Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:380
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 9/06/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 23:02:01 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 4990
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
9:37 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO APPEARING, MATTHEW SCHWARTZ,
ESQUIRE, AND RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE,
ON BEHALF OF LAURA HART MC KINNY;
AND IRVING MILLER, ESQUIRE, ON
BEHALF OF RODERIC HODGE.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(PAGES 44179 THROUGH 44195,
VOLUME 217A, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(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. MR. SIMPSON IS PRESENT
WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. SPAULDING, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MISS
LEWIS.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP WITH REGARD TO MISS MC
KINNY BEFORE WE RESUME?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR.
I WOULD ASK YOUR HONOR TO LISTEN TO DEAN UELMEN WITH
REGARD TO A PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION WE HAVE TO OFFER.
THE COURT: WELL, JURY INSTRUCTIONS COME AT THE END OF THE
TRIAL, DON'T THEY?
MR. COCHRAN: THEY NORMALLY DO, YOUR HONOR, HOWEVER THIS IS
A UNIQUE SITUATION. I THINK DEAN UELMEN CAN EXPLAIN IT IF YOU
WOULD ALLOW.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE SUBMITTED A SPECIAL
PROPOSED INSTRUCTION THAT WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO GIVE AT THE
CONCLUSION OF MISS MC KINNY'S TESTIMONY.
THE GENESIS OF THIS INSTRUCTION IS SECTION 412 OF THE
CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT:
"IF WEAKER AND LESS SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE IS
OFFERED WHEN IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE PARTY TO PRODUCE
STRONGER AND MORE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE OFFERED
SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH DISTRUST."
OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE JURY MAY VIEW THE EVIDENCE
WITH RESPECT TO THE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS
WITH DISTRUST SINCE THEY ARE NOT BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR THE STRONGER AND MORE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF SEEING THE
TRANSCRIPTS THEMSELVES, AND IF YOU WILL, ACTUALLY HEARING THE
TAPES, SO WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
FOR THE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY OF THE COURT'S RULING AND THE
REASON WHY THEY ARE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OR
HEAR THE TAPES.
AND WE HAVE FASHIONED A JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH
ACTUALLY USES THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY
WHY THEY WILL NOT HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
IN VERY SIMPLE AND NONJUDGMENTAL LANGUAGE THEY WOULD
BE INFORMED THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS
OR --
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY PRECEDENTS FOR A JURY
INSTRUCTION LIKE THIS, DEAN UELMEN? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE LIKE
THIS BEFORE?
MR. UELMEN: WELL, YES. I BELIEVE THAT ON OCCASION COURTS
HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY IN THE LANGUAGE --
THE COURT: IN WHAT CASE, COUNSEL?
MR. UELMEN: -- OF SECTION 412.
THE COURT: WHAT CASE?
MR. UELMEN: IN FACT, WE WILL SUBMIT THAT INSTRUCTION
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE PROSECUTION HAS PRESENTED WEAKER AND LESS
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE WHEN STRONGER EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE.
BUT THAT -- THAT INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE USED
AGAINST THE DEFENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF A RULING OF THE COURT THAT
PRECLUDED THE USE OF STRONGER AND MORE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE WHEN
THE -- THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED BUT FOR THAT RULING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY CASE LAW AUTHORITY FOR THIS
PROPOSITION?
MR. UELMEN: I DO NOT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS VERY OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO
HAVE THE JURY FOCUS ON WHAT THEY HAVEN'T SEEN AND HAVEN'T HEARD.
IT IS LIKE DON'T THINK OF THE MARSHMALLOW MAN. THAT IS ALL YOU
CAN THINK ABOUT.
AND THAT IS WHAT INSTRUCTION SAYS, THINK ABOUT ALL
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD, THINK ABOUT ALL YOU HAVEN'T SEEN, AND THAT IS
THE INTENT OF THIS INSTRUCTION.
