.
Q SHOWING YOU ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH NOW THAT'S BEEN I
THINK PREVIOUSLY SHOWN. NOW IT'S GOT NUMBERS IN IT, 303, 306.
DO YOU SEE THAT?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q APPEARS TO BE THE CONSOLE.
A YES, MA'AM.
Q BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER HAS THE DATE SEPTEMBER 1,
'94, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q DO YOU SEE RED STAINS IN THE AREA OF 303, 306, 304,
305 IN THIS?
A I SURE DO.
Q AND YOU'RE TELLING THIS JURY THAT YOU DID NOT SEE ANY
OF THOSE RED STAINS WHEN YOU WERE IN THE BRONCO ON JUNE THE 21ST;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DIDN'T SEE 303 AND I DIDN'T SEE 306.
Q AND YOU CANNOT TELL THE JURY THAT 303, 304 AND 305
WERE NOT THERE?
A CORRECT.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM?
A I DIDN'T SEE THEM, CORRECT.
Q BUT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. CALLS
FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN.
MS. CLARK: AND I ASK THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE LABELED D,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WOULD IT CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY ANY
AS TO 303 AND 306, THE RED STAINS ON THAT AREA OF THE CONSOLE, IF
I TOLD YOU THAT THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 1994,
AFTER YOU WERE IN THE BRONCO?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION AGAIN,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULDN'T CHANGE MY TESTIMONY.
Q BY MS. CLARK: BUT SO WE'RE CLEAR, SIR, YOU'RE
TELLING THIS JURY WHAT YOU SAW OR DID NOT SEE, NOT WHAT WAS OR
WAS NOT THERE, CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK THAT THE JURY BE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT
THIS BOARD BEFORE I CONCLUDE CROSS-EXAMINATION OR SHOULD I
CONCLUDE FIRST AND THEN --
THE COURT: I THINK THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE LARGE ENOUGH AND I
THINK WE'VE SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE JURY PANEL WHO SAYS THEY
WANT TO GET UP AND LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, RAISE YOUR HAND.
ANYBODY?
I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
CAN MR. BLASINI TAKE HIS SEAT?
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, MR. BLASINI, WHEN YOU OPENED THE
CAR DOOR, NO INTERIOR LIGHT CAME ON IN THAT BRONCO, DID IT?
A NOT THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
Q AND THE GLASSES THAT YOU'RE WEARING TODAY, ARE THOSE
PRESCRIPTION?
A NO, THEY'RE NOT.
Q DID YOU WEAR THOSE GLASSES BACK ON JUNE 21ST, 1994?
A NO. I HAD REGULAR SUNGLASSES, DARK SUNGLASSES.
Q AND YOU WORE THOSE WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THE BRONCO?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q WHEN DID YOU TAKE THEM OFF?
A WHEN I ENTERED THE BUILDING.
Q AND YOU'RE WEARING TINTED GLASSES TODAY IN COURT,
AREN'T YOU?
A YES, I AM.
Q WHY IS THAT?
A I HAD RADIAL KERATOTOMY ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO, AND I
GET A GLARE FROM LIGHTS, CERTAIN LIGHTS, FLUORESCENT LIGHTS,
SUNLIGHT. SO I WEAR THE TINTED GLASSES.
Q AND THAT HAPPENED AND THAT'S SINCE SEVEN YEARS AGO,
SIR?
A ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO, YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THE AREA OF
THE T-2 WHERE THE BRONCO WAS PARKED HAS FLUORESCENT LIGHTS?
A I THINK SO, YES. BUT THEY'RE NEVER ON.
Q YOU ARE TESTIFYING TO THIS JURY THEY WERE NOT ON ON
JUNE THE 21ST, 1994?
A A LOT OF TIMES DURING THE DAYTIME, THEY DON'T HAVE
THE LIGHTS ON.
Q ARE YOU TELLING THIS JURY THEY WERE NOT ON ON JUNE
THE 21ST, 1994?
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I COULDN'T REMEMBER.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
MR. COCHRAN: A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q YOU HAD THIS RADIAL KERATOTOMY ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT CORRECTED YOUR VISION SO YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE
PRETTY WELL; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE ONLY REASON YOU WEAR THE TINTED SHADES IS TO
AVOID GLARE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID -- YOUR EYE CONDITION DID NOT AFFECT YOU WHEN YOU
LOOKED AT THE CONSOLE BEFORE YOU GOT INSIDE THAT CAR, DID IT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOUR EYE CONDITION AFFECT YOU
BEFORE YOU GOT INSIDE THAT CAR ON JUNE 21ST, 1994?
A NO, IT DIDN'T.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD INSIDE THAT
BRONCO, DID YOU?
A NO, SIR.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, MISS CLARK, DIDN'T ASK YOU
ABOUT NO. 299 THERE ON B BY THE WINDOW SILL. CAN YOU SEE THAT
>FROM WHERE YOU ARE?
A NO, I CAN'T.
MS. CLARK: IMPROPER QUESTION. I DID ASK.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
RESTATE THE QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
MAY HE STEP DOWN JUST FOR THIS ONE QUESTION?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR.
ON JUNE 21ST, 1994, THIS AREA, NO. 299 ON THE B
PHOTOGRAPH HERE, DID YOU SEE ANY RED SUBSTANCE ON THAT DATE IN
THAT AREA?
MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING MISS CLARK ASKED IN ANY WAY CHANGE YOUR MIND
ABOUT YOU HAD NOT SEE ANY BLOOD ON THAT DATE?
A NO. NOTHING'S CHANGED MY MIND.
Q YOU'VE COME HERE AND TOLD US THE TRUTH TODAY?
A I DID, SIR.
Q PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA?
A YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANYTHING ELSE?
MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. BLASINI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. YOU ARE
EXCUSED.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS, CAN WE -- WHERE DID MR. DOUGLAS
DISAPPEAR TO?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH -- I'M SORRY. PROSECUTION EXHIBIT.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WOULD YOU REMOVE THE EXHIBIT AND THE
EASEL, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS. NEXT WITNESS.
MR. NEUFELD: AT THIS TIME, DEFENSE CALLS MR. ROKAHR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. ROLF ROKAHR.
MRS. ROBERTSON.
ROLF D. ROKAHR
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY LAST NAME IS ROKAHR, R-O-K-A-H-R, FIRST
NAME IS ROLF, R-O-L-F, MIDDLE INITIAL D.
THE COURT: MR. NEUFELD.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NEUFELD:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. ROKAHR.
A GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. NEUFELD.
Q MR. ROKAHR, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING.
A I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ASSIGNED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER
FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE, ALMOST 10 YEARS. IT'S NINE
YEARS AND TWO MONTHS, AND I'VE WORKED AS A RESERVE OFFICER SINCE
1980 OR '81 UP UNTIL '86. I'M STILL WORKING AS A RESERVE
OFFICER.
Q MR. ROKAHR --
THE COURT: MR. ROKAHR, IF YOU COULD, TRY TO KEEP YOUR
VOICE UP, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
MRS. ROBERTSON, GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE VOLUME ON THAT.
MR. NEUFELD: WANT SOME MORE JUICE?
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: MR. ROKAHR, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL
THE JURY WHAT IT IS YOU DO FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
WHAT YOUR JOB TITLE IS AND WHAT THAT ENTAILS, SIR.
A JOB TITLE IS PHOTOGRAPHER II AND I PHOTOGRAPH
PRIMARILY HOMICIDE SCENES. AT THIS POINT, I WORK FROM 10:00
O'CLOCK AT NIGHT TILL 5:30 IN THE MORNING, AND THAT'S MY -- MY
MAIN JOB.
Q WELL, YOU DIDN'T WORK 10:00 O'CLOCK TO 5:00 A.M. LAST
NIGHT, DID YOU, SIR?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU GO OUT TO PHOTOGRAPH HOMICIDE
SCENES FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, DO YOU GO OUT THERE
WITH EQUIPMENT?
A I CARRY EQUIPMENT IN THE POLICE CAR. IT'S AN UNMARKED
CAR, AND I HAVE CAMERAS, FILM, TRIPOD, EVERYTHING A PHOTOGRAPHER
WOULD NEED.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FILM AFTER YOU SHOOT THE
PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR?
A WHEN I RETURN TO THE OFFICE AFTER WORKING USUALLY ALL
NIGHT UP UNTIL THE MORNING, I TURN THE FILM IN TO BE PROCESSED.
IF THERE'S NOBODY THERE TO DO IT, I DO IT MYSELF, I DO THE
DEVELOPING MYSELF.
Q DOES THAT DEVELOPING OCCUR AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS THAT AT PARKER CENTER?
A IT'S AT PARKER CENTER ON THE FOURTH FLOOR.
Q BY THE WAY, SIR, DID YOU MEET ME FOR THE FIRST TIME
YESTERDAY AT PARKER CENTER?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS FIRST TIME, YEAH.
Q OKAY.
YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF EVER TALKING TO ME
BEFORE, DO YOU, SIR?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q AND WHEN WE MET YESTERDAY AT PARKER CENTER, IT WAS TO
INTERVIEW YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT FOR THIS INTERVIEW THAT I
HAD WITH YOU AT PARKER CENTER?
A I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER GENTLEMEN THAT YOU BROUGHT,
BUT IT WAS DAVE ADKINS THAT WAS PRESENT WITH US I THINK.
Q AND WHO IS DAVID ADKINS?
A DAVID ADKINS IS MY OIC, WHICH STANDS FOR OFFICER IN
CHARGE OF THE PHOTO LAB.
Q WHO ALSO WORKS FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WAS THERE ALSO A DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRESENT
FOR THIS INTERVIEW?
A UH, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HIS NAME.
Q WELL, EVEN IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, WAS
SOMEBODY FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PRESENT?
A YES. MR. YOCHELSON.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EARLY
MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994.
WERE YOU THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
PHOTOGRAPHER ASSIGNED TO GO TO 875 BUNDY IN CONNECTION WITH A
DOUBLE HOMICIDE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT
LOCATION?
A WE RECEIVED A CALL AT 0248 AND I PROBABLY ARRIVED
AROUND 0320.
Q SIR, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE LOGS
OF BUNDY TO -- WELL, I'M SORRY. WITHDRAWN.
WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT 875 BUNDY, DID YOU
IMMEDIATELY GO SEE THE LOG-IN POLICE OFFICER?
A I COULD NOT FIND HIM WHERE I HAD PARKED.
Q AND WHERE WAS THAT THAT YOU HAD PARKED?
A I PARKED RIGHT ON THE VERY CORNER OF I BELIEVE IT'S
BUNDY AND DOROTHY AND I HAD TO WALK IN BACK OF THE -- THE ACTUAL
LOCATION TO FIND SOMEONE WHO HAD THE LOG.
Q AND WHEN YOU FOUND SOMEONE WHO HAD THE LOG, THEY
LOGGED YOU IN SO TO SPEAK?
A THEY LOGGED ME IN, YES, SIR.
Q AND HAVE YOU AT ANY TIME REVIEWED THAT LOG PRIOR TO
YOUR TESTIFYING TODAY?
A I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT LOG.
Q WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH ME YESTERDAY, DID YOU TELL ME
THAT THE TIME THAT YOU HAD ARRIVED AT 875 BUNDY WAS APPROXIMATELY
3:10 IN THE MORNING?
A COULD BE 3:10, COULD BE 3:20. I'M NOT SURE.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED, SIR, HOW MANY CAMERAS DID YOU
USE TO PHOTOGRAPH THE SCENE AT 875 BUNDY?
A JUST ONE CAMERA.
Q AND WHAT KIND OF FILM DID YOU USE?
A WE USE 200 ASA KODAK.
Q IS THAT COLOR FILM?
A KODAK. YES. GOLD COLOR FILM.
Q THAT'S COLOR PRINT FILM?
A COLOR PRINT FILM.
Q AND AS SOON AS YOU SIGNED IN OR LOGGED IN AT THE REAR
OF THE HOUSE, WERE YOU THEN GIVEN A WALK-THROUGH THROUGH THE
SCENE?
A I WAS GIVEN A WALK-THROUGH BY A POLICE OFFICER.
Q AND WOULD THAT BE A UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER WHO GAVE
YOU THAT WALK-THROUGH?
A UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER.
Q AND APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID THAT WALK-THROUGH
TAKE, SIR?
A PROBABLY NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
Q SO IF YOU HAD ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 3:10, WOULD
THAT MEAN THAT THE WALK-THROUGH ENDED AT ABOUT 3:15?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: IF YOU ARRIVED AT 3:20 IN THE
MORNING AND YOU LOGGED IN -- I'M SORRY. IF YOU LOGGED IN AT 3:20
IN THE MORNING AND THE WALK-THROUGH TOOK APPROXIMATELY FIVE
MINUTES, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT THE WALK-THROUGH WAS OVER BY 3:25?
A I WOULD SAY SO.
Q OKAY.
AND AS SOON AS THE WALK-THROUGH WAS OVER, DID YOU
ENCOUNTER DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: AS SOON AS THE WALK-THROUGH WAS
OVER, DID YOU ENCOUNTER A DETECTIVE?
MR. DARDEN: STILL LEADING.
THE WITNESS: NO --
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: EXCUSE ME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AFTER YOU COMPLETED THE WALK-THROUGH THAT TOOK
APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES, WHAT IS THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED?
A I SHOT THE OVERALLS OF THE STREETS INVOLVED. SO WHAT
WE DO IS, WE SHOOT UP AND DOWN THE STREET, THE INTERSECTION, AND
I BELIEVE I SHOT PICTURES -- CAN I REFER TO SOME OF MY NOTES
HERE?
Q YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. ROKAHR, IT APPEARS YOU BROUGHT A NOTEBOOK. ARE
THESE ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK ON THAT DAY?
THE WITNESS: THESE ARE ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS I TOOK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: NOW, MR. ROKAHR, YOU SAID THAT
BEGINNING THEN AT ABOUT 3:25, AFTER YOU HAD THE WALK-THROUGH AT
THE SCENE, YOU BEGAN TO SHOOT OVERALLS, OKAY?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q WHEN YOU SAY OVERALLS, IS ANOTHER WORD FOR THAT
ESTABLISHMENT SHOTS?
A LOCATION SHOTS.
Q OKAY.
AND ARE THOSE SHOTS, THE PURPOSE OF THOSE SHOTS TO
GIVE ONE AN OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE STREET SCENE?
A THE STREET SCENE AND POSSIBLE ESCAPE ROUTES THAT THE
DETECTIVES MIGHT WANT TO SEE IF A WITNESS SHOULD BECOME
AVAILABLE.
Q AND SO WOULD THOSE BE A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN
BOTH IN FRONT OF 875 BUNDY AND ALSO BEHIND 875 BUNDY IN THE
ALLEYWAY?
A AND UP AND DOWN THE STREETS.
Q OKAY.
AND, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO
SHOOT THOSE OVERALL OR ESTABLISHMENT OR LOCATION SHOTS THAT YOU
JUST DESCRIBED?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY 25, 35 MINUTES.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
SO IF YOU BEGAN TAKING THESE OVERALL OR LOCATION
SHOTS AT APPROXIMATELY 3:25 IN THE MORNING AND THEY TOOK
APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO SHOOT, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT YOU WERE
FINISHED SHOOTING THESE LOCATION SHOTS AT APPROXIMATELY 3:50 OR
3:55 IN THE MORNING. WOULD THAT BE A FAIR ESTIMATE?
A SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q AND, SIR, IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU COMPLETED SHOOTING
THE OVERALLS, DID YOU THEN SPEAK TO A DETECTIVE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING. VAGUE AS TO
"IMMEDIATELY."
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: WELL, WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT
HAPPENED AFTER YOU COMPLETED SHOOTING THESE LOCATION SHOTS, SIR?
A I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT, I MET UP WITH MARK FUHRMAN,
DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND ABOUT HOW MANY MINUTES AFTER YOU FINISHED
SHOOTING THESE OVERALL LOCATION SHOTS WAS IT THAT YOU MET UP WITH
DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN?
A IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE. AT THAT TIME, IT MEANT
NOTHING TO ME, THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME. SO I WOULD SAY COULD BE
AN HOUR.
Q SIR --
A I'M JUST GUESSING AT THIS POINT.
Q SIR, WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME YESTERDAY, DO
YOU RECALL THAT I ASKED YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERVIEW
WHETHER IT WAS ALL RIGHT FOR ME TO TAPE-RECORD THE INTERVIEW?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT IT WAS FINE WITH YOU?
A NO PROBLEM.
Q AND DURING THAT INTERVIEW, DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT
IT WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CAN I SEE WHAT COUNSEL
IS READING FROM?
MR. NEUFELD: SURE.
MR. DARDEN: IS HE READING FROM A TRANSCRIPT?
MR. NEUFELD: NOTES I MADE FOR MYSELF.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME
YESTERDAY ON TAPE AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKER
CENTER, DIDN'T YOU SAY TO ME THAT IT WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE TO 10
MINUTES AFTER YOU COMPLETED THE OVERALL SHOTS OF THE SCENE THAT
YOU ENCOUNTERED DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN?
A I MAY HAVE SAID THAT TO YOU. I DIDN'T REALIZE I
STAYED BY MY CAR FOR A WHILE.
Q SIR, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ANY MEMBER OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AFTER WE
FINISHED OUR INTERVIEW YESTERDAY ABOUT THE FACTS CONCERNING THIS
CASE?
A NO, SIR.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TODAY ABOUT
THIS CASE AND YOUR INVOLVEMENT BEFORE YOU TOOK THE WITNESS STAND?
A NO, SIR. I LOOKED AT MY -- MY PAPERWORK, AT MY LOGS.
Q SIR, DURING THE LUNCH BREAK, DID YOU SPEAK TO
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER DARDEN ABOUT YOUR
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE?
THE COURT: DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: EXCUSE ME -- DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER DARDEN ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE?
A I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS -- WE SPOKE, BUT I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS DURING THE LUNCH PERIOD.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MR. NEUFELD, 2:30.
MR. NEUFELD: FINE.
ONE SECOND.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT
YESTERDAY MORNING, WHEN I INTERVIEWED YOU AT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS AT PARKER CENTER, THAT YOU SAID TO ME
THAT YOU MET UP WITH MARK FUHRMAN APPROXIMATELY FIVE OR 10
MINUTES AFTER COMPLETING THE OVERALL PHOTOGRAPHS OR AT ABOUT 4:10
IN THE MORNING OR SO? DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT TO ME YESTERDAY
ON TAPE?
A YES, I DO.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU MET UP WITH MARK FUHRMAN AT
APPROXIMATELY 4:10 IN THE MORNING, SIR, DID MARK FUHRMAN TAKE YOU
ON ANOTHER WALK-THROUGH THROUGH THE SCENE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING, MISSTATES THE
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: IT IS. IT'S LEADING, COUNSEL.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU MET UP WITH MARK FUHRMAN AT ABOUT 4:10 IN
THE MORNING, WHAT DID MARK FUHRMAN DO WITH YOU, SIR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
WHAT HAPPENED? MR. ROKAHR, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU
MET UP WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
THE WITNESS: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED ME TO COME AROUND I
BELIEVE IT'S DOROTHY STREET TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO SHOW ME
WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS A CRIME SCENE IS CONCERNED AND AS FAR AS
EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: AND AT THAT TIME WHEN HE TOOK YOU
THROUGH, DID HE ASK YOU TO TAKE A FEW PICTURES OF SOMETHING IN
PARTICULAR?
A BY THE TIME WE ARRIVED TO THE ACTUAL CRIME SCENE, HE
FIRST OF ALL POINTED OUT -- THE BODIES WERE OBVIOUS -- WHERE
THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE, AND HE ASKED ME TO PHOTOGRAPH IT.
Q NOW -- I'M SORRY.
A YEAH. AND HE -- I ASKED HIM TO ACTUALLY POINT OUT
WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE IT WAS RATHER DARK IN THE GREEN
FOLIAGE THERE.
Q NOW, SIR, IF, AS YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY DURING THE
INTERVIEW, THAT YOU FIRST ENCOUNTERED MARK FUHRMAN AT 4:10 A.M.,
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO WALK WITH MARK FUHRMAN TO THE
LOCATION WHERE THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE IN THE GREEN FOLIAGE
APPROXIMATELY?
A I REALLY DON'T WANT TO NARROW MYSELF DOWN ON THAT
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE.
Q WELL, I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR A SPECIFIC -- WHETHER
IT'S FOUR MINUTES OR SEVEN MINUTES, SIR. I'M JUST ASKING YOU,
WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT IT'S LESS THAN 15
MINUTES FROM THE TIME THAT MR. FUHRMAN ENCOUNTERED YOU AND THE
TIME YOU GOT TO THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WHICH ARE IN THE GREEN
FOLIAGE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: WOULD THAT BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF
TIME?
A COULD BE 15 MINUTES, COULD BE 20 MINUTES, 30. I'M
NOT SURE.
Q OKAY.
WOULD IT BE A FAIR ESTIMATE THAT IT WAS SOMETHING
BETWEEN 15 MINUTES AND 30 MINUTES?
A I THINK IT'S A FAIR ESTIMATE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO, SIR, IF, AS YOU TOLD ME YESTERDAY, THAT IT WAS
APPROXIMATELY 4:10 IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED MR.