IT IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. IT SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT
WHAT THE COURT HAS DEEMED INADMISSIBLE.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING RULINGS UNDER 352 THAT
MAKE EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE IF ALL DO YOU IS TURN AROUND AND TELL
THE JURY, GUESS WHAT, THERE IS ALL KIND OF THINGS YOU HAVEN'T
SEEN? WHAT IS THE POINT? THEN YOU HAVE THE IMAGINATIONS RUN
WILD WITH WHAT THEY HAVEN'T SEEN.
IT IS BAD ENOUGH. THEY KNOW THERE ARE ELEVEN,
TWELVE, FOURTEEN HOURS OF TAPE. THEY HAVE HEARD ONE SECOND AND I
THINK THEY GET THE PICTURE.
EVERY TIME MR. COCHRAN ASKS THE QUESTION, IT BECOMES
42, 43. WE ARE GOING TO BE UP TO 47 IF HE KEEPS QUESTIONING HER.
THEY GET THE IDEA. THEY GET THE IDEA PLENTY. THEY HAVE HEARD
TWO EXCERPTS. THEY SAID IT 41 TIMES. THEY KNOW HE SPOKE TO HER
FOR TWELVE HOURS ON TAPE. ALL OF THAT GIVES THE JURY THE CLEAR
VIEW THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN A SMALL SNIPPET.
ALL THIS SEEKS TO DO IS HIGHLIGHT THIS MATTER,
INFLAME THE JURY MORE AND GET THEM TO THINK ABOUT HOW AWFUL THE
REST OF THE 39 OR 40 TIMES WERE IN WHICH HE UTTERED THE WORD.
THAT IS -- IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE THAT I DON'T THINK I
NEED TO ARGUE THIS ANY FURTHER.
WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER SECTION 412 COULD FORM THE
APPROPRIATE BASIS OF A JURY INSTRUCTION, I DON'T THINK I DISAGREE
WITH THAT. I THINK THAT THE COURT COULD APPROPRIATELY INSTRUCT
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE CODE. THAT IS THE LAW AND IT IS AVAILABLE
TO BOTH SIDES.
IF DEAN UELMEN THINKS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE
SECTION 412 WITH RESPECT TO THIS EVIDENCE, HE IS SADLY MISTAKEN.
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN.
MS. CLARK: IT WILL NOT.
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE IMPORT OF HIS
ARGUMENT.
MS. CLARK: OH, I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID, THAT
THE PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE THIS INSTRUCTION AGAINST THE DEFENSE TO
POINT UP THE FACT THAT THEY COULD HAVE OFFERED BETTER AND
STRONGER EVIDENCE, IE, MORE INFLAMMATORY, BUT THEY FAILED TO.
AND IN POINT OF FACT I CAN ASSURE THE COURT AND
COUNSEL THAT WILL NEVER OCCUR, NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE TAPES.
THEY HAVE GOT HIS VOICE. HIS VOICE. I THINK THAT IS PRETTY
STRONG EVIDENCE THAT HE SAID IT.
SO THIS IS -- THIS IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE INFLAMMATORY MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN RULED
INADMISSIBLE AND TO CAUSE THE JURY TO SPECULATE ON WHAT THEY
HAVEN'T HEARD AND TO IMAGINE THE WORST WHICH I THINK -- I DON'T
KNOW.
IT IS ALREADY SO INFLAMMATORY WHAT THEY HAVE HEARD,
YOUR HONOR. THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN THE BENEFIT OF THE
MOST PREJUDICIAL AND INFLAMMATORY THING I HAVE SEEN ADMITTED INTO
A COURT EVER, YOU KNOW, BY VIRTUE OF WHAT WE HAVE IN MISS MC
KINNY'S TAPES.
NOW THEY WANT TO HAVE THE JURY SPECULATE HOW MUCH
WORSE IT GETS. IT IS OBVIOUSLY IMPROPER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, THE INSTRUCTION TELLS THE JURY NOT
TO SPECULATE. IT IS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN
REPRESENTED TO YOU.
THE INSTRUCTION SUGGESTS THE COURT TELL THE JURY,
"YOU SHOULD NOT SPECULATE ABOUT WHY YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OR TO HEAR THE TAPES." WE ARE
NOT INVITING SPECULATION.