FUHRMAN AT 875 BUNDY AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS HAVING YOU TAKE
PICTURES OF ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WERE IN AND ABOUT THE GREEN
FOLIAGE, WOULD THAT BE SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:25 IN THE MORNING AND
4:40 IN THE MORNING BASED ON YOUR ESTIMATE, SIR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
AND THE COUPLE OF PICTURES THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
INSTRUCTED YOU TO TAKE AT THAT POINT, SIR, WERE THEY PICTURES OF
MR. FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: DID MR. FUHRMAN -- I'M SORRY. DID
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN INSTRUCT YOU TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF HIM
POINTING AT OBJECTS OF EVIDENCE?
A NO, HE DIDN'T. I REQUESTED HIM TO POINT TO THE
EVIDENCE.
Q OKAY.
AND WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU REQUESTED HIM TO POINT
TO THE GLOVE AND THE HAT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND THAT WOULD BE THE GLOVE AND THE HAT AT BUNDY; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND DID YOU AT THAT MOMENT TAKE PICTURES OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND THE HAT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND, SIR, WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU ASKED
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO POINT TO THE ITEM IS BECAUSE IT WAS
NIGHTTIME AND THUS, THE GLOVE WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER,
SIR?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q NOW, SIR, AFTER TAKING THOSE COUPLE OF PICTURES,
PICTURES OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT --
THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE ASSUMING THE NUMBER OF
PHOTOGRAPHS AT THIS POINT.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PHOTOGRAPHS YOU
TOOK OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE NEAR THE
GREEN FOLIAGE THAT NIGHT?
A I BELIEVE ONLY THOSE TWO.
Q NOW, AFTER TAKING THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED, SIR, DID YOU THEN BEGIN TO TAKE -- DID YOU AT SOME
POINT AFTER THAT TAKE OTHER PICTURES OF THE SCENE?
A MAY I?
THE COURT: AND THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT MR. ROKAHR
IS REFERRING AGAIN TO HIS NOTEBOOK OF PHOTOGRAPHS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: YEAH. I ONLY SHOW TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, AND THESE
ARE IN SEQUENCE, OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO THE ITEMS IN
THE FOLIAGE.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
AND AFTER YOU TOOK THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, AT SOME
TIME AFTER YOU TOOK THOSE TWO PHOTOS, DID YOU BEGIN TO TAKE OTHER
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SCENE AT 875 BUNDY?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND IN THE NEXT SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK --
AFTER YOU TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE
GLOVE, FOR THOSE NEXT SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE YOU BEING
INSTRUCTED BY A POLICE OFFICER TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OR WERE YOU
SIMPLY USING YOUR OWN PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND TAKING THEM
ALONE?
A SOME WERE OF MY OWN CHOICES AND SOME WERE -- THERE
WERE NO POLICE OFFICERS INSTRUCTING ME. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MARK
FUHRMAN.
Q WELL, SIR, IN THE PICTURES THAT YOU TOOK IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE GLOVE, THE FIRST LET'S SAY FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS -- I'M
SORRY -- WITHDRAWN AS TO "IMMEDIATELY."
THE NEXT --
MR. NEUFELD: MAY I COME -- APPROACH THE WITNESS ONE
SECOND?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, FOR INSTANCE, SEQUENTIALLY, THE
NEXT FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK AFTER YOU TOOK PICTURES OF
MARK FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE, FOR THOSE FIVE PICTURES, WERE
YOU RELYING ON YOUR OWN PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OR WERE YOU BEING
INSTRUCTED BY A DETECTIVE OR POLICE OFFICER TO TAKE THOSE
PICTURES?
A AT THAT POINT, I BELIEVE MARK FUHRMAN SAID, "LET'S GO
AROUND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND SHOOT FROM THERE."
Q SIR, WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME YESTERDAY,
DIDN'T YOU TELL ME THAT AS TO THE NEXT GROUP OF FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT YOU TOOK AFTER MARK FUHRMAN POINTED OUT THE GLOVE, THAT AS
TO THE NEXT FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY WERE NOT TAKEN AT THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF ANY DETECTIVE OR POLICE OFFICER, BUT THEY WERE
PICTURES THAT YOU SIMPLY TOOK USING YOUR OWN PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT TO ME YESTERDAY?
A I PROBABLY DID, MEANING -- MEANING THAT I DO SHOOT A
LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHS IN MY OWN JUDGMENT.
THE REASON I'M SAYING NOW THAT MARK FUHRMAN
INSTRUCTED ME TO GO AROUND THE FRONT IS BECAUSE I SWITCHED FROM
THE ACTUAL CRIME SCENE, AND WE HAD TO WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND
FRONT TO DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND I THINK I WAS INSTRUCTED.
Q SIR, YESTERDAY WHEN I INTERVIEWED YOU, YOU SAID THAT
FOR THESE NEXT FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU WERE NOT INSTRUCTED; ISN'T
THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED, LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: AND ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I TOLD YOU LAST
NIGHT OR YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
MR. NEUFELD: ALL RIGHT.
ONE MOMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LISTEN TO
THIS PORTION OF THE TAPE, SIR, OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE
INTERVIEW OF YESTERDAY AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT YOU DID SAY
DURING THE INTERVIEW YESTERDAY THAT AS TO THE NEXT FIVE
PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING
TO THE GLOVE, THAT FOR THOSE, YOU WERE NOT INSTRUCTED BY ANY
POLICE OFFICER OR DETECTIVE, BUT INSTEAD WERE USING YOUR OWN
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT. I WOULD LIKE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THIS BEFORE IT'S GOING TO BE PLAYED TO THE
JURY OR ANYTHING ELSE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. NEUFELD: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: NO.
MR. NEUFELD: IT WAS PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU SAID IT WAS A TAPE RECORDING FROM YESTERDAY THAT
YOU MADE.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD: THEY HAVE A COPY.
THE COURT: YOU GAVE THEM A COPY?
MR. NEUFELD: I GAVE THEM A COPY. THEY RECEIVED A COPY
THIS MORNING AS SOON AS I RECEIVED IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE JURY FOR A BREAK.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE OUR RECESS AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS FOR 15.
YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
THANK YOU.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
MR. DARDEN, MR. NEUFELD, HAVE YOU RESOLVED THE ISSUES
REGARDING THE TAPE?
MR. NEUFELD: I THINK IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR ON THE
RECORD, THE TAPE WAS MADE YESTERDAY AND THAT FIRST THING THIS
MORNING BEFORE WE COMMENCED COURT PROCEEDINGS, A COPY OF THE TAPE
WAS GIVEN TO ALAN YOCHELSON, AND IT'S THAT TAPE THAT I WILL BE
PLAYING.
THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS, FOR THE RECORD, THAT IT'S A
STANDARD RULE OF THIS COURT, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT COURT
REPORTERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEMPT TO TRANSCRIBE WHAT IS ON
TAPE RECORDINGS.
SO, MR. NEUFELD, WHAT I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO DO
IS, TOMORROW MORNING, FILE WITH THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PLAY FOR THE RECORD.
MR. NEUFELD: VERY WELL, SIR.
THE COURT: AND SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. DARDEN: AND SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I HAVE NO
OBJECTION TO THIS SMALL EXCERPT. BUT AS FOR OTHERS -- AND IT IS
TRUE THAT COUNSEL GAVE US A COPY OF THE TAPE THIS MORNING. BUT
AS THE COURT IS AWARE, I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE THE COURT.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU'VE CUED UP THE SNIPPET AND SHOWED IT AND --
MR. NEUFELD: NO. I HAVEN'T PLAYED THE SNIPPET RIGHT NOW
FOR MR. DARDEN, WHICH I CAN CERTAINLY DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT CUED UP?
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
SNIPPET HERE. HOW LONG IS THE TAPE IN ITS ENTIRETY?
MR. NEUFELD: THIS SNIPPET IS ABOUT EIGHT LINES?
THE COURT: HOW LONG IS THE TAPE IN ITS ENTIRETY?
MR. NEUFELD: PROBABLY AN HOUR, MAYBE LITTLE MORE THAN AN
HOUR, MAYBE AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES.
THE COURT: OKAY.
LET'S HEAR THE SNIPPET, MR. HARRIS.
(AT 2:44 P.M., A PORTION OF
A TAPE RECORDING WAS PLAYED.)
(AT 2:45 P.M., THE PLAYING OF
THE TAPE RECORDING CONCLUDED.)
MR. NEUFELD: THAT'S THE END. IT WOULD END AT THAT POINT
WHERE HE SAYS, "I'M USING MY OWN JUDGMENT."
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CUE IT BACK UP.
LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(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.
MR. ROKAHR, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
AND, MR. NEUFELD, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: MR. ROKAHR, WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
INITIALLY APPROACHED YOU, WAS HE ALONE AT THAT POINT?
A YES, HE WAS.
Q AND WERE YOU ALONE AT THAT POINT?
A I WAS TOO.
Q AND BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN
PRIOR TO JUNE 13TH, 1994?
A YES, I DID.
Q FOR APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY YEARS DID YOU KNOW
DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN?
A I WOULD HAVE TO GUESS. I WOULD SAY MAYBE FIVE YEARS.
Q AND IN WHAT CAPACITY DID YOU KNOW DETECTIVE MARK
FUHRMAN?
A FROM WORKING HOMICIDE SCENES WITH HIM.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS SCENES WHERE HE WAS THE
DETECTIVE AND YOU WERE SIMPLY THE -- LET ME SIMPLY START.
A OKAY.
Q AND YOU WERE THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER FOR CRIME SCENES?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AD APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CRIME SCENES DID YOU WORK
WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OVER THOSE FIVE YEARS?
A I WOULD HAVE TO ESTIMATE, BUT I WOULD SAY 12, 15.
Q NOW, GOING BACK TO THE -- THE QUESTIONS I WAS ASKING
YOU JUST BEFORE THE BREAK, SIR, WHEN YOU TAKE THESE PICTURES, IS
THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE SEQUENCE OF EACH
PICTURE IS?
A WELL, EACH OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS HAVE A SET WAY OF
TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS. WHEN YOU MENTION TO ME WHETHER HE INSTRUCTED
ME ON TAKING CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS, ON THE EVIDENCE, YES, HE DID.
Q SIR, I'M ASKING YOU --
MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ASK THE
WITNESS TO BE RESPONSIVE.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: I'M SIMPLY ASKING, IS THERE A
METHOD, A TECHNICAL METHOD THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE A SEQUENCE IN
WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q OKAY.
AND DOES EACH CAMERA COME WITH A COUNTER ON IT?
A THERE'S A COUNTER ON EACH -- ON MOST OF THE CAMERAS
WE USE.
Q WELL, DOES YOUR CAMERA HAVE A COUNTER, SIR?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND THE CAMERA YOU USED THAT NIGHT AT BUNDY, DID IT
HAVE A COUNTER?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN OF
THE JURY HOW THAT WORKS.
A WHEN WE ARRIVE AT A CRIME SCENE, THERE IS A DATA BACK
ON THE BACK OF MY CAMERA AND I CAN SET, AS FAR AS THE COUNTER IS
CONCERNED, SIX NUMBERS, 000000. FROM THEN ON, IT WILL COUNT UP
EVERY SHOT THAT IS TAKEN. IT ADDS A NUMBER, A DIGIT TO IT.
Q SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THE FIRST ONE WILL BE 000001?
A THAT WOULD BE MY SLATE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, CAN YOU BY LOOKING
IN YOUR BOOK TELL US WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE IN SEQUENCE OF THE
TWO PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TOOK OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN POINTING AT
THE GLOVE?
A YES, I COULD.
Q WOULD YOU PLEASE DO SO.
A THAT WOULD BE 34 AND 35.
Q THAT MEANS THAT THOSE ARE THE 34TH AND 35TH PICTURES
THAT YOU TOOK AT BUNDY THAT NIGHT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q NOW, BEFORE THE BREAK, SIR, I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE
VERY NEXT SEVERAL PICTURES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS 36,
IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONE IMMEDIATELY AFTER 35, WHERE FUHRMAN IS
POINTING AT THE GLOVE, ALL THE WAY THROUGH 43.
DO YOU SEE THOSE?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ISN'T IT A FACT, SIR, THAT WHEN YOU TOOK THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS, THE FIRST EIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER FUHRMAN IS
POINTING AT THE GLOVE, THAT AS TO THOSE EIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU
WERE NOT HAVING ANY DETECTIVE INSTRUCT YOU AS TO WHAT TO SHOOT,
BUT YOU WERE SIMPLY RELYING ON YOUR OWN PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT?
ISN'T THAT A FACT?
A YES, I WOULD SAY IT'S A FACT BECAUSE OF THE -- THE
SEQUENCE IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH IS THE WAY I SHOOT.
Q OKAY. THANK YOU.
NOW, YOU SAID EARLIER TO THE JURY THAT YOU WERE USING
KODAK COLOR PRINT FILM ASA 200; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND HOW MANY EXPOSURES ARE THERE IN EACH ROLL THAT
YOU USE, SIR?
A 36 EXPOSURES.
Q IS THAT YOUR STANDARD PRACTICE?
A THAT IS WHAT I PREFER.
Q OKAY.
AND ON THIS NIGHT, WHEN YOU WERE AT BUNDY SHOOTING,
YOU WERE USING ROLLS OF 36?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE JURY WHAT IS A CONTACT
PRINT?
A CONTACT PRINT WOULD BE A PRINT OF A NEGATIVE, SAME
SIZE AS THE NEGATIVE IS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IF ONE WANTED TO, ONE COULD TAKE THE FIRST 36
NEGATIVES OR THE FIRST 35 NEGATIVES, HOWEVER MANY NEGATIVES ARE
ON THE FIRST ROLL OF FILM, AND PRINT THEM; COULD THEY NOT?
A YES, YOU COULD.
Q AND IF YOU PRINTED THE FIRST ROLL OF FILM, THEN
ANYONE WHO WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE SEQUENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
WOULD BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THAT; WOULD THEY NOT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
MR. NEUFELD: WHAT IS NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: 1366.
(DEFT'S 1366 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)
THE COURT: MR. NEUFELD.
MR. NEUFELD: I HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THESE --
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. NEUFELD: I'M GOING TO SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS WHEN --
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, I'D ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT
DEFENDANT'S 1366 IN EVIDENCE, AND IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU CAN COMPARE
IT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU HAVE IN YOUR BLUE BOOK.
AND THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, SIR, FIRST OF ALL
IS, CAN YOU SEE THE NUMBER -- BY THE WAY, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE
-- THAT THERE'S A COUNTER WHICH NUMBERS EACH PHOTOGRAPH.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHEN THE ROLL OF FILM IS PRINTED, DO THOSE NUMBERS
APPEAR ON EACH AND EVERY PRINT?
A IT DEPENDS WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS ON THE NEGATIVE.
IF THE BACKGROUND IS VERY LIGHT, THEY'RE QUITE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO
SEE.
Q BUT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO
SEE, IS IT THE PROCEDURE THAT THAT NUMBER THAT YOU USE ON THE
COUNTER WILL APPEAR IN THE PRINT?
A IT SHOULD BE, YEAH.
Q OKAY.
AND IN FACT, IN THAT EXHIBIT WHICH I HAVE SHOWN YOU,
DO THE NUMBERS APPEAR IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER?
A YES, THEY DO, AND THERE ARE SOME THAT DO NOT SHOW.
Q THE ONES THAT DO NOT SHOW, IS THAT BECAUSE THE
BACKGROUND IS EXTREMELY LIGHT?
A THAT'S BECAUSE THE BACKGROUND IS SO LIGHT.
Q OKAY.
BUT CAN YOU TELL THE NUMBER BECAUSE OF THE PRINT THAT
IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT OR DIRECTLY BEFORE IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q I'M SORRY. DIRECTLY BEFORE IT AND DIRECTLY AFTER IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
AND, SIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COMPARE IT TO YOUR ALBUM,
PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD. BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, DOES
THIS SHEET -- EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE IMAGES ARE SLIGHTLY
LARGER THAN THEY WOULD BE IF IT WAS A DIRECT CONTACT, DOES THIS
PAGE REFLECT THE SEQUENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE VERY FIRST ROLL
OF FILM THAT YOU SHOT THAT NIGHT AT BUNDY?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND, SIR, DO THE FIRST -- BY THE WAY, HOW MANY
EXPOSURES DID YOU GET OUT OF THAT FIRST ROLL?
A THERE WOULD BE 36, 35, 36.
Q OKAY.
AND SO SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE SHOOTING A ROLL OF 36,
YOU ONLY GET 35?
A IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE CAMERA ON ITS FIRST -- ON ITS
FIRST ADVANCE ADVANCES OR DEPENDING ON HOW FAR I HAVE PUSHED THE
FILM INTO ITS POSITION.
Q OKAY.
A SO I MAY RUN OUT AT 36 AND SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT EVEN
GET 37.
Q IN THIS PARTICULAR ROLL, DO YOU NOTICE THAT THE LAST
SHOT ON THE ROLL IS ITEM NO. 35 -- NOT ITEM NUMBER, BUT
PHOTOGRAPH NO. 35?
A YEAH. I THINK IT'S -- LET ME JUST CHECK WITH THIS
ONE.
Q CERTAINLY.
MR. DARDEN: CAN I APPROACH FOR ONE MOMENT?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: THIS IS 35, THIS IS NO. 36.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: THAT'S THE NEXT ROLL?
A YEAH. EITHER THE NEXT ROLL OR THE LAST NEGATIVE. I
MAY HAVE RELOADED WALKING AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
Q OKAY.
SO, SIR, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION -- I'M
SORRY. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WOULD THIS CONTACT
SHEET, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL NEGATIVES ARE SLIGHTLY
LARGER WHEN THEY'RE PRINTED THERE THAN THEY WOULD BE ON A ROUTINE
CONTACT SHEET, DO THEY REPRESENT THE FIRST ROLL OF FILM YOU SHOT
THAT NIGHT AT BUNDY?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THE FIRST 33 FRAMES ON THAT ROLL, THOSE WOULD BE
THOSE OVERALL SHOTS YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU TOOK BETWEEN
APPROXIMATELY, OH, 3:25 AND SAY 3:55 IN THE MORNING?
A WHATEVER THE TIME WAS, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THE LAST TWO SHOTS THAT APPEAR ON THERE, THOSE
WOULD BE THE TWO SHOTS THAT YOU TOOK SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:20 AND
4:35 IN THE MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, DIDN'T YOU -- DIDN'T YOU SAY
JUST BEFORE THE BREAK THAT THE TIME THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
TAKEN OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE, GIVEN THE TIMES
THAT YOU GAVE FOR THE OTHER EVENTS THAT EVENING, WOULD BE
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4:20 AND 4:35 IN THE MORNING?
MR. DARDEN: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT, SIR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I PROBABLY DID. I HAVE FRANKLY NO
RECOLLECTION AS TO THE ACTUAL TIMES INVOLVED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, YESTERDAY, WHEN YOU WERE
INTERVIEWED BY ME, WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY ME FOR APPROXIMATELY
AN HOUR AND A HALF?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT
TIME, YOU WERE GIVING A NARRATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED, THE ORDER IT
HAPPENED AND THE TIMES IT HAPPENED ON JUNE 13TH OF 1994? ISN'T
THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. NEUFELD: MAY I PUBLISH IT TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES. WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM -- YOU WANT TO ASK
HIM A QUESTION ABOUT THE FRAME NUMBERS?
MR. NEUFELD: THAT APPEARS IN EACH PICTURE? OKAY.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: ASIDE FROM THE NUMBER IN THE LOWER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE ACTUAL PRINT, IS THERE ALSO A NUMBER
BENEATH THE PRINT WHICH INDICATES WHICH FRAME IT WAS OR WHICH
SHOT IT WAS IN THE ROLL?
A THERE'S ONLY ONE IMPRINT ON THE NEGATIVE. THERE ARE
NO OTHER NUMBERS.
Q WELL, NO. ARE THERE NUMBERS BELOW EACH PRINT THERE
THAT WOULD SHOW YOU IT IS THE THIRD FRAME OR THE FOURTH FRAME OR
THE SIXTH FRAME?
A YOU MEAN THE ONES THAT ARE PUT ON BY KODAK?
Q YES. THE ONE PUT ON BY KODAK.
A OKAY.
Q OKAY.
AND DO THOSE ALSO APPEAR ON THOSE SHEETS?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD.
MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I PUBLISH IT, I WOULD LIKE
TO USE THE ELMO, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO CUT THE FEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS FIRST.
SIR, IN THE -- THOSE ESTABLISHMENT, LOCATION, OVERALL
SHOTS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THOSE FIRST 33 SHOTS, IN
THOSE 33 SHOTS, YOU USED THE FLASH?
A I USE A FLASH ON EVERY PHOTOGRAPH I TAKE.