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID IS SPECULATION UNDER AN
INFERENCE ORDAINED BY THE EVIDENCE CODE WHERE THE JURY IS INVITED
TO VIEW THE EVIDENCE WITH DISTRUST BECAUSE STRONGER AND MORE
SATISFYING EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED.
OUR PROBLEM OF COURSE IS THAT AS YOUR HONOR CONCEDES,
THE TWO EXCERPTS THAT THE JURY HAS HEARD ARE AMONG THE MOST
INNOCUOUS AND LEAST INFLAMMATORY OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
AVAILABLE, AND YOUR HONOR SUSTAINED AN OBJECTION TO MISS MC
KINNY'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THAT RESPECT.
WE BELIEVE THE JURY SHOULD HEAR THE REASONS WHY YOUR
HONOR IS KEEPING OUT THOSE OTHER 39 IN THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU USED
IN YOUR ORDER, THAT YOUR EXAMINATION REVEALS THAT THE EPITHET --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU DON'T NEED TO READ MY ORDER TO ME.
I KNOW IT IS THERE.
MR. UELMEN: WE THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE JURY TO BE
INFORMED OF THAT ORDER SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE NOT HEARING ALL
41 OF THESE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT.
I WILL TAKE THE REQUEST FOR THE INSTRUCTION UNDER
SUBMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE.
ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO THE QUESTION I ASKED MISS MC KINNY YESTERDAY?
WOULD THE COURT CARE TO RECONSIDER THAT, WHETHER OR
NOT I CAN ASK HER IF SHE CAN CHARACTERIZE THIS -- THE ONE TAPE
PORTION THAT WAS PLAYED AS COMPARED TO THE OTHERS?
THE COURT: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
(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 PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS MC KINNY, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
LAURA HART MC KINNY,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT MISS LAURA HART MC
KINNY IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MISS MC KINNY.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS MC KINNY, YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE
STILL UNDER OATH.
MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD MORNING, MISS MC KINNY.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN.
Q WHEN WE CONCLUDED OUR DAY YESTERDAY WE HAD PLAYED A
TAPE FOR THE JURY AND YOU SHARED WITH US AND IDENTIFIED FOR THIS
JURY THAT WAS MARK FUHRMAN'S VOICE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THE TAPES, THE TWELVE HOURS PLUS
TAPES AND THE TRANSCRIPTS WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, DID YOU TURN
THOSE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OVER TO THE PROSECUTION JUST AS YOU
DID TO THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND HAVE YOU BEEN INTERVIEWED AND TALKED WITH THE
PROSECUTION AND COOPERATED WITH THEM?
A YES, CERTAINLY.
Q AND YOU ARE OUT HERE FROM NORTH CAROLINA PURSUANT TO
A SUBPOENA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU TRIED TO COOPERATE WITH BOTH SIDES?
A YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS THAT
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AFTER THE FIRST INTERVIEW THAT YOU
HAD WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN FEBRUARY OF 1985, THAT YOU
DESCRIBED FOR US, I SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY A SERIES OF QUESTIONS
WHICH YOU SENT TO HIM PRIOR TO THE SECOND INTERVIEW; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT SECOND INTERVIEW WOULD HAVE BEEN IN APRIL OF
1985; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU SENT HIM, DID YOU
SEND HIM A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE OF THE -- OF AN EARLIER
MEETING OR ANY TRANSCRIPTION, DO YOU RECALL?
A I SENT HIM THE TRANSCRIPTION OF OUR APRIL 2ND, 1985,
MEETING, OUR FIRST TAPED INTERVIEW.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU SENT THAT TO HIM AND DID HE EVER, AS FAR AS YOU
KNOW, MAKE ANY CHANGES AT ALL ON THAT TRANSCRIPTION THAT YOU SENT
HIM?
A NO.
Q NOW, LATER IN 1985 DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO PREPARE A
SERIES OF TRANSCRIPTS THAT YOU HAD PREPARED FROM THE VARIOUS
TAPES YOU HAD CONDUCTED AND SEND THOSE TO MR. FUHRMAN?
A YES.
Q WILL YOU TELL THE JURY WHEN THAT WAS, MA'AM.
A THAT WAS SOMETIME IN MID-JUNE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE
EXACT DATE. BUT AT THAT TIME I COMPILED ALL OF THE TRANSCRIPTS
OF OUR INTERVIEWS AND PUT THEM IN A THREE-RING BINDER WITH
INDEXES AND DATES AND SIMILAR TO THE WAY I WAS LOGGING THE
TRANSCRIPTS AND KEEPING THEM FOR MYSELF.
Q AND DID YOU GIVE THOSE TO HIM OR MAIL THOSE TO HIM OR
WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT CONNECTION?
A I GAVE THOSE TO HIM IN THE BINDER.
Q DID YOU EVER AT ANY POINT GET ANY OF THOSE -- THE
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE IN THE BINDER BACK FROM HIM WITH ANY
CHANGES?
A NO.
Q AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WAS INSIDE THE
BINDER, IT CONTAINED SOME HOURS OF THE TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE
TAPES YOU HAD HAD WITH THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q DID HE EVER GIVE BACK THE BOUND VOLUME TO YOU?
A NO.
Q SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW HE STILL HAS IT; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AS FAR AS YOU KNOW HE STILL HAS IT,
RIGHT?
A AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Q NOW, YESTERDAY WE TALKED ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN'S ROLE AS
A TECHNICAL ADVISOR OR A CONSULTANT.
WAS HE TO BE PAID IF THE SCREENPLAY WAS EVER SOLD BY
YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT COMPENSATION TO BE?
A $10,000.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAS THAT SCREENPLAY BEEN SOLD?
A NO.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THESE TAPES OR INTERVIEWS THAT WE
CALL INTERVIEWS OF MARK FUHRMAN, YOU HAVE NOT TRIED TO SELL THOSE
TAPES YOURSELF, HAVE YOU?
A THEY ARE NOT FOR SALE, NO.
Q YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO PROFIT FROM THOSE TAPES, ARE
YOU?
A NO.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE REFERENCES OF THE SO-CALLED
"N" WORD THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WE TALKED YESTERDAY, AND I THINK
THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PLAY FOR THE JURY I THINK
YOU SAID OCCURRED MAYBE IN APRIL OF 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: THE TWO EXAMPLES OCCURRED IN 1985?
A YES.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER THE FIRST ONE ABOUT WHERE HE GREW UP,
WHEN WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS DURING OUR --
THE COURT: HAVEN'T WE COVERED THIS ALREADY?
MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS SO, YOUR HONOR. IT IS LEADING TO
ANOTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS DURING OUR FIRST INTERVIEW, APRIL 2ND.
Q THE SECOND ONE WAS ALSO IN '85?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE USE OF THIS WORD BY THIS MAN, HOWEVER, CONTINUED
THROUGH 1988; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: IT IS LEADING.
MR. DARDEN: 352.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. LET ME RESTATE IT.
THANK YOU.
Q WERE THERE TIMES AFTER 1985 IN THE COURSE OF THESE
INTERVIEWS THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. FUHRMAN THAT HE CONTINUED TO USE
THIS WORD?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND HOW LONG DID HE CONTINUE TO GO
ON --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THE COURT'S RULING, 352.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A IN THE TRANSCRIPTS THROUGH 1988.
Q ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
NOW, I THINK YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED TO US THAT
THE LAST INTERVIEW WAS IN JULY OF 1984 -- 1994?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AFTER THIS CASE HAD OCCURRED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO YESTERDAY, JUST BRIEFLY WE TALKED
ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAD INADVERTENTLY TAPED OVER THE FIRST
TAPE AND ALSO MAYBE NO. 9; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, HAD THE
TRANSCRIPTS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE TAPES WERE INADVERTENTLY TAPED
OVER?
A YES.
Q SO YOU COMPLETED YOUR PROCESS OF DOING THE
TRANSCRIPTS BEFORE YOU THEN TAPED OVER THE ACTUAL TAPES; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, IN THESE INTERVIEWS THAT YOU CONDUCTED WITH MR.