Q AND THE -- AND IN ADDITION TO THE FLASH, THERE WERE
STREETLIGHTS THAT TO SOME EXTENT OR OTHER ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS THAT
WERE THERE THAT ILLUMINATED THE SCENE AS WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND YOU CAN SEE THE ILLUMINATION GIVEN OFF BY THOSE
OTHER LIGHTS IN THESE VARIOUS PRINTS; CAN YOU NOT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU SHOT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE, AS TO THOSE TWO SHOTS, YOU SHOT
THOSE WITH A FLASH; DID YOU NOT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q I'M NOW GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS FRAME 34 AND 35 ON
YOUR FIRST ROLL OF FILM.
MR. NEUFELD: IS THE FEED CUT?
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: SIR, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SHOW YOU
ONE AT A TIME.
DO YOU SEE THOSE TWO?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND BY THE WAY, ALL THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS ON THAT
FIRST ROLL, 1 THROUGH 33, THOSE WERE ALL SHOT AT NIGHTTIME; ISN'T
THAT CORRECT?
A THEY WERE SHOT WHAT?
Q AT NIGHTTIME.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND AS TO 34, THE 34TH PICTURE, DO YOU SEE THAT ON
THE SCREEN?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE GLOVE?
A THAT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
Q AND IN 35, IS THAT ALSO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT
THE GLOVE?
A THAT IS ALSO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
Q AND THOSE WERE THE LAST TWO PICTURES YOU TOOK ON THAT
FIRST ROLL OF FILM DURING THE NIGHT AT BUNDY ON JUNE 13TH -- IN
THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: AT NIGHT?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. NEUFELD: THAT'S WHAT HE --
YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO POSE -- I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THIS TO
THE JURY SO THEY CAN AT LEAST LOOK AT IT.
THE COURT: HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.
MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1.
(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1366 WAS
EXAMINED BY THE JURORS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD, WOULD YOU RETRIEVE 1366 FROM DEPUTY
LONG, PLEASE.
MR. NEUFELD: CERTAINLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT EACH OF THE JURORS HAS
TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1366.
MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CROSS-EXAMINE.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q MR. ROKAHR, UNDER LAPD POLICY, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO RECORD THE EXACT TIME OF EACH AND EVERY PHOTOGRAPH YOU TAKE,
ARE YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU DID NOT KEEP A DETAILED PHOTO LOG IN THIS CASE,
THAT IS A LOG INDICATING THE EXACT TIME IN WHICH YOU TOOK EACH
PHOTOGRAPH?
A NO, SIR.
Q ANY TIME THAT YOU MIGHT GIVE US TODAY AS TO WHEN YOU
TOOK A PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH IS AN ESTIMATE ON YOUR PART; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q IT'S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE?
A AS GOOD AS I CAN DO AFTER A YEAR.
Q OKAY.
AFTER 15 MONTHS ACTUALLY.
A 15 MONTHS.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE ALWAYS HAD SOME PROBLEM IN TRYING TO
REMEMBER THE EXACT TIME AT WHICH YOU TOOK EACH OF THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY. OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN
EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD
SOME PROBLEM REMEMBERING THE EXACT TIME THAT YOU TOOK EACH OF THE
PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS CASE?
MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: CONSIDERING I PHOTOGRAPH AN AVERAGE OF TWO TO
THREE HOMICIDES EVERY NIGHT, I CANNOT REMEMBER THE TIMES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
IN FACT, YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY AN LAPD DETECTIVE
LEFALL ON NOVEMBER 22, 1994, WEREN'T YOU?
A YES, I WAS.
Q AND WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVE LEFALL,
YOU TOLD HIM YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES, I DID.
Q BUT LATER ON, YOU A LOOKED AT YOUR OWN LOG AND
REALIZED YOU DIDN'T GET THE CALL TO GO OUT TO BUNDY UNTIL 2:48 IN
THE MORNING; IS THAT RIGHT?
A HE INTERVIEWED ME BY PHONE AT MY HOME AND I HAD OF
COURSE VERY LITTLE RECOLLECTION WHAT TIME AND I WAS OBVIOUSLY
WRONG IN THE STATEMENT I MADE.
Q NOW, AS YOU BEGIN TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS AT A CRIME
SCENE, YOU TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A --
A ON A SLATE.
Q I'M SORRY?
A WE CALL IT A SLATE.
Q OKAY.
AND IS THERE A SLATE DEPICTED HERE IN --
THE COURT: 1366.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: -- 1366?
A YES. NUMBER ON THE VERY FIRST PHOTOGRAPH.
IT'S GOT MY NAME UP HERE, MY SERIAL NUMBERS AND THE
-- WHAT WE CALL A "C FORM" FOR THIS PARTICULAR JOB AND THE
LOCATION OF THE JOB.
Q OKAY.
AND SO THIS "C FORM" OR SLATE EXPOSURE IS NUMBER 0?
A NUMBER O, YEAH.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT SLATE INDICATES THAT YOU GOT THE CALL AT
2:48, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT ARRIVE AT THE SCENE AT
SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT, BUT IN FACT, YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT
ABOUT 3:25 IN THE MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A SOMEWHERE AFTER 3:00 O'CLOCK.
Q YOU DID SIGN IN ON THE LOG; IS THAT RIGHT?
A I DID SIGN IN ON THE LOG.
Q BUT YOU'VE ALSO HAD PROBLEMS RECALLING THE EXACT TIME
IN WHICH YOU TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BECAUSE OF YOUR HEALTH; IS
THAT RIGHT?
MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION. THERE'S NO TESTIMONY AT ALL ABOUT
THAT.
THE COURT: FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
MR. NEUFELD: FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: IT'S CROSS.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS?
A YES, I DO.
Q WERE YOU HAVING HEALTH PROBLEMS LAST YEAR?
A YES, I DID.
Q CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q YOU ALSO HAVE A PAINFUL NERVE DISEASE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q YOU TAKE -- STRIKE THAT.
YOU HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED APPROXIMATELY 13 MEDICATIONS
THAT YOU TAKE ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q DO THEY INCLUDE VICODIN?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS THAT?
A VICODIN IS A PAIN KILLER.
Q YOU TAKE ONE TABLET OR CAPSULE EVERY FOUR HOURS?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q DID YOU TAKE VICODIN YESTERDAY WHEN YOU SPOKE TO MR.
NEUFELD?
A I CARRY ABOUT EIGHT PILLS ON ME WHEN I GO TO WORK.
Q OKAY.
AND WERE YOU FEELING WELL YESTERDAY WHEN YOU SPOKE TO
MR. NEUFELD?
A I HAVEN'T REALLY FELT WELL FOR A LONG TIME.
Q WHEN YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE LEFALL IN NOVEMBER --
WELL, STRIKE THAT.
AFTER YOU TOOK THE OVERALL PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU WAIT
IN YOUR CAR FOR DETECTIVES?
A I WAITED -- I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I WAS SITTING IN MY
CAR OR JUST LEANING UP AGAINST IT.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU RECALL TELLING DETECTIVE LEFALL NOVEMBER 22,
1994 --
MR. DARDEN: PAGE 2 OF THAT STATEMENT, MR. NEUFELD.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: -- THAT YOU HAD COMPLETED ALL OF THE
OVERALL PHOTOGRAPHS --
MR. NEUFELD: GO AHEAD.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: -- AND WAS WAITING IN THE VEHICLE, IN
YOUR VEHICLE FOR THE DETECTIVES' ARRIVAL?
A I REMEMBER GETTING A PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE
LEFALL, BUT I AT THIS POINT REALLY DON'T REMEMBER WHAT ALL WAS
SAID.
Q THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THIS JURY AT
WHAT TIME YOU TOOK PHOTOS 34 AND 35; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT'S EXTREMELY --
MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT YOUR WATCH EACH
AND EVERY TIME --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I DON'T THINK HE FINISHED
ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: THE BOTTOM LINE, SIR, IS THAT YOU
CAN'T TELL THIS JURY AT WHAT TIME YOU TOOK PHOTOS 34 AND 35; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q YOU DON'T KNOW?
A THE ONLY TIME RECORDED ON MY PAPERWORK IS WHEN WE
LEAVE THE SCENE.
Q NOW, THE CONTACT SHEET IN FRONT OF YOU, BY LOOKING AT
THAT CONTACT SHEET, YOU CAN TELL THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH THE
PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS ASSUMING THE NEGATIVES WERE PLACED IN THE
CORRECT ORDER. THE NEGATIVES ARE CUT INTO STRIPS, FIVE NEGATIVES
EACH, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO MADE THIS CONTACT SHEET. IF WE GO BY
THE KODAK NUMBERS, I WOULD SAY THEY WERE IN PROPER ORDER.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU CAN ALSO TELL BY LOOKING AT THAT CONTACT
SHEET THAT YOU RECEIVED A CALL AT 2:48, CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
BUT YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT THE CONTACT SHEET
HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN EACH PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT IS CORRECT. I COULD NOT TELL.
Q AND YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT THAT CONTACT SHEET
THE EXACT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU TOOK THE LAST PHOTOGRAPH ON THAT
PARTICULAR ROLL, CORRECT?
A NO, I COULD NOT.
Q AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A COUNTER, A PHOTO COUNTER
BUILT INTO YOUR CAMERA, RIGHT?
A RIGHT.
Q THAT COUNTER DOESN'T INDICATE THE TIME IN WHICH YOU
TAKE A PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH EITHER?
A NO. THAT'S CORRECT. IT DOES NOT.
Q WHAT YOU'VE DONE HERE TODAY IS, YOU'VE TESTIFIED TO
THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES. I'M TRYING TO.
Q OKAY.
YOU WEREN'T TRYING TO AVOID ANSWERING QUESTIONS BY
MR. NEUFELD?
A NO, SIR.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
THANK YOU, SIR.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. NEUFELD.
MR. NEUFELD: ONE MOMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NEUFELD:
Q MR. ROKAHR, YOU SAID THAT YOU SOMETIMES PHOTOGRAPH AS
MANY AS TWO, THREE HOMICIDES A NIGHT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT, THIS WAS THE ONLY
HOMICIDE YOU HANDLED, CORRECT?
A THAT WAS THE ONLY HOMICIDE I HANDLED.
Q AND IN FACT, THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL HOMICIDE. THERE WAS
A LOT OF BRASS THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT MOST OF THE CASES WHICH
YOU PHOTOGRAPH, DOES IT?
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN I INTERVIEWED YOU YESTERDAY AT THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, SIR, DID WE HAVE A CALM CONVERSATION?
A YES, WE DID.
Q I DIDN'T RAISE MY VOICE, DID I?
A NO, YOU WERE VERY NICE.
Q DURING THE HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF WE WERE TALKING,
SIR, DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR HEALTH?
A I FELT THERE WAS NO REASON --
Q OKAY.
A -- TO DO SO.
Q AND, SIR, YOU MENTIONED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU
MAY NOT BE, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN AS TO WHAT TIME A
PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH OR PRECISELY WHAT TIME A PARTICULAR
PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.
BUT WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN A HALF HOUR, AN HOUR BEFORE SUNRISE
AND A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AN HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THE SUN COMES UP?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF LIGHT IN THE
AIR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: LIGHT IN THE AIR?
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY.
IN TERMS OF HOW LIGHT IT IS, THAT THERE IS AN OBVIOUS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A
HALF BEFORE THE SUN RISES AND A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AN HOUR TO AN
HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THE SUN RISES?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: AND, SIR, IF THE SUN RAISED THAT
MORNING AT 5:41 A.M., YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE
WITHOUT BEING PRECISE WHETHER THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS A NIGHTTIME
SHOT, SHOT PERHAPS AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF BEFORE SUNRISE AND
ONE SHOT AN HOUR AND A HALF AFTER SUNRISE, WOULDN'T YOU?
A I WOULD LIKE TO THINK SO.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: NOTHING FURTHER. I'M SORRY.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q MR. ROKAHR, HOW MANY HOMICIDE SCENES HAVE YOU
PHOTOGRAPHED SINCE JUNE 13TH, 1994?
A I -- CONSERVATIVELY, I DO ABOUT 10 A MONTH. SO A
COUPLE OF HUNDRED AT LEAST.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.
MR. NEUFELD: ONE LAST QUESTION.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NEUFELD:
Q BESIDES THE FACT THAT ALL THE BRASS WAS THERE THAT
NIGHT WHEN YOU WERE SHOOTING AT BUNDY, GIVEN THE NOTORIETY OF
THIS CASE, IN THE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS EXCEEDS --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: -- CROSS.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: DURING THE INTERVENING 14 MONTHS
THAT MR. DARDEN REFERRED TO, WAS THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE
THAT YOU PHOTOGRAPHED?
A I WOULD SAY SO.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE, MR. DARDEN?
MR. DARDEN: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. ROKAHR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. YOU MAY STEP
DOWN.
MR. NEUFELD, WOULD YOU RETRIEVE 1366, PLEASE.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS. NEXT WITNESS.
ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME ASK YOU TO STEP BACK
INTO THE JURY ROOM FOR JUST A FEW MOMENTS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, WHO IS THE NEXT WITNESS?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE -- MR. SCHECK HAS --
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO SERVE ON
PROSECUTION AND TO THE COURT A LETTER MEMORANDUM WITH RESPECT TO
A REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE OR PERMIT THE
CREATION OF CONTACT PRINTS, AND WE HAVE A PROPOSED INSTRUCTION
THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO GIVE TO THE JURY ON THIS MATTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: NOW THAT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ROKAHR HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND THE FACTUAL RECORD IS COMPLETE, WE THINK IT'S VERY
PLAIN THAT, AS INDICATED IN OUR BRADY MOTION, WHAT THE PROBLEMS
ARE HERE, AND I'M SURE THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE DISCOVERY
PROBLEMS WE HAD.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, NEXT WITNESS.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE NEXT WITNESS -- I THINK I INDICATED TO THE COURT
AGAIN THAT -- AND I WOULD REITERATE THIS AGAIN -- THAT WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW US TO, IS TO ALLOW US
TO ARGUE OUR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON MISS MC KINNEY, MY
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO YOUR HONOR PRIOR TO CALLING MC
KINNEY PLUS A COUPLE OTHER MOTIONS BECAUSE IT BEARS UPON WHAT WE
ARE ABLE TO DO IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AT ANY PARTICULAR.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PLAY A TAPE FOR YOU OF WHAT
YOU'RE ALLOWING US TO PLAY FOR THE JURY AS FAR AS FUHRMAN'S
WORDS. WE THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT BEFORE MC KINNEY IS CALLED.
AND THEN I WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN AND ASK YOUR HONOR
TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT AT PAGE 18899 BECAUSE, AS I SAID BEFORE,
GIVEN BAILEY'S QUESTION, MR. BAILEY'S QUESTION, WHICH IS VERY
SPECIFIC, WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT IT SEEMS TO ME TO IMPEACH
FUHRMAN BASED UPON THIS. THIS IS THE ONLY WITNESS ON OUR DEFENSE
LIST THAT CAN TESTIFY THAT FUHRMAN USED THIS WORD IN ADDRESSING
HIM AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. SO IT'S NOT CUMULATIVE AT ALL.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE IN THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS, FOR
YOU TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT REGARDING MC KINNEY, LET US CALL MC
KINNEY, LET US PLAY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PLAY ON THAT AND THEN
CALL HODGE. IF YOUR HONOR RULES THAT THIS IS PERMISSIBLE ON
HODGE, THEN I WOULD GO AHEAD AND CALL HODGE NOW AND THEN TAKE THE
REST OF THE DAY DEALING WITH MC KINNEY.
BUT I WOULD LIKE -- IF YOU SAY WE CAN PUT OUR CASE ON
THE WAY WE WANT TO, I WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH -- I'D LIKE TO GET
A RULING FROM YOU ON HODGE, DEAL WITH MC KINNEY, CALL MC KINNEY
AND HODGE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET MORE TESTIMONY ON BEFORE THIS
JURY, I WOULD THEN MOVE HODGE UP FOR THIS LIMITED AREA WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
AND I'D ASK YOU TO READ THIS PAGE 18899. I THINK IT'S
VERY CONTROLLING AND VERY COMPELLING AND HE IS THE ONLY WITNESS
WE HAVE, THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN WE HAVE WHO CAN REFUTE
FUHRMAN'S INSISTENCE THAT HE NEVER ADDRESSED ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN
WITH THIS WORD, THE ONLY ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS WHITE.
THE COURT: IS THAT IT?
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK WE'VE SPREAD ENOUGH VENOM AROUND
FOR ONE DAY AND FOR ONE TRIAL, JUDGE.
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE HAVE NOT CHALLENGED, WE DID
NOT CHALLENGE THE EARLIER WITNESSES' ASSERTION THAT FUHRMAN USED
THESE EPITAPHS AND JUST REFLECT ON THE THINGS YOU HAVE ALLOWED
THIS JURY TO HEAR AS THEY RELATE TO FUHRMAN'S RACIAL ANIMUS.
AND I'M SURE THE COURT NOTED THAT THROUGHOUT THAT
TESTIMONY, EACH OF THESE JURORS, THEY WERE WRITING LIKE CRAZY.
IT SEEMED AS IF THEY WROTE DOWN EACH AND EVERY WORD, AS IF THEY
HUNG ON EACH AND EVERY WORD.
AND AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE COURT HAS TO
REMEMBER -- AND I'M SURE THE COURT DOES -- THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT
TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE THIS DEFENDANT, OKAY. WE HAVE GONE WAY
TOO FAR, WAY OVER THE MARK IN THIS I BELIEVE.
THE EPITAPH WAS UTTERED, CONSIDERED IN CONTEXT IN
WHICH IT WAS UTTERED AND WHICH WAS HEARD BY THIS JURY, YOUR
HONOR. WHAT MORE CAN THEY WANT?
I THINK MC KINNEY IS CUMULATIVE AT THIS POINT,
ESPECIALLY ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS, WHICH IS COLLATERAL. AND IF
THE COURT DISAGREES THAT IT'S COLLATERAL, THEN IT'S ONLY
MARGINALLY BEYOND BEING COLLATERAL.
AT ANY EVENT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO TURN
THIS TRIAL INTO THE TRIAL OF PEOPLE VERSUS FUHRMAN OR RATHER
COCHRAN VERSUS FUHRMAN OR SIMPSON VERSUS FUHRMAN OR WHOMEVER --
BAILEY VERSUS FUHRMAN. WE'VE HEARD THIS WORD THROWN AROUND
THROUGHOUT THE COURTROOM TODAY. I'VE HEARD THAT TERM MORE BY MR.
BAILEY THAN ANY OTHER WHITE INDIVIDUAL I'VE EVER HEARD IT FROM IN
MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE --
THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN, WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THE
LEGAL ISSUE THAT MR. COCHRAN RAISES; THAT THE ONLY AFRICAN
AMERICAN THAT HAS BEEN PROFFERED AT THIS POINT IS MR. HODGE TO
SAY THAT, "I'M AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO WAS REFERRED TO BY MARK
FUHRMAN IN THIS MANNER," ALTHOUGH THE RECORD THANKFULLY TO THIS
POINT IS COLOR BLIND AS TO WHO'S WHO AND WHAT'S WHAT.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, NOW WE KNOW. I MEAN, I THINK NOW THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT EVERYONE BEFORE MR. HODGE WAS CAUCASIAN.
AND THE DEFENSE CHOSE THE ORDER OF THEIR WITNESSES.
THEY KNEW APPARENTLY -- WELL, I NOTICED, I'M SURE THEY NOTICED
THE RACIAL MAKE-UP OF EACH WITNESS THEY CALLED TODAY.
DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF WITNESSES FROM
CERTAIN ETHNIC OR RACIAL GROUPS? HAVING CHOSE THE ORDER OF
WITNESSES THAT THEY SELECTED, TO COME TO THE COURT NOW AND SAY,
"HEY, WE NEED TO HAVE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN TESTIFY TO THIS" I
THINK IS UNFAIR. I THINK IT'S UNNECESSARY. I THINK IT'S
CUMULATIVE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, THE WORDS CAME IN. WE LET THEM
COME IN, JUDGE. WE DIDN'T FIGHT IT. YOU KNOW, WE FOUGHT OUR
BATTLE UNDER 352 AND IN 402'S AND BEFORE THE COURT, AND WHEN IT
CAME TIME TO PRESENT THIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY, WE LET IT
COME.
THIS IS ENOUGH. THERE IS STILL THE ISSUE OF THE MINI
TRIAL OF MR. HODGE, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE I BELIEVE WELL BEYOND
THIS AFTERNOON. IF MR. COCHRAN IS 20 MINUTES WITH MR. HODGE, WE
WILL BE HERE UNTIL 5:30 ON CROSS.
THE COURT: WELL, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? WHY WOULD THE
PROSECUTION DO THAT? WHY WOULDN'T THE PROSECUTION JUST SAY,
"GEE, MR. HODGE, YOU FOUND IT INSULTING? GEE, THAT'S HORRIBLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOODBYE"?
MR. DARDEN: WELL, WE GAVE THE COURT SOME INFORMATION UNDER
1054.7. THAT'S WHY.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT GIVEN WHAT YOU'RE
DEALING WITH AT THIS POINT -- BUT I'M MORE INTERESTED IN MR.
COCHRAN'S PROFFER THAT THIS IS THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO IS
GOING TO BE OFFERED WHO IS GOING TO SAY THAT, "MR. FUHRMAN
REFERRED TO ME IN THIS WAY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES."
MR. DARDEN: WELL, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE POINTED OUT TO ME,
IF HE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE DEFENSE, WHY THEN DIDN'T THEY CALL
HIM EARLIER? I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED TO THE DEFENSE AND HAVE OVER
THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS THE ISSUE -- THE 352 ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT SOME OF THIS TESTIMONY IS CUMULATIVE.
THE COURT: I HAVE GIVEN THEM PRETTY GOOD WARNING THAT AT
SOME POINT IN TIME, IT WILL BE REDUNDANT.
MR. DARDEN: YEAH. YOU KNOW, YOU PUT ME IN AN AWFUL
POSITION WHEN YOU ASK ME TO ARGUE TO YOU WHY AN AFRICAN AMERICAN
SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THIS JURY, JUDGE.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN, SINCERELY, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU
FOR PUTTING YOU IN THAT POSITION. BUT YOU'RE A PROFESSIONAL. I
-- YOU KNOW, YOU AND I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR YEARS AND YEARS
AND YEARS. I KNOW YOU'VE UP TO IT. I KNOW THAT I -- THIS THINK
IS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN THAT'S PLACED UPON YOU AND I DON'T ENVY
YOUR POSITION, BUT NOR DO I ENVY MY OWN.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS.
THAT I HAVE SOME DOUBT THAT WHAT HE SAYS OCCURRED, AND SO I FEEL
ETHICALLY AND MORALLY BOUND TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON THOSE ISSUES.
BUT THERE ARE ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS
ARRESTED AND ACQUITTED AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS, ON WHETHER
FUHRMAN IS THE ARRESTING OFFICER OR THE TRANSPORTING OFFICER.
THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH, YOUR
HONOR. THEN WE HAVE TO CALL OTHER PEOPLE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS
STUFF.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MARCIA CLARK AND CHERI LEWIS AND I,
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LIKE THESE WORDS, YOU KNOW --
THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK ANOTHER INTERESTING QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU HAVE AN ARREST REPORT TO SUPPORT
THIS INCIDENT?
MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T HAVE AN
ARREST REPORT. I TALKED TO THIS WITNESS. HE HAS A LAWYER WHO IS
PRESENT AND --
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A COURT FILE THAT -- YOU SAID THAT
THERE WAS A -- THAT THE SUBSEQUENT ARREST AND PROSECUTION
RESULTED IN AN ACQUITTAL?
MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T HAVE IT. I HAVE THE DEFENDANT
HIMSELF WHO SAID HE WAS A FORMER DEFENDANT, THAT HE WAS ARRESTED
FOR --
THE COURT: NO. I'M JUST ASKING.
MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T. I HAVE THE DEFENDANT, FORMER
DEFENDANT, AND THE LAWYER HIMSELF, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THE LAWYER WHO DEFENDED HIM IN THAT CASE?
MR. COCHRAN: NO. HIS PRESENT LAWYER. HE NOW LIVES IN
ANOTHER STATE. HE'S BEEN OUT HERE FOR OVER A WEEK.
CAN I RESPOND JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: NO. WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER MY --
MR. COCHRAN: NO.
THE COURT: I'M NOT DONE DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH MR.
DARDEN.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. NO, I DON'T HAVE THE COURT FILE.
MR. BAILEY: WE'LL MAKE A COPY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE THE LAWYER DOES.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY HAVE.
I GUESS TODAY IS RACE DAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: ALL I HAVE IS A COUPLE PAGES OF AN ARREST
REPORT INDICATING FUHRMAN AS ONE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I SEE THAT, PLEASE?
MR. DARDEN: MAY I EXPLAIN TO THE COURT MY UNDERSTANDING OF
THAT ISSUE?
THE COURT: LET ME SEE WHAT THE ARREST REPORT SAYS.
MR. BAILEY: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO
PRINT THAT PAGE?
THE COURT: WHICH?
MR. BAILEY: 18899.
THE COURT: NO. I AM QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
AH, A PHONE.
MR. DARDEN: TAKE IT. TAKE IT.
IT'S BETTY GOLDMAN'S PHONE. TAKE IT, JUDGE.
THE COURT: IT WAS.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I SEE WHAT THE COURT IS LOOKING AT?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. DARDEN: CAN I SEE?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT IN THIS REGARD?
THE COURT: LET MR. DARDEN PERUSE THE REPORT.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: THIS REPORT IS NOT DATED AND MR. HODGE IS
LISTED AS AN OUTSTANDING SUSPECT IN THE REPORT. HE'S NOT LISTED
AS HAVING BEEN ARRESTED.
THE COURT: THE DR NUMBER THOUGH INDICATES IT'S AN '87
INCIDENT.
MR. DARDEN: IT IS AN '87 INCIDENT.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN: CAN I EXPLAIN TO THE COURT MY UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT HAPPENED HERE?
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, OFFICERS OTHER THAN OFFICER
FUHRMAN OBSERVED MR. HODGE SELL COCAINE TO A GENTLEMAN NAMED
THOMPSON.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE THIS MAN
WAS ACQUITTED OF THAT AND IT'S UNFAIR TO HIM TO SAY THAT IN
COURT. THIS MAN WAS ACQUITTED AND I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: AND HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED. IF I COULD JUST
CONTINUE.
THAT WAS THE ALLEGATION. THE OFFICERS MOVED IN TO
ARREST MR. HODGE AND MR. THOMPSON. MR. HODGE FLED. AS HE FLED,
HE APPARENTLY ENCOUNTERED OFFICER FUHRMAN, KNOCKING FUHRMAN TO
THE GROUND. HODGE GOT AWAY AND WAS LISTED AS AN OUTSTANDING
SUSPECT ON THIS 11352 ARREST REPORT.
MR. THOMPSON AND MR. HODGE WERE LATER PROSECUTED AND
MR. HODGE WAS ACQUITTED OF THE NARCOTICS SALES. OFFICER FUHRMAN
DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE NARCOTICS CASE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A
WITNESS TO THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION, OKAY.
SO THAT MR. HODGE WAS ACQUITTED AT TRIAL ON THE
NARCOTICS VIOLATION IS IRRELEVANT. IN FACT, MR. FUHRMAN WAS NOT
LISTED AS A WITNESS BY THE PROSECUTION IN THAT MATTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAVE A FILE IN THIS CASE?
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A FILE ON HODGE AND THOMPSON, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD NOW, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
THEN THIS WAS AN ARREST WARRANT SITUATION WITH MR.
HODGE?
MR. DARDEN: YEAH. IT WAS AN ARREST WARRANT SITUATION.
THIS TRANSACTION, THE NARCOTICS TRANSACTION OCCURRED ON JANUARY
10 AS I RECALL. HE WAS ARRESTED ON THE 13TH.
THE COURT: AND THAT'S AS A RESULT OF AN ARREST WARRANT?
MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE SO.
THE COURT: AND, MR. COCHRAN, IT'S THEN AT THAT POINT IN
TIME IT'S ALLEGED THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAID TO MR. HODGE, "AHA,
I TOLD YOU WE'D GET YOU."
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MAY I PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE
FOR YOU?
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, MR. HODGE KNEW MR. FUHRMAN VERY,
VERY WELL. HE STOPPED HIM OVER 20 TIMES, HARASSING HIM, MESSING
WITH HIM, AND HE HAD CALLED AND MADE COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT. THEY
WOULD STOP HIM ALL THE TIME. STOPPED HIM ONCE ON A BICYCLE.
STOPPED HIM ON THIS OCCASION. HE NEVER KNEW IT WAS FUHRMAN THAT
HE RAN INTO. IN FACT, HE WAS CHARGED WITH BATTERING A POLICE
OFFICER.
NOW, DON'T YOU THINK IF THEY COULD MAKE THAT CASE,
THAT HE RAN INTO THIS OFFICER INTENTIONALLY, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED WITH A CRIME? THAT CHARGE WAS DISMISSED. THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED.
WHEN HE ARRESTED HIM ON THIS OCCASION AND HE HAD HIM
SPREAD EAGLE IN AN ALLEYWAY, AND FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER WALKED
UP AND LIFTED HIM UP BY HIS HANDCUFFS AND TOOK HIM AND PUT HIM IN
THEIR CAR, TOOK HIM TO JAIL AND TURNED BACK AND SAID, "I TOLD YOU
I WOULD GET YOU," SO AND SO, WITH A RACIAL SLUR. AND THEN WHEN
HE --
SO I MEAN, IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THEY CAN TRY TO
HIDE ALL THIS. THEY CAN ASK HIM WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ASK. BUT
THIS IS THE ONE WITNESS THAT WE HAVE WHO HAS BEEN CONFRONTED BY
THIS MAN, WHO HAD CONTACT WITH HIM, WHO CAN TESTIFY, YOUR HONOR,
TO HOW THIS MAN ACTED IN THE STREETS VIS-A-VIS HIM.
AND I AGREE IT'S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE TRIAL. I DON'T PLAN TO BRING OUT HE WAS
ACQUITTED UNLESS THEY WANT TO GO INTO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO GO
INTO THAT. I TOLD YOU WHAT I WANTED TO GO INTO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: WASN'T THAT OFFER OF PROOF DIFFERENT FROM THE
ONES WE'VE HEARD SO FAR? WE'VE HEARD SO FAR SOMETHING AT THE
JAIL AND SOMETHING IN THE CAR. NOW, WE HAVE SOMETHING AT THE
SCENE WHERE HE'S LIFTED UP --
THE COURT: NO. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATERIAL ASPECT OF
THE OFFER WAS THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST, WHILE IN THE CAR,
WHILE IN THE POLICE CAR, WHILE MR. HODGE WAS BACK IN THE CUSTODY
SECTION OF THE PATROL CAR, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TURNED TO HIM AND
SAID, "I TOLD YOU WE'D GET YOU," ET CETERA. THAT'S THE OFFER OF
PROOF THAT I HEARD THUS FAR.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALSO HEARD THE BENDING OVER INCIDENT.
MR. COCHRAN: STRIP SEARCH AT THE JAIL, STRIP SEARCH AT THE
JAIL LATER. RECALL THAT?
THE COURT: I RECALL THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S
NECESSARILY MATERIAL TO ANYTHING.
MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DID TALK ABOUT
THAT ALSO.
THE COURT: YES, WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.
MR. DARDEN: THEN THERE'S THE MATTER OF HIS NUMEROUS
CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND DOESN'T APPEAR ALL THOSE
CONTACTS INVOLVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THOSE ARE ISSUES TO
CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON. THE 20 TO 25 CONTACTS THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS
ALLUDED TO TODAY, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO RECORD OF ALL OF THOSE
CONTACTS BETWEEN HE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU --
MR. DARDEN: AND THEN THERE'S THE 1054.7 PACKAGE WE GAVE
THE COURT.
THE COURT: WELL, THAT MAY BECOME GERMAINE IN IMPEACHMENT.
THEN WE TURN INTO THE TRIAL OF MR. HODGE.
MR. DARDEN: TRIAL NO. 3.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WELL, I'M JUST MUSING AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
SO WE CAN GET RIGHT TO THIS. WE'RE TRYING TO GET
THIS TESTIMONY UP, YOUR HONOR.
SINCE WE BEGAN OUR CASE SIX WEEKS AGO, THEY'VE
OBJECTED TO EVERY WITNESS WE'VE EVER CALLED. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.
WE MADE YOU THE OFFER OF PROOF. WE SPELLED IT OUT AS MUCH AS WE
CAN. THEY HAVE WHAT WE HAVE.
I CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THEY DO IN CROSS-EXAMINATION.
WE WELCOME THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE WELCOME TO SPEND THE NEXT
COUPLE HOURS WITH THIS JURY IF THEY WANT TO DO IT.
THE RELEVANT PORTION IS THIS WITNESS THEY'RE TRYING
TO PROTECT REFER TO THIS MAN BY THE "N" WORD. IT'S
INAPPROPRIATE. HE'S AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. WE SHOULD HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DO THAT.
HE'S THE ONE WITNESS, AND IT GOES DIRECTLY TO IMPEACH
WHAT HE SAID TO BAILEY. AND THE OTHER THINGS, I'M NOT THAT
WORRIED ABOUT. THE OTHER TRIAL, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT. WE'RE
TRYING TO CUT THROUGH THIS AND GET TO MC KINNEY AND GET TO THE
END OF THIS CASE, JUDGE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND I INDICATED TO YOU IN THE BEST WORLD, YOU GIVE ME
A RULING, I COULD DO THIS AND I'D HAVE HODGE COME AFTER HER
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN POINTS TO YOU ON MC KINNEY. BUT
AS I SAID, I WOULD BE WILLING TO BE GOVERNED BY WHAT YOU WOULD
ORDER IN THIS REGARD.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THEY COULD HAVE PUT MR. HODGE ON
LAST WEEK.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ADDRESS THAT.
YES, I COULD HAVE CALLED HODGE. THEY SAID WHY DON'T
WE CALL HODGE. I WAS GOING TO CALL HODGE ON FRIDAY. AND THEN
YOU'LL RECALL, YOUR HONOR, YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT CUMULATIVE,
AND THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY GOT THIS PARTICULAR EXCERPT FROM
THE TRANSCRIPT, TO POINT OUT TO YOUR HONOR EXACTLY WHY THIS IS
RELEVANT.
YES, WE HAD HODGE HERE. HODGE CAME HERE FROM
CHICAGO, JUDGE. HE'S BEEN HERE LIKE OVER A WEEK BECAUSE WE
DON'T WANT TO RUN OUT OF WITNESSES. YES, WE COULD HAVE CALLED
HIM. WE COULD HAVE CALLED SINGER. WE COULD HAVE CALLED TERRY.
BUT THE COURT DID INDICATE TO US AT SOME POINT THIS WOULD BECOME
CUMULATIVE. AND AS YOU RECALL, WE LISTENED.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FASHION THIS IN A FASHION NOW
SO IT'S NO LONGER YOU THINK IT'S CUMULATIVE AND REDUNDANT SO WE
CAN RESOLVE THIS POINT. THESE ARE THE LAST TWO WITNESSES IN THIS
AREA. HODGE STANDS BY HIMSELF, AND YOU KNOW THE SITUATION WITH
MC KINNEY AND WE NEED HEARINGS BEFORE WE GET TO MC KINNEY.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, ARE YOU GOING TO LET MISS MC KINNEY
TESTIFY THAT HE USED THE WORD 41 TIMES? NOW --
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? THIS IS THEIR
WITNESS. WE DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP. THIS IS THEIR WITNESS. SO NOW
THEY'RE STUCK WITH IT. CAN'T WE JUST GET THIS ON AND STOP ALL
THIS WHINING? LET'S GET IT OVER WITH, CAN'T WE?
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, THE GOLDMAN'S AND BROWN'S HAVE
RIGHTS TOO.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS. DO WE TO HEAR THIS
EVERY FEW MINUTES?
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
ALL RIGHT.
YOU PROPOSE TO PRESENT MR. HODGE, AND THEN YOU WANT
TO ARGUE THE MOTION ON THE SCOPE OF MC KINNEY?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. AND THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT
I THINK THE COURT IS AWARE OF WHICH ALL TIES IN. AND THEN WE'LL
BE READY TO PROCEED ON THAT. AND I THINK YOU GOT OUR PAPERS.
THEY FILED SOMETHING. AND THAT'S IT. I THINK THAT WILL TAKE US
TO THE END OF THE DAY.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, IF THEY INSIST ON GOING ON WITH THIS
RACIAL BUSINESS, I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR THAT THE COURT
REQUIRE THEM TO CALL MC KINNEY NOW SO THAT WE CAN THEN TAKE UP
THE 352 ISSUE AGAIN AS TO HODGE. I MEAN, AT SOME POINT, IT IS
CUMULATIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARGUED ALREADY, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, WE HAVE ARGUED ALREADY. NOW THEY WANT
YOU TO RECONSIDER THE PAST ARGUMENTS, THE P'S AND A'S AND PROFFER
AND SUBMISSIONS.
THE COURT: SEE, THEY'RE GAMBLING TOO THAT I'M NOT GOING TO
FIND MC KINNEY CUMULATIVE AT THAT POINT SINCE I HAVEN'T HEARD
HODGE.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, YOU JUST HEARD ME SAY HOWEVER -- DID
YOU HEAR ME SAY, HOWEVER, THE BEST OF THE SITUATION, I WANT YOU
TO RULE ON HODGE AND I WANTED TO CALL MC KINNEY FIRST. I SAID
THAT VERY CLEARLY, YOUR HONOR. SO IT'S NOT MUCH OF A GAMBLE IF
I GET THE RULING, WE'LL MOVE AHEAD. I PARED IT DOWN. WE'RE
TRYING TO TRY THIS CASE AND GET IT OVER WITH. THAT'S IT.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. WHY ARE WE ARGUING HODGE NOW IF MC
KINNEY IS COMING FIRST?
MR. COCHRAN: BECAUSE THE COURT WILL RECALL WHY I SAID THAT
IN THE BEGINNING. BECAUSE I SAID THAT ONCE YOU GAVE US THE
RULING, WE'D KNOW HOW WE FINISH OUT THE DAY AND BE READY TO COME
BACK TOMORROW, WHATEVER WE GOT LEFT, AND THAT THIS WOULD MAKE IT
A LOT EASIER, BECAUSE I SAID, IF YOU FELT THIS JURY NEEDED TO
HEAR SOMETHING ELSE, I WOULD MOVE HODGE UP IF YOU FELT THAT. BUT
IN THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS, I WANTED HODGE AFTER MC KINNEY.
I THOUGHT I MADE IT VERY CLEAR. I SAID THAT A NUMBER
OF TIMES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED, YOUR
HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, THIS IS ALL COLLATERAL. ISN'T GENOCIDE
ENOUGH? ISN'T HAVING WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT MARK FUHRMAN --
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, WOULD YOU DO ME ONE FAVOR
THOUGH? THE ARGUMENT, THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS
MADE THAT HAS ANY MERIT TO IT IS THE FACT THAT MR. HODGE IS AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN. THIS IS -- AND THIS IS THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL
THAT THEY HAVE PROFFERED TO WHOM THIS WAS SAID BY DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN.
MR. DARDEN: AND THE PROBATIVE VALUE, THE FACT THAT MR.
HODGE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN IS WHAT GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE HEARD
ALREADY?
OKAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPARENT TO THE JURY THAT
MR. HODGE IS INCLUDED IN ALL OF THE -- IN THE GENOCIDE AND ALL
THE OTHER THINGS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALLEGEDLY SAID AND WAS
TESTIFIED TO HERE IN COURT.
OKAY. WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT?
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ANSWER THAT, YOUR HONOR? THE PROBATIVE
VALUE IS THAT IT'S DIRECTLY IMPEACHING OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
I WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS ON A LEGAL BASIS. ALL THIS
EMOTION KIND OF GOES BY THE WAY SIDE. THIS IS IMPEACHING OF
THEIR WITNESS, AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING TO DO, YOUR HONOR.
IT'S IMPEACHING, AND YOU CAN CUT RIGHT THOUGH THE CHASE AND TO
THE ARGUMENT ISSUES HERE, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE. WE HAVE A RIGHT
TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING TO DO. I WOULD JUST ASK
YOU TO ALLOW US TO DO IT AFTER MC KINNEY HOWEVER.
MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE ALL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL BUT.
ALL RIGHT.
MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT IS A
STATEMENT THAT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY, WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO,
IS TO ALLOW THAT STATEMENT IN THE POLICE CAR PERIOD. THE FACT OF
THE ARREST, FACT OF PRIOR ACQUAINTANCESHIP, PRIOR CONTACTS UPON
THE ARREST IN JANUARY OF '87 IN THE POLICE CAR, THIS STATEMENT
WAS MADE PERIOD.
ALL RIGHT?
THAT'S THE RULING.
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE --
THE COURT: WHO IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS?
MR. COCHRAN: GIVEN THAT, CAN WE NOW ARGUE THE MOTION ON MC
KINNEY, SAVE SOME TIME? WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH DEAN
UELMEN WITH REGARD TO MISS MC KINNEY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: MY COLLEAGUES ARE TELLING ME WE'LL CALL HODGE
FIRST. WE'LL PROCEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKAGE ON HODGE, MR. DARDEN.
I'M ADDRESSING MR. DARDEN.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR PACKAGE ON MR. HODGE?
MS. LEWIS: WE DO HAVE TWO BOXES. WE DIDN'T BRING ALL BUT
TWO TO COURT.
THE COURT: WE ALSO HAD YOUR REPRESENTATION, MR. COCHRAN,
YOU WERE GOING TO CALL MC KINNEY. SO LET'S GO WITH MC KINNEY.
I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT FOR THEM TO BRING DOWN ALL THEIR BOXES.
MR. COCHRAN: BEFORE WE CALL MC KINNEY, WILL THE COURT
LISTEN TO MR. UELMEN?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE THIS?
MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ARE YOU ARGUING THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER?
MR. UELMEN.
MS. LEWIS: MISS CLARK IS GOING TO BE ARGUING THAT, YOUR
HONOR.
MR. UELMEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY.
MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT HAS THE COURT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE BRIEF THAT I FILED IN RESPONSE?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT
RESPONSE WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS.
MS. LEWIS: THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S THE SAME LAW.
THE COURT: I READ IT.
MR. UELMEN: I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH, WE DON'T HAVE A
MESSAGE FROM GOD, BUT A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE SOMEBODY TRIED TO
DELIVER THAT MESSAGE THIS MORNING, AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT
THIS ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE COURT MUST NOW ADDRESS THE
TESTIMONY OF MISS MC KINNEY, AND THAT POSTURE IS VERY DIFFERENT
THAN IT WAS EVEN YESTERDAY.
AS THE COURT INITIALLY APPROACHED THIS PROBLEM, IT
VIEWED THE DEFENSE'S ATTACK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN --
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S FOCUS IN ON WHAT'S CHANGED BETWEEN
LAST WEEK AND TODAY.
MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT.
WE NOW, YOUR HONOR, HAVE FIVE COUNTS OF PERJURY.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NOT ONLY TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NOT USED THE
WORD, THE "N" WORD IN 10 YEARS, BUT HE ALSO TESTIFIED, YOUR HONOR
WILL RECALL, THAT AS SOON AS HE GOT THE WORD THAT
ROBBERY-HOMICIDE WAS TAKING OVER THE CASE, HE WENT AND WAITED ON
THE STREET. WE NOW HAVE TESTIMONY FROM MR. ROKAHR THAT AFTER
THAT CALL WOULD HAVE COME IN ABOUT ROBBERY-HOMICIDE TAKING OVER
THE CASE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GUIDING THE PHOTOGRAPHER THROUGH
THE CRIME SCENE.
YOUR HONOR WILL ALSO RECALL -- AND THIS IS COUNT 3 --
THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT BEFORE HE WENT TO THE
ROCKINGHAM SCENE, THE CLOSEST HE GOT TO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
SURROUNDING THE BODIES WAS STANDING ON A LANDING LOOKING DOWN AT
THEM, AND HE TESTIFIED THAT ANOTHER DETECTIVE POINTED OUT TO HIM
WHERE THE GLOVE AND THE HAT WERE. THAT YOUR HONOR APPEARS AT
PAGES 18134 THROUGH 18136 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
COUNT 4 IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED UNDER
OATH THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING HIM KNEELING IN THE MIDST OF
THE CRIME SCENE POINTING TO THE HAT AND THE GLOVE WITH HIS FINGER
INCHES FROM THE GLOVE WAS TAKEN AT 7:00 A.M. AFTER HE HAD BEEN TO
ROCKINGHAM AND RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE TO COMPARE THE GLOVES
AND SEE IF THE BUNDY GLOVE WAS SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE HE ALLEGEDLY
HAD JUST DISCOVERED AT ROCKINGHAM. AND THAT TESTIMONY APPEARS AT
18369 THROUGH 18371 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
AND COUNT 5 WE WOULD CONTEND IS THE INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DESCRIPTION OF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO
WHEN HE SAID HE SAW A SECOND STAIN WITH FOUR BRUSH MARKS AND THE
TESTIMONY OF CRIMINALIST FUNG WHO TESTIFIED THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU
COULD OBSERVE THOSE BRUSH MARKS WAS IF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO WAS
OPEN, CONTRADICTING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD
NEVER OPENED THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO OR BEEN INTO THE BRONCO.
NOW, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ALL OF THAT IS THAT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHAT MOTIVE
WOULD HE HAVE TO LIE ABOUT HOW CLOSE HE GOT TO THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE? WHAT MOTIVE WOULD THERE BE TO TRY TO COVER UP THE
FACT THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN EARLIER IN THE
MORNING HOURS SHORTLY AFTER THE PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED AND TOOK THE
SETTING SHOTS THAT HERE WE HAVE INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNEELING IN THE MIDST OF THE EVIDENCE WITH HIS
FINGER INCHES AWAY FROM THE GLOVE? WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY REASON
TO LIE ABOUT THAT EXCEPT TO TRY TO DISGUISE AND CONCEAL THE
ACCESS AND THE OPPORTUNITY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ACTUALLY HAD.
NOW, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOUR HONOR WAS
DECIDING THIS MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAURA MC KINNEY TAPES
BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE. AND THE FALSE PREMISE WAS THE ARGUMENT
BY THE PEOPLE THAT THERE'S NO WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED
BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS WITH FUHRMAN EVERY MINUTE. HE DIDN'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE. SO THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD HAVE
PHYSICALLY PICKED UP A GLOVE AND TAKEN THAT GLOVE TO THE
ROCKINGHAM PREMISES.
I THINK THE OTHER FALSE PREMISE OF THE COURT'S RULING
WAS THAT THE DEFENSE THEORY IS SIMPLY TO PROVE THAT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN MOVED A GLOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER IN ORDER TO
FRAME AN INNOCENT MAN. AND THAT, OF COURSE, HAS NEVER BEEN OUR
CONTENTION. WE DON'T OF COURSE HAVE THE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING HOW
THAT GLOVE GOT TO ROCKINGHAM, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY CONTENDING IT
DIDN'T GET THERE BY O.J. SIMPSON TRANSPORTING IT THERE.
BUT THE MOTIVE FOR A DETECTIVE TO BRING EVIDENCE FROM
ONE SCENE TO ANOTHER MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER THAN SIMPLY A CONSCIOUS
EFFORT TO FRAME AN INNOCENT PERSON. IT MAY HAVE BEEN SIMPLY TO
TAKE PROBABLE CAUSE WITH YOU WHEN YOU GO TO A SCENE SO THAT YOU
WILL BE SURE TO BE ABLE TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT, YOU WILL BE SURE
TO BE ABLE TO SEARCH FOR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU THINK YOU
MIGHT FIND IF YOU HAVE ALREADY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU
GOT THE RIGHT SUSPECT.
AND THAT IS WHY WE BELIEVE THAT THE WORDS OF
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THOSE TAPES ARE SO CRITICAL AND SO RELEVANT
AND SO ESSENTIAL TO THE DEFENSE THEORY OF THE CASE, BECAUSE ON
THOSE TAPES, YOU HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMING THE ABILITY BY
INSTINCT TO DETERMINE WHO IS WORTHY OF BEING ARRESTED AND
CONVICTED OF A CRIME. YOU HAVE HIM ADMITTING THAT ON OCCASION,
HE HIMSELF HAS MADE UP THE PROBABLE CAUSE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT
AN ARREST. YOU HAVE HIM DESCRIBING HOW HE BELIEVES A POLICE
OFFICER SHOULD ACT IMMEDIATELY ON HIS INSTINCT AND THEN MAKE UP
THE REASONS LATER.
AND WE BELIEVE THERE IS AMPLE REASON IN THIS RECORD
RIGHT NOW TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS
CASE, AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFRONT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH
THESE STATEMENTS BY HIM IN TERMS OF THE WAY IN WHICH HE WENT
ABOUT GETTING PROBABLE CAUSE IN OTHER CASES.
THE COURT: THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT,
COUNSEL. WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN AND CONFRONT HIM WITH THESE THINGS? THAT'S A DIFFERENT
ISSUE.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I TAKE IT THEN YOUR HONOR'S RULING --
AND THIS IS ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL
TO US. YOUR HONOR'S RULING DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM QUESTIONING
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ABOUT THE INFORMATION ON THAT TAPE WHEN WE GET
HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND.
THE COURT: THAT ISSUE IS NOT PRESENTED.
MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THAT'S A VERY HELPFUL CLARIFICATION.
WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTIONS OF THE TAPE THAT YOUR
HONOR INDICATED WE CAN PLAY AT THIS POINT WHEN WE CALL MISS MC
KINNEY TO THE STAND, YOUR HONOR INDICATED THAT WE COULD ELICIT
THAT THE EPITAPH WAS USED 41 TIMES IN THE PERIOD 1985 AND 1986.
I BELIEVE YOUR HONOR MAY HAVE MISSPOKE IN THE ORDER BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE IS THAT IN 1985 AND 1986, THE EPITAPH WAS USED 35 TIMES.
SIX OF THE USES OF THE EPITAPH OCCURRED IN 1987 AND 1988.
THE COURT: THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT FACTUAL ASSERTION
IS THE LABELING ON THE TAPES THEMSELVES.
MR. UELMEN: I BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF MISS MC KINNEY AT
THE 402 SUPPORTED THAT, THAT THE TAPES FROM WHICH WE HAVE FIVE OF
THE -- OF THE USES OF THE TERM WERE MADE IN -- WELL, WAS MADE IN
1987 AND THE TRANSCRIPT IN WHICH WE HAVE THE 41ST USE OF THE TERM
WAS IN 1988.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN: SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS ELICIT THAT THE
TERM WAS USED 41 TIMES BETWEEN 1985 AND 1988.
THE SINGLE TAPE THAT YOUR HONOR SELECTED THAT THE
JURY COULD HEAR OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ACTUALLY UTTERING THE
EPITAPH -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WAS ACCIDENTAL OR YOUR
HONOR CONSCIOUSLY TRIED TO FIND A TAPE WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
VOICE WOULD BE LEAST RECOGNIZABLE OR LEAST LEGIBLE, BUT --
THE COURT: WHY WOULD I DO THAT?
MR. UELMEN: WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT. BUT THAT IS THE FACT, YOUR HONOR. OF THE ONE INCIDENT THAT
YOU INDICATED WE COULD USE THE TAPE, THE VOICE OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN IS LOST IN A CLATTER OF BACKGROUND NOISE AND IT TRULY IS
OF THE 40 -- WELL, OF THE 18 OR 19 THAT WE HAVE ON TAPE, REALLY
THE LEAST LEGIBLE OF ALL OF THEM.
AND WE HAVE SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT WE BELIEVE ARE NO
MORE INFLAMMATORY, NO MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN THE ONE THAT YOUR
HONOR SELECTED IN WHICH THE VOICE CAN BE HEARD MUCH MORE LEGIBLY,
AND WE WOULD ASK YOUR HONOR TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO
USE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PARTICULAR ITEM THAT YOU SELECTED JUST
FOR PURPOSE OF --
THE COURT: AND WHICH TWO ARE THOSE?
MR. UELMEN: WE HAVE A TAPE, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE THAT I THINK WE CAN PLAY IN LIKE FIVE
MINUTES SO YOUR HONOR WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING --
THE COURT: WELL, TELL ME WHICH ONE THEY ARE. SINCE I'VE
BEEN OVER THESE THINGS SEVERAL TIMES, I'LL RECOLLECT WHICH ONES
THEY ARE.
MR. UELMEN: THEY ARE 17, 18 --
THE COURT: THAT'S TWO.
MR. UELMEN: 26 AND 27.
THE COURT: SOUNDS LIKE FOUR TO ME.
MR. UELMEN: WELL, THESE ARE FOUR ALTERNATIVES IN WHICH THE
VOICE CAN BE MUCH MORE CLEARLY HEARD THAN IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT
YOUR HONOR SELECTED.
THE COURT: AND WHAT IS THE TEXT IN YOUR TRANSCRIPT FOR 17
-- 17 AND 18 MY RECOLLECTION WERE A DUAL USAGE IN A SINGLE
PASSAGE, CORRECT?
MR. UELMEN: I BELIEVE SO.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. UELMEN: 17 WOULD BE THE -- PRACTICING HIS MARTIAL ART
MOVEMENTS, THE TERM IS "NIGGERS, THEY'RE EASY. I USED TO
PRACTICE MY KICKS."
18, "DON'T THEY THINK THEY ARE PHYSICALLY CAPABLE?
THEY CAN ARM WRESTLE SIX FOOT SEVEN INCH N'S."
26 WOULD JUST BE THE FIRST TWO LINES, "WESTWOOD IS
GONE. THE "N'S" HAVE DISCOVERED IT WHEN THEY START MOVING INTO
REDONDO AND TORRANCE." AND THAT WOULD BE ALL WE WOULD USE.
AND 27 IS DISCUSSING FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS. "THEY
DON'T DO ANYTHING. THEY DON'T GO OUT THERE AND INITIATE A
CONTACT WITH SOME SIX FOOT FIVE "N" THAT'S BEEN IN PRISON FOR
SEVEN YEARS PUMPING WEIGHTS."
ON ALL OF THESE, THE VOICE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS
RECOGNIZABLE, THE USE OF THE TERM IS RECOGNIZABLE, AND WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT EITHER OF THOSE FACTS ARE TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THE
SINGLE TAPED INCIDENT THAT YOUR HONOR PREVIOUSLY INDICATED WE
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE.
THE FINAL POINT I WANT TO MAKE THEN -- I KNOW YOUR
HONOR HAS READ OUR PAPERS AND SERIOUSLY THOUGHT ABOUT THE SCOPE
OF YOUR HONOR'S RULING -- IS THE EXTENT OF ELIMINATING ALL BUT
USE OF THE WORD WHEN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE WORD IS USED ITSELF
REFLECTS THE RACIAL ANIMUS.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT EVEN IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD
NEVER BEEN ASKED, "HAVE YOU USED THE "N" WORD IN THE LAST 10
YEARS," EVEN IF THAT QUESTION HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED, EVEN IF HE
HADN'T LIED ABOUT IT, THE FACTS OF HIS RACIAL ANIMUS WOULD STILL
BE ADMISSIBLE TO CHALLENGE HIS CREDIBILITY. AND BY SANITIZING
THESE TAPES TO REMOVE THE RACIAL ANIMUS, WE ARE DEPRIVING THE
JURY OF EVIDENCE THAT IT NEEDS TO ASSESS THE WEIGHT THAT SHOULD
BE GIVEN TO HIS TESTIMONY.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE QUITE REASONABLE FOR A JURY
TO LOOK IN TERMS OF WHAT WEIGHT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE TO A
PERSON'S TESTIMONY. AND HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF HIS
TESTIMONY, HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT ENTERING THE BRONCO, HIS TESTIMONY
ABOUT WHAT HE DID AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE HE WENT TO
ROCKINGHAM. ALL OF HIS TESTIMONY.
THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT SOMEONE WHO IS A VIRULENT,
SPITEFUL, ANGRY RACIST DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT
SOMEONE WHO IS A CASUAL RACIST, WHO IS NOT ANIMATED AND
MOTIVATED.
THE COURT: BUT GIVEN THE TESTIMONY OF MISS BELL WHO SAID
THAT IT CAUSED HER TO ALMOST -- TO BREAK INTO TEARS, THAT HE WAS
ANGRY AND HE SAID IT IN A VERY AGGRESSIVE, HOSTILE, ARROGANT WAY
AND MISS SINGER'S TESTIMONY WHICH WAS EVEN MORE GRAPHIC IN
DESCRIBING THE TONE AND DEMEANOR OF HOW IT WAS SAID, HAVEN'T WE
ESTABLISHED THAT ALREADY?
MR. UELMEN: I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T
BELIEVE WE HAVE EVEN PLUMED YET THE DEPTHS OF THE HATEFULNESS AND
SPITE OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. AND UNTIL WE DO --
THE COURT: THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE JURY HAS
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO PUT THIS MAN'S CREDIBILITY IN
APPROPRIATE CONTEXT. THAT'S THE ISSUE.
MR. UELMEN: WELL, IT'S MORE THAN JUST A QUESTION OF
CREDIBILITY. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT WEIGHT THEY WILL GIVE TO
HIS TESTIMONY.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A QUANTITATIVE AS WELL AS
A QUALITATIVE JUDGMENT, AND WHAT WE ARE DOING REALLY IS DEPRIVING
THE JURY OF THE QUANTITATIVE PORTION OF IT. WE ARE DEPRIVING
THEM OF REALLY GETTING A FLAVOR THAT WE GOT FROM LISTENING TO
THOSE TAPES OF HOW TRUSTWORTHY OR HOW CREDIBLE THIS MAN IS.
THE COURT: I WOULDN'T CALL IT A FLAVOR.
MR. UELMEN: WELL, IT'S CERTAINLY A DISTASTEFUL FLAVOR, BUT
FLAVOR IT IS.
THE COURT: NOW, DEAN UELMEN, WHY DON'T YOU ANTICIPATE THE
ARGUMENT IS GOING TO BE THAT NO FACTS HAVE CHANGED. THAT THE --
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IT'S APPARENT
THAT IT APPEARS TO BE NIGHTTIME. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WAS KNOWN TO YOU OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN
EASILY DISCERNIBLE BASED ON WHAT THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS AND HOW IT IS
DEPICTED.
MR. UELMEN: QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. UELMEN: WHAT WE WERE GIVEN AT THE ONSET OF THIS TRIAL
WAS A STACK OF PHOTOGRAPHS WITHOUT ANY ORDER, WITHOUT ANY
INDICATION IN WHAT ORDER THEY WERE TAKEN. MANY OF THEM WERE
FLASH PHOTOGRAPHS, AND YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY TELL JUST BY LOOKING
AT A FLASH PHOTOGRAPH WHETHER IT WAS TAKEN AT DAY OR NIGHT.
I THINK ON CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH,
THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT SOMEONE WHOSE CLUED IN OR TUNED IN TO
THAT -- TO THAT PROBLEM CAN TELL. BUT THE -- WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE SEQUENCE OF THE CONTACT PRINT, IT'S OVERWHELMING THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF DEPRIVING US OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS IN SEQUENCE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR SANCTIONS AND WE
THINK VERY SERIOUS SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED. YOUR HONOR WAS
ACTUALLY DEPRIVED OF THE INFORMATION YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD BEFORE
YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MC KINNEY TAPES
BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE HAD NOT YET EVEN BEEN PRODUCED AT THAT
TIME.
IT WAS ONLY WHEN IT WAS TO THE CONVENIENCE AND TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE PROSECUTION TO PUT CONTACT PRINTS TOGETHER BECAUSE
THEIR WITNESS FROM THE FBI ASKED FOR THEM THAT WE EVER HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE SEQUENCE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT IS A
COVER UP. IT IS A COVER UP OF PERJURED TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
AND WE WERE DEPRIVED OF THAT INFORMATION UNTIL ONE
WEEK AGO WHEN WE SAW THOSE CONTACT PRINTS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVEN
THOUGH WE HAD ASKED FOR THOSE CONTACT PRINTS MONTHS AGO AT THE
OUTSET OF THIS TRIAL AND WERE TOLD IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE, THEY COULD
NOT PRODUCE CONTACT PRINTS.
WE BELIEVE THAT EVIDENCE IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT NOT
ONLY TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING, BUT, OF COURSE, TO THE CREDIBILITY
OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: WE'RE ABOUT NECK DEEP IN RHETORIC HYPERBOLE.
I'M NOT GOING TO ADD TO IT, BUT IF YOU CAN CALL A CONTACT SHEET
EVIDENCE OF A COVER UP, I GUESS YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DEFENSE
ARGUMENT IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND A LOT OF HOT AIR AND A LOT OF
BIG TALK AND A LOT OF NASTY ACCUSATIONS THAT AREN'T BACKED UP
WITH EVIDENCE.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN THESE CONTACT SHEETS IS NOTHING
MORE THAN THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL. THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS, YOUR HONOR, ALL HAVE NUMBERS STAMPED ON THEM. THE
SEQUENCE IS SHOWN ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEMSELVES. YOU CAN'T MISS
IT. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I WAS ABLE TO SEQUENCE THEM.
I GOT A STACK OF PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS
CASE THAT I HAD TO SIT DOWN AND PUT IN SEQUENCE, AND I DID IT BY
LOOKING AT THE NUMBER THAT'S STAMPED ON THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND
CORNER OF EACH AND EVERY PHOTOGRAPH THAT THEY HAVE AND THAT WE
HAVE. AND NOTHING'S BEING COVERED UP. THERE'S NOTHING HIDDEN.
THEY'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THE SEQUENCE OF THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS. IF THEY COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT, THEY COULD ASK US.
I COULD TELL THEM. THERE'S A NUMBER ON THE PHOTOGRAPH. IT'S
VERY SIMPLE STUFF, YOU KNOW. THERE'S NOTHING TO GET ALL EXCITED
ABOUT, A CONSPIRACY.
WE DIDN'T GO AND BLACK OUT THE NUMBERS ON THEIR COPY,
YOUR HONOR. WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TIME. WHO WOULD WANT TO? THEY
HAVE THEM. THEY HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE
GOT. I CAN GIVE IT TO THEM. I CAN'T MAKE THEM READ IT.
THE BOTTOM LINE, THEY'VE HAD IT NOW FOR OVER A YEAR,
AND NOW THEY'RE COMPLAINING THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO PUT THEM IN
SEQUENCE. I HOPE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ARGUING, BUT THAT'S THE
VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE GETTING HERE.
NOW, THEY WANTED A CONTACT SHEET. THEY GET IT. IT
ADDS NO NEW INFORMATION. AND THAT THIS IS A COVER UP IS
RIDICULOUS. IT IS ABSURD.
MR. UELMEN STANDS UP AND ARGUES OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF
HIS MOUTH SIMULTANEOUSLY. WHAT A FEAT. HE SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT
REALLY TELL WHEN PICTURES ARE TAKEN WITH A FLASH WHETHER IT'S
DURING THE DAYTIME OR AT NIGHT, BUT EXCEPT IN THESE TWO LAST ONES
WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU CAN REALLY TELL.
OH, COME ON. IF YOU CAN'T TELL, YOU CAN'T TELL.
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AND ME, I LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE
LAST TWO IN THE ROLL, IT'S VERY APPARENT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
ROKAHR WAS AT THE SCENE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.
IN-BETWEEN HIS OVERALLS, HE TOOK THE FIRST 33. THEY ARE ALL
OVERALLS OF THE GENERAL SCENE AND NONE OF THEM ARE SPECIFICALLY
OF ANY ITEM OF EVIDENCE. IT IS NOT UNTIL MUCH LATER WHEN
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GETS BACK AND DOES AS INSTRUCTED BY DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, TO GO LOOK AT THE GLOVE AND SEE IF THEY LOOK LIKE A
MATCH PAIR, THAT HE GOES OVER AND POINTS IT OUT.
NOW, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO TESTIFIED TO THAT.
OFFICER RISKE SAID THAT JUST BEFORE HE GOT OFF DUTY AT 7:30, HE
SAW OFFICER FUHRMAN COME BACK FROM ROCKINGHAM, TAKE THE
PHOTOGRAPHER OVER TO THE SCENE AND MOVE THE BUSH BACK SO HE COULD
POINT OUT THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT AREA HAPPENS TO BE DARK WITH
FOLIAGE AS ROKAHR TESTIFIED.
THERE'S NO BIG MYSTERY HERE AND NOT -- RUDENESS OF
COUNSEL OR NOT THEIR UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS WILL CHANGE THE TRUTH.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUE ON
MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, COUNSEL.
MS. CLARK: YES. AND THAT'S -- I MEANT TO START WITH THAT,
YOUR HONOR. I GOT SIDETRACKED.
THE COURT: THAT WOULD HELP.
MS. CLARK: THERE IS NO -- I'M SORRY.
THERE IS NO LEGAL PROVISION FOR MOTION TO
RECONSIDERATION IN CRIMINAL LAW. THAT IS ONLY IN CIVIL LAW. IT
IS RECOGNIZED IN CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURE SECTION 1008, AND WHAT
THEY REQUIRE IN CIVIL LAW IS THAT THE PARTIES SEEKING
RECONSIDERATION SHOW NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTS.
IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE NO NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LAURA MC KINNEY.
THE COURT: BUT DOESN'T -- DON'T THE -- DOESN'T THE CASE
LAW DEALING WITH THAT PARTICULAR CODE SECTION INCLUDE CRIMINAL
CASES; IF YOU SHEPHERDIZE THAT, YOU COME UP WITH SOME CRIMINAL
CASES?
MS. CLARK: WE DID. I DON'T BELIEVE NONE WERE FOUND, YOUR
HONOR. I DIDN'T -- WE DON'T HAVE ANY IN OUR MOTION, WHICH LEADS
ME TO BELIEVE THAT NO, THERE AREN'T ANY CRIMINAL CASES UNDER THAT
SECTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: YOU ASKED ME THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU KNEW
MISS LEWIS WROTE THIS MOTION, HUH? BUT NO, AS FAR AS I KNOW,
THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL LAW CASES THAT INVOLVE THAT SECTION BECAUSE
IT'S NOT RECOGNIZED IN CRIMINAL LAW. SO I MEAN, AT LEAST IN
THEORY, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE ARGUMENT.
THE COURT: BUT MY PEPPERDINE LAW CLERKS FOUND SOME.
MS. CLARK: DID THEY? CRIMINAL CASES? AND WHAT DO THEY
SAY?
THE COURT: THEY SAY IT'S APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL LAW CASES.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
NEVER THE LESS --
THE COURT: AND IT DEALS WITH SANCTIONS.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: NEVER MIND.
THERE'S A RULE IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE THAT AN
UNFOUNDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS THE SUBJECT OF SANCTION.
JUST AN ASIDE. NOT RELEVANT TO THIS SITUATION.
MS. CLARK: OH. YOU SAW MY MOTION COMING.
BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY DON'T
HAVE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE TO POINT TO, YOUR HONOR. THE
CONTACT SHEET DOESN'T QUALIFY. THAT CONTACT SHEET HAS NOTHING --
IS NOTHING BUT A COLLECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEY'VE HAD FOR A
YEAR AND THREE MONTHS.
SO WE HAVE NOTHING NEW THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THIS
COURT. WE DO HAVE, HOWEVER, AS I'VE INDICATED TO THE COURT
EARLIER, OFFICER RISKE TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW THE PHOTOGRAPH BEING
TAKEN AT 7:00 A.M. SHORTLY BEFORE HE GOT OFF DUTY.
MR. UELMEN POSES THE QUESTION WHY LIE ABOUT THE TIME.
WELL, THAT'S TO COVER UP. IF THAT'S TO COVER UP THE ABILITY OR
OPPORTUNITY TO CONCEAL OR MOVE EVIDENCE, THEN WHY IS HE STANDING
THERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH POINTING TO THE EVIDENCE? I MEAN, ISN'T
THAT THE STUPIDEST THING YOU'VE EVER HEARD? "HI, MOM, YOU KNOW,
I'M GOING TO MOVE SOME EVIDENCE NOW." WHAT IS THIS?
IF HE'S TRYING TO HIDE HIMSELF AND CONCEAL HIMSELF,
THEN YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT GET CLOSE TO THE EVIDENCE. YOU DON'T
STEP INTO THE SCENE. YOU DON'T STAND THERE AND POINT TO IT. YOU
STAY WAY BACK IN THE SHADOWS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE DID. THAT'S CLEARLY NOT WHAT HE
DID. HE WAS WORKING. HE WAS DOING AS HE WAS TOLD. DETECTIVE
VANNATTER TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO AND HE DID IT.
IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR WHAT HAPPENED AND ALL OF THESE
NEFARIOUS IMPLICATIONS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING TO DRAW FROM VERY
MINOR THINGS, YOU KNOW, THAT IN NO CASE WOULD YOU EVER SEE ANYONE
TRY TO MAKE AS BIG A DEAL AS THEY HAVE ABOUT A CONTACT SHEET. IT
DOESN'T MEAN IT'S SO JUST BECAUSE THEY KEEP SAYING IT, YOUR
HONOR. IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN THE BAREST OF ALLEGATIONS. THAT'S
ALL IT IS. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP ANY OF THIS STUFF, JUST
LIKE THEY HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND IN THIS CASE, YOU WANT TO RECONSIDER SOMETHING,
LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
YOU'VE ALLOWED MISS BELL TO TESTIFY TO THE UTTERANCE
IN 1985. YOU'VE ALLOWED MISS SINGER TO TESTIFY TO TWO VERY UGLY
UTTERANCES IN 1987. NOW, YOU PROPOSE TO ALLOW FOR MR. HODGE TO
TESTIFY, ALTHOUGH I CONCUR WITH MR. DARDEN, I DO NOT THINK THAT
HE ADDS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT
WHICH IS CONCEDEDLY COLLATERAL AT BEST. HE ADDS NOTHING TO THEM.
IF THAT'S THE STATE OF THE RECORD, WHY ARE WE
ALLOWING MC KINNEY AT ALL? SHE WILL DO NOTHING MORE THAN
REASSERT THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME FRAME THAT THE DEFENSE HAS
ESTABLISHED, '85 TO '87, HE USED THE RACIAL EPITAPH. NOW, ISN'T
HER TESTIMONY, MCKINNY'S TESTIMONY, WHOLLY CUMULATIVE AT THIS
POINT?
WE HAVE GOTTEN FROM TWO WOMEN AND A MAN WHO HAPPENS
TO BE AFRICAN AMERICAN THAT THE RACIAL EPITAPH WAS USED. SO NOW
THEY'VE ESTABLISHED THAT HE USES IT TO TALK ABOUT AFRICAN
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND HE USES IT TO ADDRESS AFRICAN AMERICAN PEOPLE
DIRECTLY. WHAT MORE CAN YOU DO TO IMPEACH? I MEAN, WHAT CAN YOU
DO?
THEY'D LIKE TO BE DOING IT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS IF
THEY COULD. BUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS TRIAL? YOU KNOW,
THE COURT HAS RULED THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT, IT GETS COLLATERAL.
WELL, WE SUBMIT THAT IF THE COURT DOES ALLOW MR.
HODGE TO TESTIFY, IT WILL THEN BE COMPLETELY COLLATERAL BECAUSE
MISS MC KINNEY WILL TRULY BE CUMULATIVE ON EVERY ISSUE WHETHER HE
USES THE WORD IN SPEAKING OF OR WHEN HE ADDRESSES IN SPEAKING TO.
IN FACT, IN SOME SENSE, MISS MC KINNEY IS IMPEACHING BECAUSE SHE
HAS HIM SPEAKING TO AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN AND NEVER USING THE
WORD.
NEVERTHELESS, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOW TRULY
CUMULATIVE. WHAT IS THE POINT IN MISS MC KINNEY?
THE PEOPLE WOULD URGE THIS COURT YES, TO RECONSIDER.
PLEASE DO. RECONSIDER THAT MISS MC KINNEY IS NOW NOT NEEDED
BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT THAT MR. HODGE WILL BE ALLOWED TO
TESTIFY. MR. HODGE WILL BE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE PICTURE FOR
THEM, A VERY UGLY PICTURE THAT REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON THIS
CASE. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE TO PAINT THAT UGLY
PICTURE FOR THIS JURY AGAIN, BUT I CANNOT NOT SEE HOW THIS WOULD
POSSIBLY ADD ANY INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE PICTURE THAT
THIS JURY HAS OF THIS CASE.
MR. UELMEN IS RIGHT IN A SENSE. YOU KNOW, THEY WILL
VIEW MR. FUHRMAN AS A RACIST -- I CANNOT IMAGINE ARGUING
DIFFERENTLY TO THIS JURY -- AND THEY WILL PUT HIS CREDIBILITY IN
ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IF THEY HAVE THEIR WAY, HOWEVER, MR.
FUHRMAN'S ATTITUDES, SOCIAL ATTITUDES WILL BECOME THE FOCAL ISSUE
OF THIS TRIAL, AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANY
OF THE ACTIONS THAT THEY ATTEMPT TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM IN THIS CASE
WILL BECOME IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE JURY WILL BE SO INFLAMED, IT
WILL NOT MATTER TO THEM ANY LONGER WHETHER MARK FUHRMAN COULD OR
COULD NOT HAVE MOVED THE GLOVE.
AND MR. UELMEN WANTS TO PAINT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
A HOSTILE RACIST AND A CASUAL RACIST. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE
CAN BE A CASUAL RACIST. I MEAN, THAT'S TO ME AN OXYMORON. YOU
KNOW, YOU CAN'T BE THAT KIND OF AN EVIL PERSON AND BE CASUAL
ABOUT SUCH A THING. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.
THEY'VE PAINTED MR. FUHRMAN AS BEING A RACIST.
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. WITH THE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF MR.
HODGE, THEY WILL HAVE COMPLETED THAT PICTURE, SPREAD ENOUGH VENOM
IN THIS COURTROOM TO SINK A BATTLESHIP. WE'VE DONE IT ENOUGH,
AND MISS MC KINNEY IS SIMPLY NO LONGER NECESSARY AFTER MR.
HODGE'S TESTIMONY.
AND WE SUBMIT TO THIS COURT THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAD TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME AS WE DID OUTSIDE
OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY LITIGATING THE MC KINNEY TAPES,
BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENSE, THE DEFENSE HAS PUT US IN
THIS POSTURE NOW, I THINK THAT YOUR ADMISSION OF THE HODGE
TESTIMONY SHOULD PROPERLY PRECLUDE THEM FROM CALLING MISS MC
KINNEY.
AND THAT'S ENOUGH, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S ENOUGH. YES,
THE CREDIBILITY OF ALL WITNESSES IS IN ISSUE, BUT HIS CREDIBILITY
IS A VERY LIMITED ISSUE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IN POINT OF FACT,
HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVE HE DID.
SO IT'S FOR WHAT? IT IS ONLY COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT,
AND TO THAT END, THOSE THREE WITNESSES ARE MORE, MUCH MORE THAN
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO. WE WOULD URGE THE COURT TO RECONSIDER AS
THE DEFENSE HAS, BUT TO RECONSIDER APPROPRIATELY NOT TO ALLOW
MISS MC KINNEY TO TESTIFY AT ALL.
MR. UELMEN: THREE VERY BRIEF POINTS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: REMINDS ME OF THE CHINESE PROVERB, BE CAREFUL
WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
MR. UELMEN: THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS WELL
AWARE OF THE SEQUENCE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS RAISES LOTS OF
QUESTIONS IN MY MIND IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT EXPLAINS THE REFUSAL
OF THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE CONTACT PRINTS AVAILABLE OR TO MAKE
THE NEGATIVES AVAILABLE FROM WHICH WE COULD MAKE CONTACT PRINTS.
IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT FROM THE OUTSET OF THE CASE, THEY WERE
AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT CREATE -- THAT HAVE BEEN
CREATED.
THE COURT: BUT, MR. UELMEN, LET'S TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT,
YOU KNOW, DATA BACKS ON THE BACK OF CAMERAS ARE IN COMMON USAGE.
YOU CAN PAY 40 BUCKS AT FEDCO AND GET A CAMERA THAT'S GOT ONE OF
THESE THINGS, AND IT NUMBERS OR DATES THE PICTURES. IT GIVES YOU
A SEQUENCE.
I'VE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY DO HAVE THE
SEQUENCES. SO IT'S NOT THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT THAT
CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS MISS CLARK'S ARGUMENT THAT I SHOULD
RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE RULING AND PRECLUDE MISS MC KINNEY IN HER
ENTIRETY BECAUSE NOW THAT YOU HAVE SINGER AND HODGE AND BELL,
YOU'VE GOT MORE THAN YOU ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: THAT'S THE ARGUMENT YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH.
MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME ADDRESS THAT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE POINT AT
WHICH WE WANT THE JURY TO END UP IS TO REJECT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
TESTIMONY IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND AS YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, THE
INSTRUCTION THAT INFORMS THE JURY THEY MAY DO THAT IS, IF THEY
FIND THAT A WITNESS WAS WILLFULLY FALSE IN A MATERIAL PART OF HIS
TESTIMONY, WILLFULLY FALSE MEANS THAT WE NOT ONLY HAVE TO SHOW
THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID HE HAD NOT USED THE
"N" WORD, BUT THAT HE KNEW HE WAS WRONG, HE KNEW HE WAS LYING.
AND IF THE ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE -- I'M SURE IT WILL
BE MADE AND WE WILL HEAR IT FROM THE PROSECUTION AT THE END OF
THIS CASE -- THAT WHY WOULD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REMEMBER CASUAL
ENCOUNTERS WITH TWO WOMAN IN 1985 AND 1986, EVERY IOTA OF
EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOWS THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH HE USED
THIS TERM GOES TO THAT QUESTION OF WHETHER HE WAS WILLFULLY LYING
WHEN HE SAID HE HAD NOT USED THE WORD.
WE BELIEVE THE FACT THAT HE USED IT 41 TIMES IN THE
COURSE OF TRANSCRIBED TAPE-RECORDED CONVERSATIONS AND THE FACT
THAT HE WAS WELL AWARE THAT TRANSCRIPTS AND TAPES OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS WERE IN EXISTENCE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH HIS MIND
AT THE VERY MOMENT HE UTTERED THE PERJURED TESTIMONY THAT HE
PRESENTED IN THIS COURT.
SO WE BELIEVE IT'S NOT CUMULATIVE AT ALL. IT GOES
RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE QUESTION THE JURY'S GOING TO HAVE TO
RESOLVE OF WHETHER HE WAS WILLFULLY LYING WHEN HE PRESENTED THAT
FALSEHOOD TO THEM.
AND FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE COURT REVIEW THE ALTERNATIVE TAPES THAT
WE HAVE AVAILABLE. WE BELIEVE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE JURY
TO HEAR DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S OWN WORDS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT SINCE
YOUR HONOR HAS DETERMINED THAT ONE OF THESE TAPED EXCERPTS IS
APPROPRIATE, THAT IT SHOULD BE A TAPE EXCERPT THAT IS AUDIBLE IN
WHICH HIS VOICE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.
CAN WE PLAY THE TAPE FOR YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I RECOLLECT THE TAPE, COUNSEL.
MR. UELMEN: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE DID NOT -- WE DIDN'T GET
A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE EXCERPTS.
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK THE ARGUMENT IS OVER AT THIS
POINT, COUNSEL. SINCE THIS IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IS -- WELL, SIMPLE ENOUGH.
IN MAKING MY ORIGINAL RULING REGARDING MISS MC KINNEY
AND DETERMINING WHAT SHOULD COME IN, THE COURT'S THOUGHT PROCESS
WAS I THINK PRETTY OBVIOUS, THAT THE ISSUE WAS DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN'S USE OF THE RACIAL EPITAPH IN A DISPARAGING MANNER. AND
IN REVIEWING THE 41 OFFERED INCIDENTS OF THAT USAGE, THE COURT
WANTED TO FIND EXAMPLES THAT WOULD NOT THEN GO ON TO INCLUDE
OTHER OFFENSIVE MATERIAL AS WELL, INCLUDING PHYSICAL ABUSE OF
OTHER PEOPLE, SOME OTHER VIOLENT ACT, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO THESE WERE THE MOST SANITIZED USAGE OF THE RACIAL
EPITAPH THE COURT COULD FIND. IN REVIEWING THIS, THE COURT
LISTENED TO THE TAPES AND THEN PRIMARILY WORKED FROM THE
TRANSCRIPTS IN MAKING THE RULING.
AND, MR. UELMEN, I WILL CONCEDE THAT IN SELECTING THE
EXCERPT TO BE PLAYED, I DID NOT THEN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE
QUALITY OF THE TAPE. SO I WILL AGREE THAT THAT PARTICULAR
EXCERPT, THE ONE WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DISCUSSES WHY BLACK
MUSLIMS LIVE IN A PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN, THAT THAT ONE IS NOT
AUDIBLE IN A REAL SENSE.
AND WHAT THE COURT HAD SOUGHT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN HIS OWN VOICE MAKES A STATEMENT THAT IS OF
SUCH COLOR, AND I'LL USE YOUR TERM, MR. UELMEN, FLAVOR THAT THE
PERSON LISTENING TO THAT THAT UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE AND
EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A TRUE STATEMENT OF THAT
PERSON'S TRUE FEELINGS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT STATEMENT -- OR
WHETHER OR NOT THAT STATEMENT WAS ROLE PLAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE SCREEN PLAY AND TO ALLOW THE JUROR TO GIVE TO THAT STATEMENT
THE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT.
I WILL GRANT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER FOR THIS ONE
PARTICULAR ITEM. I WILL SUBSTITUTE EXCERPT 27 FOR THE EXCERPT
REGARDING THE BLACK MUSLIMS, WHICH NUMBER I DO NOT RECOLLECT.
THIS IS THE POLICE OFFICER, FEMALE POLICE OFFICER -- SO WE'LL GET
TO INSULT THEM AS WELL -- DEALING WITH SIX OR FIVE SUSPECTS.
SO YOU CAN CUE THAT UP. WE'LL TAKE 10 MINUTES. HAVE
MISS MC KINNEY HERE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT ABOUT HODGE?
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(RECESS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MR. NEUFELD: JUDGE, SO YOU KNOW WHEN THE JURY COMES IN,
MISS CLARK AND I HAVE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION SIMPLY AS TO
WHAT TIME THE SUN ROSE ON JUNE 13 OF 1994.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT UP SOME OTHER TIME.
MR. NEUFELD: IT TAKES THIRTY SECONDS AND I WANTED TO DO IT
WHILE IT WAS STILL FRESH IN THEIR MINDS FROM MR. ROKAHR'S
TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: THE CLERK INDICATED I WANT TO INTRODUCE MR.
KEN SPAULDING TO THE JURY.
THE COURT: I MET MR. SPAULDING.
THE COCHRAN: NO.
THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS HE IS NOT ADMITTED PRO HOC VICE.
HE IS NOT ON THE RECORD, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SO MOVE?
THE COURT: HE IS NOT -- YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION.
MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS BEEN HERE FOR TWO WEEKS.
THE COURT: I HAVE BEEN THRILLED TO HAVE HIM HERE. IF YOU
WANT HIM ON THE RECORD, YOU NEED TO FILE THE APPLICATION.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, HE IS ACTUALLY LEAVING TOMORROW
AND HE IS HERE BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS.
THE COURT: OH, OKAY. OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS BEEN HERE, YOUR HONOR, FOR TWO WEEKS.
IT IS NO PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT?
MS. CLARK: WHAT DOES HE WANT HIM TO DO BEFORE THE JURY?
THE COURT: NOTHING. JUST TO SAY THIS IS ONE OF THE
ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING MR. SIMPSON.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
ALL RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE MR. SCHWARTZ AND MR. REGWAN PRESENT AS
WELL.
(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.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE DEFENSE WILL NEXT CALL MISS LAURA HART MC KINNY
TO THE STAND.
THE COURT: BEFORE WE DO THAT, EXCUSE ME JUST A MINUTE,
MISS MC KINNY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PRESENT HERE AT COUNSEL TABLE
IS MR. KEN SPAULDING.
MR. SPAULDING, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND.
MR. SPAULDING IS AN ATTORNEY FROM, I BELIEVE NORTH
CAROLINA, WHO HAS BEEN ASSISTING THE DEFENSE, AND THAT EXPLAINS
HIS PRESENCE HERE IN COURT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPAULDING.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
MISS MC KINNY, PLEASE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS MC KINNY, WOULD YOU FACE THE
CLERK, PLEASE.
LAURA HART MC KINNY,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY FIRST NAME IS LAURA, L-A-U-R-A.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSER,
PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: FIRST NAME LAURA, L-A-U-R-A. LAST NAME MC
KINNY, M-C K-I-N-N-Y.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IS THAT A FRESH GLASS?
THE BAILIFF: YES.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS MC KINNY.
A GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. COCHRAN.
Q MISS MC KINNY, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
A I'M A FILMMAKER IN RESIDENCE AT THE NORTH CAROLINA
SCHOOL OF THE ARTS SCHOOL OF FILMMAKING, PROFESSOR OF SCREEN
WRITING.
Q AND THAT IS YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION?
A YES.
Q AND YOU PRESENTLY RESIDE IN NORTH CAROLINA?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND YOU ARE HERE TODAY PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA THAT
WAS ISSUED BY THIS COURT?
A YES.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN OUT HERE IN CALIFORNIA
WAITING TO TESTIFY?
A THREE WEEKS.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
Q YOU ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY FROM NORTH CAROLINA?
A YES, I AM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, PRIOR TO MOVING TO NORTH
CAROLINA, DID YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND HOW LONG HAD YOU LIVED IN CALIFORNIA PRIOR TO
GOING TO NORTH CAROLINA?
A SINCE I WAS TWELVE.
Q SO A GOOD PART OF YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT HERE?
A YES.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
WHEN DID YOU MOVE TO NORTH CAROLINA?
A IN 1993.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHEN YOU WERE LAST HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WHAT WAS
YOUR OCCUPATION THEN?
A I WAS A FREELANCE WRITER AND I WORKED AT UCLA AS A
SENIOR LEARNING SKILLS COUNSELOR AND ALSO AT SANTA MONICA MALIBU
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A HOME INSTRUCTOR.
Q AND HOW LONG DID YOU HAVE THOSE TWO OCCUPATIONS, BOTH
AT UCLA AND THE MALIBU SCHOOL DISTRICT?
A I STARTED WORKING FOR MALIBU SCHOOL DISTRICT IN 1974
OR 1973, AND FOR UCLA IN 1983.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO
THE MONTH OF APRIL OF 1985.
DID YOU HAVE OCCASION DURING THAT MONTH AND DURING
THAT YEAR TO MEET AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF MARK FUHRMAN?
A I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE MONTH AGAIN, PLEASE?
Q I THINK APRIL OF 1985 OR THEREABOUTS?
A IT WAS FEBRUARY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A 1985, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
LET'S SPECIFICALLY DIRECT YOU BACK TO FEBRUARY OF
1985. AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO MEET MARK FUHRMAN DURING THAT
TIME FRAME?
A YES, I DID.
Q WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY WHERE YOU WERE AT THE TIME
THAT YOU FIRST MET MARK FUHRMAN.
YOU MIGHT PULL THE MICROPHONE UP A LITTLE BIT CLOSER
TO YOU.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
ALL RIGHT.
I WAS AT A CAFE IN WESTWOOD. I DON'T REMEMBER THE
NAME OF THE CAFE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS ON WESTWOOD BOULEVARD.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED? HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO MEET MR.
FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME?
A I WAS SITTING IN THE OUTSIDE OF THE CAFE. THERE WERE
TABLES ON THE OUTSIDE AND I WAS SITTING THERE. I WAS WORKING ON
MY LAPTOP COMPUTER AND A MAN DRESSED IN STREET CLOTHES CAME UP
AND ASKED ME ABOUT MY COMPUTER.
THAT WAS A FAIRLY COMMON THING FOR PEOPLE TO DO THEN
BECAUSE THIS WAS A TIME WHEN LAPTOPS WEREN'T THAT FAMILIAR TO
PEOPLE AND OFTEN PEOPLE WOULD COME AND ASK ME WHAT IT WAS AND HOW
YOU USED IT.
SO THIS MAN ASKED ME WHAT I WAS DOING AND WHAT THAT
WAS AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT IT WAS A LAPTOP AND EXPLAINED TO
HIM HOW IT WORKED.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THIS WAS IN FEBRUARY OF 1985?
A YES.
Q THEREAFTER, DURING THAT CONVERSATION, DID YOU HAVE
OCCASION TO -- STRIKE THAT.
WERE YOU WORKING ON SOME PARTICULAR PROJECT AT THAT
TIME?
A AT THE TIME --
Q AT THE TIME WHEN YOU FIRST MET DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I WAS TRANSCRIBING SOME NOTES AND AT THE TIME I WAS
THINKING ABOUT DEVELOPING A STORY ABOUT WOMEN IN THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND TO WHAT EXTENT THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN DIFFERENT
-- DIFFERENT KIND OF AREAS.
I WAS THINKING OF PARTICULAR AREAS OF HIGH CRIME.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, AFTER YOU FIRST MET MARK FUHRMAN IN FEBRUARY OF
1985 DID YOU THEREAFTER HAVE FURTHER MEETINGS WITH HIM?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q AFTER YOUR INITIAL MEETING IN FEBRUARY OF 1985?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
TELL US ABOUT THOSE MEETINGS. AND DID YOU AT SOME
POINT ENGAGE HIM AS A CONSULTANT OR AN ADVISOR FOR A SCREENPLAY
YOU WERE WORKING ON?
A YES, I DID.
Q TELL US ABOUT THAT.
A DURING OUR FIRST MEETING OFFICER FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME
TOLD ME HE WAS AN OFFICER, AND HE WAS INTERESTED IN MY IDEA OF
WORKING ON A STORY ABOUT WOMEN IN -- ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY COULD SUCCEED IN AREAS OF HIGH
CRIME.
OFFICER FUHRMAN HAD VERY STRONG VIEWS ABOUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH WOMEN -- SOME WOMEN --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS A NARRATIVE.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, DID OFFICER FUHRMAN HAVE VIEWS
ABOUT THE ABILITY OF WOMEN TO SUCCEED IN HIGH CRIME AREAS?
A YES, HE DID.
Q WHAT WERE HIS VIEWS IN THAT REGARD?
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A HE HAD STRONG VIEWS ABOUT WOMEN'S ABILITY TO BE ABLE
TO SUCCEED IN AREAS OF HIGH CRIME, FEELING THAT SOME OF THEM WERE
NOT CAPABLE OF THAT, AND DURING THIS PARTICULAR FIRST MEETING HE
TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. NEXT QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.
Q YOU HAD A CONVERSATION DURING THIS FIRST MEETING?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE ABLE TO GARNER SOME OF HIS VIEWS ABOUT WOMEN
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE FIRST MEETING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU, AT OR DURING THAT FIRST MEETING, MAKE SOME
ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET FURTHER WITH MR. FUHRMAN REGARDING HIS VIEWS
AND WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD HELP YOU WITH INTERVIEWS THAT YOU
MIGHT WANT TO CONDUCT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU DID IN THAT CONNECTION.
DID YOU RETAIN HIM AT SOME POINT?
A I DIDN'T RETAIN HIM. I ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN HELPING ME GIVE SOME IDEAS, SOME PERSONAL VIEWS
THAT MIGHT HELP GENERATE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT CHARACTERS AND
POLICE PROCEDURES AND OTHER AREAS THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO ME IN
HELPING UNDERSTAND THE KIND OF FRUSTRATIONS THAT MEN HAD ON THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WOMEN AND POSSIBLY SOME OF THE COVER-UPS
THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT.
AND HE AGREED TO HELP ME TO THAT EXTENT AND GIVE ME
SOME OF HIS PERSONAL VIEWS, SOME IDEAS THAT HE MIGHT HAVE, AND SO
WE AGREED TO MEET AGAIN AND TAPE THE INTERVIEWS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU TOLD HIM YOU WANTED TO TAPE THE INTERVIEWS
THAT YOU CONDUCTED WITH HIM, DID YOU?
A YES.
Q DID YOU TELL HIM WHY YOU WANTED TO TAPE THE
INTERVIEWS?
A YES.
Q AND WHY WAS THAT?
A HE WAS GIVING ME A GREAT DEAL OF MATERIAL THAT WOULD
BE HARD FOR ME TO PROCESS, TO UNDERSTAND, UNLESS I LISTENED TO
IT, BECAUSE I HAD TO UNDERSTAND IT SEQUENTIALLY TO BE ABLE TO
WRITE IT CINEMATICALLY, SO SOMETIMES IT WAS POLICE PROCEDURE,
SOMETIMES IT WAS DIFFERENT KIND OF THINGS PEOPLE WERE SAYING AND
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT TO TAKE COPIOUS NOTES AND ACTUALLY
TO LISTEN TO HIM ATTENTIVELY.
Q NOW, THESE INTERVIEWS THAT YOU HAD WITH DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN, WERE ALL OF THOSE INTERVIEWS TAPED, AS BEST YOU CAN
RECALL?
A YES.
Q AND TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY OVER
WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU CONDUCT THESE TAPED INTERVIEWS WITH
MARK FUHRMAN AFTER YOUR INITIAL MEETING WITH HIM IN FEBRUARY OF
1985?
A APPROXIMATELY FROM THE BEGINNING OF APRIL, APRIL 2ND,
I BELIEVE, THROUGH JULY, 1994.
Q SO OVER ALMOST A TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME YOU HAD
TAPED INTERVIEWS WITH THIS MAN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE INTERVIEWS, WHAT DID YOU
CALL THESE INTERVIEWS WITH MR. FUHRMAN?
A INTERVIEWS WITH MARK FUHRMAN.
Q AND IN TALKING WITH THIS MAN, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO
GET FROM HIM? WERE YOU TRYING TO GET INFORMATION FROM HIM?
A I WAS TRYING TO GET SOME IDEA OF THE FRUSTRATIONS
THAT SOME MEN WHO BELONG TO A PARTICULAR GROUP CALLED MEN AGAINST
WOMEN ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOME KIND OF FRUSTRATIONS THAT
THEY MIGHT HAVE THAT WOULD CAUSE THEM TO WANT TO JOIN A GROUP
LIKE THAT, AND THEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THE NARRATIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: FINISH YOUR ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: THEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL SOME OF THE
AREAS IN WHICH WOMEN MIGHT FEEL FRUSTRATED BY BEING STONEWALLED
AND EMBARRASSED AND HUMILIATED BY MEN.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, BEFORE YOU
STARTED TAPING THESE INTERVIEWS, DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN KNOW THAT
YOU WERE TAPING THESE INTERVIEWS?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU GIVE HIM ANY -- DID YOU TELL HIM --
STRIKE THAT.
WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM WITH REGARD TO HOW YOU WANTED
HIM TO TALK? DID YOU WANT HIM TO TALK FREELY AND OPENLY THINK TO
YOU AND USE WORDS LIKE POLICE OFFICERS USE?
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS LEADING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM ABOUT THE
CONVERSATION OR THE KIND OF THINGS YOU WANTED HIM TO SHARE WITH
YOU REGARDING POLICE WORK?
MR. DARDEN: ALSO CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I TOLD HIM THAT I WANTED TO WRITE A FICTIONAL
PIECE BASED ON FACT, SO IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I HAD A
REALLY CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT SOME POLICE OFFICERS WOULD SAY IN A
GIVEN SITUATION, SO THAT THE INSTANCES THAT HE WOULD GIVE ME
WOULD BE AS FACTUAL AND REALISTIC AS POSSIBLE.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU ASKED HIM TO BE FACTUAL AND
REALISTIC, DID YOU?
A YES.
Q NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, AFTER YOU
WOULD -- BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE A MEETING WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN,
WOULD YOU EVER PROVIDE HIM WITH ANY QUESTIONS, THE KIND OF
QUESTIONS YOU WOULD ASK DURING YOUR ACTUAL MEETING?
A NOT FOR EVERY MEETING, BUT FOR OUR SECOND MEETING,
THE MEETING AFTER APRIL 2ND, I COMPILED A LIST OF QUESTIONS BASED
ON SOME OF HIS RESPONSES TO THAT PARTICULAR INTERVIEW AND SENT
THEM TO HIM ALONG WITH THE INTERVIEW SO THAT HE COULD REFER BACK
TO SOME EXCERPTS IN THE INTERVIEW AND THEN BE PREPARED FOR SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I MIGHT -- THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO TALK
ABOUT, ANYTHING THAT HE MIGHT FEEL COMFORTABLE DISCUSSING IN OUR
NEXT MEETING, SO I CAN'T ALWAYS INCLUDE QUESTIONS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT ON OCCASION YOU DID; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR PROCEDURE WITH REGARD TO THE
TAPING OF THE INTERVIEWS. AFTER YOU HAD TAPED THE INTERVIEW AND
THE INTERVIEW HAD CONCLUDED, WOULD YOU THEN DO SOMETHING WITH
REGARD TO TRANSCRIBING THOSE TAPES?
A YES. I WOULD TAKE THE TAPE BACK HOME AND PUT IT IN
MY TRANSCRIBING MACHINE. I HAVE A CASSETTE TRANSCRIBER AND
PROFESSIONAL CASSETTE TRANSCRIBING MACHINE AND A MICRO CASSETTE
TRANSCRIBING MACHINE WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO MODULATE THE SPEED OF
SPEECH AND ALSO THE VOLUME, AND IT HAS A FOOT PEDAL SO THAT YOU
CAN REWIND AT YOUR LEISURE AND REVIEW THINGS THAT YOU ARE NOT
SURE ABOUT.
SO THEN I WOULD PUT WHATEVER CASSETTE I WAS USING IN
THERE, AND TRANSCRIBE IT WITHIN A DAY OR TWO OF THE INTERVIEW,
FOR MY RECORDS.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR TRANSCRIBING HABITS, HAD YOU
HAD A JOB PRIOR TO THIS TIME, PRIOR TO 1985, WHERE YOU HAD DONE
TRANSCRIBING BEFORE THAT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT JOB DID YOU HAVE IN THAT CONNECTION?
A DURING COLLEGE I WORKED THROUGH -- NOT THROUGH
COLLEGE, BUT THROUGH A LARGE PART OF IT, FOR A FEW YEARS AT
RETAIL CREDIT COMPANY. IT IS A PLACE THAT WAS IN VAN NUYS AND I
WAS A PROFESSIONAL TRANSCRIBER.
Q SO AS A PROFESSIONAL TRANSCRIBER YOU KNEW HOW TO
TRANSCRIBE AT THE TIME YOU SET ABOUT TO TRANSCRIBE THESE TAPES;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THAT DID YOU TRY TO GET --
TRANSCRIBE IT ACCURATELY AS BEST YOU COULD?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHY DID YOU WANT TO TRANSCRIBE IT ACCURATELY?
HOW WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL TO YOU?
A WELL, AGAIN, INITIALLY I KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I WAS DOING OTHER EXTENSIVE INTERVIEWS AND
RESEARCH, RIDE-ALONGS, LOTS OF RESEARCH AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
ACADEMY.
BUT WHEN SOMEONE WAS GOING TO BE -- GOING TO BE
TELLING ME SPECIFIC EVENTS OR ISSUES THAT I NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND
CLEARLY, I WOULD NEED TO TAKE THAT DOWN AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE
SO THAT I -- WHEN I REFRESHED MY MEMORY THE DETAILS THAT I WOULD
GIVE WOULD BE ACCURATE, SO THAT WHEN SOMEONE WOULD READ IT OR
HOPEFULLY SEE IT AS A FEATURE, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT IT WAS AN
ACCURATE WELL-RESEARCHED PROJECT.
SO IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO TRANSCRIBE THE
INTERVIEWS ACCURATELY.
Q DID YOU, AT THE OUTSET IN 1985 -- WAS THERE A
DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY YOU TRANSCRIBED IN '85 AND LATER ON IN,
LET'S SAY, 1988 OR IN 1994? WAS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE?
A YES, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Q TELL US ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY.
A AGAIN, IN THE BEGINNING I WANTED TO BE AS PRECISE AS
POSSIBLE. ALSO I WAS DEVELOPING A STORY, BUT AS THE OUTLINE OF
THE STORY BECAME CLEAR AND THE TREATMENT, WHICH IS A NARRATIVE
SHORT VERSION OF THE STORY, AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT,
MY QUESTIONS TO OFFICER FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME WERE SOMETIMES MORE
TOPICAL, SO THAT WHEN I WOULD TRANSCRIBE IT I MIGHT LEAVE OUT MY
QUESTION AND I MIGHT JUST PUT IN THE TOPIC.
IT ALSO HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I HAD
JUST HAD TWO CHILDREN DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, FROM 1986 TO
THE EARLY '90'S, AND WAS MARRIED AND I WAS VERY BUSY, SO I DIDN'T
TAKE AS MUCH TIME TO TRANSCRIBE MY QUESTIONS AND ALL THE FINITE
KIND OF DETAIL. PEOPLE INTERRUPTED US IN THE RESTAURANT, I WOULD
KEEP THAT OUT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME IN TRANSCRIBING THESE
TRANSCRIPTS EVER SUBSTITUTE A WORD OR PUT A WORD IN THAT MR.
FUHRMAN DIDN'T SAY?
A NOT INTENTIONALLY, NO.
Q YOU TRIED TO BE ACCURATE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK IF I CAN
APPROACH THE WITNESS AND WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AT
ANOTHER HEARING 1364, AND I WANT TO JUST ASK HER A COUPLE
QUESTIONS REGARDING IT.
Q I WANT TO PLACE BEFORE YOU DEFENDANT'S 1364 WHICH I
BELIEVE INDICATES "FUHRMAN QUESTIONS ROUND TWO."
WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY JUST BRIEFLY WHAT THAT IS,
MISS MC KINNY.
A THIS IS THE -- AN EXAMPLE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I
GAVE OFFICER FUHRMAN AFTER OUR FIRST INTERVIEW ON APRIL 2ND,
1985. THIS IS WHAT I SENT TO HIM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TAPED
TRANSCRIPT OF THAT FIRST INTERVIEW.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS -- YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT
THE INTERVIEWS WITH MARK FUHRMAN AND YOU HAVE ALSO TOLD US THAT
YOU WERE WORKING AS A RESULT OF THESE INTERVIEWS ON A SCREENPLAY
CALLED MEN AGAINST WOMEN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THE -- WAS A SUBPLOT OF YOUR SCREENPLAY MEN
AGAINST WOMEN DEALING WITH RACISM AT ALL?
A NO, IT WAS SEXISM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WERE DEALING WITH SEXISM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE TAPED INTERVIEWS, OVER THE
TEN-YEAR PERIOD THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, DO YOU REMEMBER
HOW MANY TAPES YOU ACTUALLY TRANSCRIBED OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
A AGAIN PLEASE. HOW MANY TYPES I TRANSCRIBED?
Q HOW MANY TAPES WERE ACTUALLY TRANSCRIBED? OVER THE
TEN-YEAR PERIOD HOW MANY HOURS?
A OH, ELEVEN TO TWELVE HOURS OF TAPE.
Q AND I PRESUME DURING THOSE ELEVEN TO TWELVE HOURS YOU
TRIED TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE ELEVEN OR TWELVE HOURS, DID
YOU EVER AT ANY POINT INADVERTENTLY TAPE OVER ANY OF THE TAPES?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU TELL US HOW MANY, IF YOU RECALL?
A I TAPED INADVERTENTLY OVER TWO TAPES.
Q AND WOULD ONE OF THOSE BE THE FIRST TAPE?
A YES, ONE WAS THE FIRST.
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT -- WHEN WAS THAT FIRST INTERVIEW
THAT YOU TAPED?
A THE FIRST INTERVIEW THAT WAS TAPED WAS APRIL 2ND,
1985.
Q NOW, ON APRIL 2ND, 1985, WOULD I BE CORRECT THAT
AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN YOU
THEN TRANSCRIBED IT WITHIN A DAY OR SO?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IN SEEKING TO TRANSCRIBE IT WAS YOUR MEMORY FRESH
AT THE TIME YOU TRANSCRIBED IT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU PERSONALLY TRANSCRIBE IT AND SEEK TO RECORD
EVERYTHING HE HAD SAID?
A YES.
Q AND WERE THE RESULTING TRANSCRIPTS OR TRANSCRIPT A
TRUE ACCOUNT OF WHAT MR. FUHRMAN SAID DURING THAT INTERVIEW?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: FINALLY, WAS THIS TRANSCRIPT AN
ACCURATE RECORD OF WHAT WAS ON THE TAPE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WAS THERE ANOTHER TIME THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER
TAPE THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY TAPED OVER LATER ON?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU REMEMBER THE NUMBER OF THAT ONE, IF YOU
RECALL?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS TAPE NO. 9.
Q WAS THAT AT A LATER TIME?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT WITH REGARD TO TAPE NO. 9, IF I WERE TO ASK THE
SAME QUESTIONS, DID YOU SEEK TO TRANSCRIBE THAT TAPE WITHIN A DAY
OR SO AFTER THE INTERVIEW?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU AT THAT TIME PERSONALLY DO THAT?
A YES.
Q YOU TRIED TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD?
A YES.
Q WAS IT A TRUE ACCOUNT OF WHAT MR. FUHRMAN HAD SAID?
A YES.
Q IT WAS AN ACCURATE RECORD AS FAR AS YOU KNEW; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THE LAST INTERVIEW YOU HAD WITH THIS MAN WAS
JULY 28, 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q WHERE DID THAT INTERVIEW TAKE PLACE?
A THAT INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE IN ALICE'S RESTAURANT IN
WESTWOOD.
Q NOW, DURING THE TIME THAT YOU TALKED WITH MR. FUHRMAN
DURING THIS TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, DID HE EVER USE A RACIAL
EPITHET WHICH I WILL CALL THE "N" WORD, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM?
A YES, HE DID.
Q AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR PREPARATION OF YOUR
TESTIMONY HERE TODAY CAN YOU TELL THE JURY HOW MANY TIMES YOU
COUNTED THAT HE USED THAT WORD?
A APPROXIMATELY 42.
Q 42 TIMES?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN HE WOULD USE THIS WORD IN THE COURSE --
STRIKE THAT.
IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD HE USE THIS WORD IN BEING
INTERVIEWED AND TALKING TO YOU?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, 352.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: UMM, WELL, THE -- THE TAPES
WERE -- THE INTERVIEWS WERE CONFIDENTIAL AND OFFICER FUHRMAN
CERTAINLY DIDN'T THINK THAT --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: THIS ANSWER IS NON-RESPONSE.
WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES HE WOULD USE THIS SO-CALLED "N" WORD? WAS HE
TALKING ABOUT?
A POLICE PROCEDURES.
Q WHAT WAS HE TALKING ABOUT?
A LET ME SEE. THE WORD WOULD COME UP IN CONVERSATION
WHEN HE MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT HOW AN OFFICER MIGHT DEAL WITH A
SUSPECT OR A POLICE PROCEDURAL ISSUE OR HOW AN OFFICER MIGHT BE
TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE IN ADMINISTRATION, JUST GENERAL NORMAL
LANGUAGE.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU WOULD HEAR THESE WORDS OF THIS PARTICULAR
EPITHET, WOULD THAT HAVE AN EFFECT UPON YOU.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: CERTAINLY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT EFFECT DID IT HAVE UPON YOU?
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: IT IS A BASE EPITHET. THERE IS NO WAY OF
DOCTORING IT UP AND MAKING IT SOUND BETTER. IT IS OFFENSIVE AND
I DIDN'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT, HEARING IT; HOWEVER, I WAS IN VERY
MUCH OF A JOURNALISTIC MODE AND KNEW TO BE ABLE TO GET THE
INFORMATION THAT I NEEDED, TO BE ABLE TO INQUIRE FROM OFFICER
FUHRMAN, I WOULD NEED TO NOT REACT, NOT TO BE JUDGMENTAL ABOUT
HEARING SOME OF THE VERY BASE OFFENSIVE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I
WOULD BE HEARING.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE USE OF
THESE WORDS, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO US?
A NO, I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE USE OF THEM.
Q SO YOU WERE IN A JOURNALISTIC MODE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT
USING THESE WORDS AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AND IN THE USE OF THESE WORDS AND OTHER THINGS DURING
WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO YOU, WOULD HE DESCRIBE HIS EXPERIENCES IN
POLICE WORK?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION,
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A WOULD YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE? SORRY.
Q CERTAINLY. IN THE USE OF THESE WORDS AND DURING THE
COURSE OF THE INTERVIEW DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DESCRIBE HIS
EXPERIENCES IN BEING A POLICE OFFICER?
A YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE 41 OR 42 TIMES THAT HE USED
THE SO-CALLED "N," WORD CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY HOW HE
APPEARED AS HE USED THIS WORD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, COMPOUND, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: NO FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION?
A COULD YOU ASK IT AGAIN? I UNDERSTAND.
Q YES. DURING THE 41 OR 42 TIMES THAT MR. FUHRMAN USED
THE WORD "NIGGER" DID YOU -- COULD YOU TELL US HOW HE APPEARED AS
HE DID THAT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION; TELEPHONIC
INTERVIEW.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A WHEN OFFICER FUHRMAN USED THE WORD "NIGGER" IT WAS IN
A VERY CASUAL ORDINARY PATTERN OF SPEECH. IT WAS NOTHING
EXTRAORDINARY. IT WAS JUST CONVERSATION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND AS DID HE THAT, DID YOU HAVE A
SENSE OF HOW HE WAS USING IT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: VAGUE.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME SEE --
Q DID HE APPEAR TO BE JOKING WHEN HE WAS USING THAT
WORD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WHEN HE USED THE WORD?
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HER TO DESCRIBE THE DEMEANOR.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY
KINDLY.
Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE DEMEANOR OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
OR MR. FUHRMAN WHILE HE WAS USING THIS WORD 41 OR 42 TIMES?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, COMPOUND.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A HE WAS ANSWERING IT IN A SERIOUS FASHION. IT WAS
SOME -- A WORD THAT APPARENTLY HE FELT --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
LET ME ASK IT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE -- AND I WANT YOU TO PAINT A WORD
PICTURE FOR THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY -- OF HOW HE
APPEARED WHEN HE WAS USING THIS WORD THIS 41 OR 42 TIMES, AS BEST
YOU RECALL, THE BEST DESCRIPTION.
MR. DARDEN: VAGUE, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A WHEN OFFICER FUHRMAN USED THIS WORD IT WAS IN
CONJUNCTION TO MANY OF THE THINGS WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING AND IT
WAS IN A SERIOUS MANNER. IT WAS NOT LIGHT-HEARTED. IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD USE IN NORMAL CONVERSATION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN HE USED THIS WORD, DID HE APPEAR TO YOU TO BE
USING IT IN A WAY THAT WAS INSULTING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: LEADING.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. WAS IT
INSULTING?
MR. DARDEN: IT IS LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. GO AHEAD.
THE WITNESS: IT WAS INSULTING TO ME. THE WORD IS
INSULTING. AND WHEN HE WAS USING IT HE WAS USING IT IN A
DEMEANING DEROGATORY FASHION. I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WOULD THINK
IT WAS INSULTING, BUT --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
Q DID HE USE IT IN A DISPARAGING MANNER?
MR. DARDEN: LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A YES. IT IS A DISPARAGING WORD. HE WAS USING IT IN A
DISPARAGING FASHION.
Q IN THE COURSE OF THE TIME THAT YOU CAME TO INTERVIEW
THIS MAN OVER TEN YEARS, DID YOU EVER FORM AN OPINION OF WHETHER
OR NOT HE WAS A RACIST?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, DID HE USE THIS WORD IN A
RACIST MANNER?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID HE USE THIS WORD IN A VICIOUS
MANNER?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I THINK NEGATIVE, DISPARAGING, INSULTING, I
THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q WITH REGARD TO HOW THIS MAN REFERRED TO AFRICAN
AMERICANS, DID HE EVER USE ANY OTHER WORDS IN REFERRING TO
AFRICAN AMERICANS?
A YES.
Q WHAT WERE THOSE WORDS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: 1054.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY PROCEED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: 1052.
THE WITNESS: BUBBA, ANTHRACITE.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ANTHRACITE?
MR. DARDEN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES. I'M GOING TO STRIKE THE LAST QUESTION AND
ANSWER.
DISREGARD THAT. THAT IS AN AREA THAT IS BEYOND --
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING INTO SOMETHING QUITE
DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WILL, YOUR HONOR.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE 42 OR SO INSTANCES IN WHICH
THIS MAN USED THIS OFFENSIVE WORD, SOME OF THOSE WORDS ARE ON
TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HAVE HEARD THOSE TAPES, HAVE YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU CAN, IF I WERE TO PLAY AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE
TAPES FOR YOU, YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE -- MR. FUHRMAN'S VOICE, COULD
YOU NOT?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- WE HAVE TWO EXCERPTS,
YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO PLAY AT THIS POINT, IF WE -- I THINK
THAT WE HAVE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TWO EXCERPTS, ONE OF WHICH IS ON
TAPE AND ONE OF WHICH IS NOT.
I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THESE OUT TO THE JURY IF WE CAN,
YOUR HONOR, TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE.
MR. DARDEN: WHY CAN'T WE JUST PUT IT ON THE ELMO, JUDGE?
THE COURT: THEY CAN BE -- THE TRANSCRIPT CAN BE PASSED
OUT, ALTHOUGH IT IS -- MR. COCHRAN --
MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: GIVEN THE TIME IT WILL TAKE TO PASS THAT OUT
AND COLLECT IT, IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN PUT ON THE ELMO.
MR. COCHRAN: IT WILL BE UP ON THE SCREEN ALSO, BUT AT SOME
POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MARK IT, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, IF I MAY.
THE COURT: DID YOU HAVE A COPY?
MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS A COPY. MR. DOUGLAS GAVE HIM A COPY,
SO HE CAN LOOK AT IT AND READ HIS OWN COPY.
MAY I MARK THIS AS OUR NEXT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: 1367.
(DEFT'S 1367 FOR ID = TRANS OF AUDIOTAPE EXCERPT)
MR. COCHRAN: 1367. ALL RIGHT.
NOW, LET ME JUST INQUIRE, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS THE
DEFENDANT'S NEXT 1368 AS THE TAPE THAT MR. HARRIS WILL BE
PLAYING.
THE COURT: YES.
(DEFT'S 1368 FOR ID = AUDIOTAPE EXCERPT)
MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS HAS SOME SPEAKERS, YOUR HONOR, HE
IS GOING TO MOVE AT THIS POINT, IF THE COURT PLEASES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK A QUESTION WHILE HE IS DOING THAT,
YOUR HONOR.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- MAY I GIVE HER AN EXCERPT OF
THAT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE THAT?
THE COURT: I'VE GOT MINE.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE KEEPING IT I GUESS, HUM?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS OKAY, YOUR HONOR.
Q WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO EXCERPTS, YOU HAVE SHARED
WITH US THERE IS SOME 42 OR MORE INSTANCES WHERE HE USES THIS
OFFENSIVE WORD.
THIS --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: -- THIS FIRST ONE --
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS FIRST INSTANCE
THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SEEING SHORTLY, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME
BACKGROUND? I WILL
USE -- I WILL USE THE -- I WILL READ IT, YOUR HONOR, AND ASK HER
TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND REGARDING THIS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I BELIEVE THIS IS ONE WHERE
IT WAS TAPED OVER AND WE HAVE JUST A TRANSCRIPT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THE QUOTE BY FUHRMAN IS, "WE HAVE NO NIGGERS
WHERE I GREW UP."
DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING THAT?
A YES.
Q IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF WHAT HE
SAID?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT TAPE WAS THAT WHERE HE MADE THAT STATEMENT?
A THAT WAS DURING OUR FIRST INTERVIEW.
Q AND THAT WAS THE ONE YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY THAT
YOU TAPED OVER?
A THE FIRST TAPED INTERVIEW APRIL 2ND, 1985.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE, ABOUT HAVING
NO AFRICAN AMERICANS WHERE HE GREW UP, CAN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH
THE OTHER 42 OTHERS, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HOW HE USED THAT WORD
IN THAT COMPARED TO THE OTHERS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: IT IS A VAGUE QUESTION AS WELL AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT ANYBODY CAN REALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TRY AGAIN.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
Q WITH REGARD TO THIS INSTANCE WHERE "WE HAVE NO BLANK
WHERE I GREW UP," DO YOU HAVE THAT IN MIND?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH THE OTHER 42 TIMES OR SO
THAT HE USED THIS IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INTERVIEWS, IF THERE IS
ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW HE USED THE TERM THERE AND THE OTHER
42 TIMES OR SO?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A YES, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE HERE. THIS
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE IS THE LEAST OFFENSIVE AND INFLAMMATORY IN
COMPARISON TO THE OTHERS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO STRIKE THAT ANSWER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT IS A JUDGMENT THAT IS NOT
-- AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT LAST QUESTION
AND ANSWER.
NEXT QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
Q WITH REGARD TO -- LET'S MOVE DOWN TO THE SECOND
INCIDENT WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO USE FOR FUHRMAN SPEAKING, "THEY
DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEY DON'T GO OUT THERE AND INITIATE A CONTACT
WITH SOME SIX-FOOT-FIVE INCH NIGGER THAT HAS BEEN IN PRISON FOR
SEVEN YEARS PUMPING WEIGHTS."
DO YOU RECALL MR. FUHRMAN SAYING THAT TO YOU AT SOME
POINT?
A YES, HOWEVER I BELIEVE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DO RECALL THAT AND THAT IS ON
TAPE, IS IT NOT?
A EXCUSE ME.
Q ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND.
LET ME JUST LOOK AT MY QUESTION.
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL THAT BEING SAID, MISS
MC KINNY?
A I RECALL THAT BEING SAID, YES.
Q OKAY.
WAS THAT SAID -- WERE YOU PRESENT DURING THAT
INTERVIEW?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT AN INTERVIEW WHERE YOU HAD ANOTHER PERSON
PRESENT WITH YOU, A MISS LAURIE DIAZ?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU WERE PRESENT THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU HEARD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, INTERACTING WITH LAURIE
DIAZ, MAKE THE STATEMENT I JUST READ; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED TO TELL US?
A YES, IT IS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IF YOU WERE TO SEE THESE -- HEAR THIS ON TAPE,
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY MR. FUHRMAN'S VOICE?
A CERTAINLY.
Q AND WOULD YOU -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE GOING TO HEAR
MISS DIAZ' VOICE OR NOT, BUT YOU COULD IDENTIFY HIS VOICE; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A AND MISS DIAZ AS WELL.
MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.
IF THE COURT PLEASE, MAY WE HAVE MR. HARRIS PUT UP
THE -- I WANT TO GO BACK AND ASK A QUESTION REGARDING THE FIRST
ONE THAT IS NOT ON TAPE AND THEN WE WILL HAVE MR. HARRIS PLAY
THAT.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
MAY I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT THEY ARE GOING
TO PLAY, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER VOICES ON THE TAPE?
THE COURT: I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AT
THIS POINT, MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: I HAD ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY EARLIER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE YOUR HEADPHONES AVAILABLE
THERE?
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU PLAY THAT QUICKLY FOR MR. DARDEN, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: WHILE HE IS DOING THAT, CAN WE PASS OUT THE
EXCERPTS, YOUR HONOR, WHILE HE IS DOING THAT?
MAY I? MAY I APPROACH?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A COPY FOR --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: THE BAILIFF HAS THEM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY BASHMAKIAN, WOULD YOU HAND THOSE OUT TO THE
JURY, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(A COPY OF DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1367
WAS PASSED OUT TO THE JURY.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN, HAVE YOU HEARD THAT EXCERPT?
MR. DARDEN: NO.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, JUROR NO. 98 IS INDICATING THAT
SHE HAS TWO OF THE SAME PAGES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COPIES?
MR. DARDEN: SHE CAN HAVE MY COPY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN, WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT WITH JUROR NO. 98
AND GIVE IT TO DEPUTY BASHMAKIAN, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS IS TRYING TO LOCATE IT, YOUR
HONOR. APPARENTLY HE HAD IT CUED UP AND HE IS HAVING TROUBLE
FINDING IT NOW.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN ASK MISS MC
KINNY AT THIS POINT?
MR. COCHRAN: I CAN, YOUR HONOR, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I CAN TAKE CARE OF THIS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ASK,
YOUR HONOR, WHILE HE IS DOING THAT.
Q MISS MC KINNY, DID MR. FUHRMAN EVER AT ANY TIME
APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE WAY IN WHICH HE USED THIS WORD, THIS "N"
WORD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS HAS FOUND IT. HE IS
INDICATING IT IS NOT COMING THROUGH HIS HEADPHONES. THAT IS THE
PROBLEM.
THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MR. DARDEN HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO -- WE HAVE TO DO THIS WITH THE -- WITHOUT THE
HEADPHONES?
IN OTHER WORDS, HE CAN'T CUE IT UP JUST ON A SYSTEM
THROUGH HIS HEADPHONES?
MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT RIGHT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. HARRIS: IT IS NOT PLAYING THROUGH THE HEADPHONES IS
THE PROBLEM. IT WILL TAKE LESS THAN A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME ASK JURORS TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM FOR
A FEW MOMENTS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM
THE COURTROOM.
MR. HARRIS, DO YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT FOR MR. DARDEN,
PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU GOING TO CUT THE FEED?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY.
MR. DARDEN: HE IS GOING TO PLAY IT OUT LOUD?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1368, AN AUDIOTAPE,
WAS PLAYED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
THE COURT: DO YOU RECOLLECT THE EXCERPT?
MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE I'VE HEARD IT BEFORE, YEAH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE, DEPUTY MAGNERA.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: WE ARE BREAKING AT 5:30, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MS. CLARK: 5:30?
THE COURT: 5:30.
MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION AND THAT IS
THE DATE OF THAT --
MS. CLARK: THE DATES ARE NOT INDICATED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO ASK A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: I DID ALREADY, YOUR HONOR.
THE FIRST ONE WAS IN APRIL OF 1985 AND THE SECOND ONE
--
THE COURT: JUST THIS ONE? DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE SECOND ONE
WAS?
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE WITNESS: SORRY, THE DATE?
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, THE DATE OF THE SECOND ONE,
APPROXIMATELY.
THE WITNESS: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY APRIL OR MAY, 1985.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
BE SEATED.
MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE FOR THE DAY.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MAY I ASK A COUPLE OF FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS AND WE
WILL PLAY IT?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: MISS MC KINNY, THE -- MR. FUHRMAN
SAID, "WE HAVE NO NIGGERS WHERE I GREW UP." I THINK YOU HAVE
INDICATED THAT WAS IN THE EARLY PART OF 1985?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THE STATEMENT ABOUT PRISON AND SIX-FOOT-FIVE-INCH
PEOPLE, WHEN WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME, LATER IN THAT
MONTH OF APRIL OR POSSIBLY IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY.
Q OF 1985?
A OF 1985, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, ARE WE READY?
LET'S START WITH THE ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TAPE.
(AN EXCERPT ON A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
MR. COCHRAN: HOLD THAT THERE.
Q IN THE COURSE OF THE TIME THAT YOU INTERVIEWED THIS
MAN, DID YOU FIND OUT WHERE HE HAD GROWN-UP?
A IN WASHINGTON STATE.
Q DID THIS DISCUSSION COME ABOUT DURING A DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHERE HE ACTUALLY GREW UP AND LIVED?
A YES.
Q IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, MA'AM?
A YES.
(A VIDEOTAPE AND AUDIOTAPE WERE
PLAYED.)
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE VOICE OF THE
PERSON WHO WAS SAYING, "THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING. THEY DON'T GO
OUT THERE AND INITIATE A CONTACT WITH SOME SIX-FOOT-FIVE-INCH
NIGGER THAT HAS BEEN IN PRISON FOR SEVEN YEARS PUMPING WEIGHTS"?
WHO SAID THAT?
A OFFICER MARK FUHRMAN.
Q WHEN DID HE SAY THAT?
A IN APRIL OR EARLY MAY OF 1985.
Q AND THAT WAS HIS VOICE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NO DOUBT ABOUT IT?
A NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS THIS WOULD BE A GOOD POINT TODAY,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS
FOR THE DAY AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY
TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE.
WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW
MORNING.
MISS MC KINNY, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE
O'CLOCK.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY BASHMAKIAN, WOULD YOU COLLECT ALL OF THE TAPED
TRANSCRIPTS.
LET ME ASK THE JURORS TO PASS THAT ALL DOWN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE COURT REPORTER,
PLEASE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
(AT 5:32 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
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
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
VOLUME 216A
PAGES 43966 THROUGH 44178, INCLUSIVE
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: TAYLOR J. DAIGNEAULT, ESQUIRE
MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 216A PAGES 43966 - 44178
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 P.M. 43966 216A
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. HODGMAN - H MR. COCHRAN - C MR. DARDEN D
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MS. LEWIS - L MR. BAILEY - B
MS. KAHN - K MS. CHAPMAN - SC MR. GOLDBERG -
GB MR. BLASIER - BB
MR. CLARKE - GC MR. UELMEN - U
MR. HARMON - RH MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. GORDON - G MR. NEUFELD - N
MR. KELBERG - BK
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
BLASINI, 43972C 44005MC 44032C 216A
WILLIAM
ROKAHR, 44036N 44073D 44081N 44084D 216A
ROLF D.
(FURTHER) 44085N
MC KINNY, 44137C 216A
LAURA HART
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
BLASINI, 43972C 44005MC 44032C 216A WILLIAM
MC KINNY, 44137C 216A LAURA
HART
ROKAHR, 44036N 44073D 44081N 44084D 216A
ROLF D.
(FURTHER) 44085N
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
601-A THRU 601-C - 44016 216A
POSTERBOARD WITH MAGNETIC TRANSFERS RE
BRONCO VEHICLE
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1366 - CONTACT SHEET 44064 216A
WITH 35 PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE
1367 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 44162 216A
ENTITLED "EXCERPT"
1368 - VIDEOTAPE 44163 216A
OF WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTION OF MARK FUHRMAN
INTERVIEW WITH LAURA HART MC KINNY