FUHRMAN DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME ASK HIM TO EMBELLISH OR ENHANCE
WHAT HE WAS TELLING YOU.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM IN
THAT REGARD, IF ANYTHING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I TOLD HIM THAT I WANTED REALISTIC SCENARIOS
AND RESPONSES TO WHAT MAY HAPPEN RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE STORY AND CHARACTERS.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IN TALKING TO YOU DID HE RELATE HIS
OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS A POLICE OFFICER?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IN TALKING TO YOU CAN YOU DESCRIBE
WHAT HE DID WITH REGARD TO HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AS A POLICE OFFICER?
MR. DARDEN: VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: SPECULATION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE TALKING TO THIS MAN BECAUSE
HE WAS A POLICE OFFICER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHY DID YOU WANT TO TALK TO HIM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED A
NUMBER OF TIMES.
THE COURT: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
IN ADDITION TO TALKING TO MARK FUHRMAN, DID YOU TALK
TO OTHER POLICE OFFICERS IN AND AROUND THIS SAME TIME?
A YES, I DID, APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN.
Q FIFTEEN POLICE OFFICERS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU TALK TO -- DID YOU GO TO THE POLICE ACADEMY?
A YES, I WENT TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE ACADEMY AND
TALKED WITH PHYSICAL TRAINING PEOPLE WHO WORKED WITH CADET PATROL
WOMEN THERE, AND I WENT ON RIDE-ALONGS AND TALKED WITH OTHER
POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL.
Q AND WHY DID YOU DO THESE THINGS?
A IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BALANCE THE -- MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THE FRUSTRATIONS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT THE WOMEN WERE
FEELING, THE REASONS WHY THEY WANTED TO BECOME OFFICERS AND SOME
OF THE OBSTACLES THAT THEY FACED, THE VERY REAL OBSTACLES THAT
THEY FACED ON THE FORCE AND WITH DEALING -- DEALING WITH SOME MEN
WHO MIGHT BELONG TO A GROUP MEN AGAINST WOMEN WHO DIDN'T WANT
THEM TO BE OFFICERS.
I NEEDED TO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE
REALISTIC KIND OF OBSTACLES THEY WOULD FACE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT THESE "N" WORD REFERENCES
WERE BETWEEN '85 AND '88. DID YOU HAVE ANY INTERVIEWS WITH THIS
MAN BETWEEN '88 AND '94 THAT WERE TAPED?
A YES.
Q AND HOW MANY, IF YOU RECALL?
A UMM, BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THERE WERE LESS THAN HAD BEEN BEFORE IN '85, '86, '87
AND '88?
A AGAIN, PLEASE.
Q THE FREQUENCY OF THE INTERVIEWS, DID THEY BECOME LESS
AFTER ABOUT 1988?
A YES, THEY DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WAS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO
INTERVIEWS, A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO TAPED INTERVIEWS?
A NO TAPED INTERVIEWS.
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT?
A DURING THE EARLY NINETIES THERE WERE NO TAPED
INTERVIEWS.
Q NOW, YESTERDAY YOU HAD SHARED WITH US AND WITH THIS
JURY THAT WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN USED THIS WORD, THIS OFFENSIVE
WORD, THE "N" WORD, HE SEEMED TO SPEAK IN ORDINARY SPEECH OR
SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY WHAT YOU MEANT BY
THAT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED YESTERDAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
IT WAS ASKED YESTERDAY.
MR. COCHRAN: TO EXPLAIN IT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
THE DEFENDANT.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q GOOD MORNING.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. DARDEN.
Q IT IS TRUE THAT YOU AND I HAVE MET BEFORE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S TRUE, YES.
Q YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR ATTORNEYS, MISS CLARK, MISS
LEWIS, MR. HODGMAN AND MYSELF, WE ALL MET ON AUGUST 17TH, I
BELIEVE, IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE DATE.
Q AUGUST 17, 1995?
A YES.
Q AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPTS AND
TAPES AND EPITHETS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED HERE TODAY AND
YESTERDAY, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND IT IS A FACT, ISN'T IT, THAT IS, THAT MARK
FUHRMAN USED THESE EPITHETS IN 1985, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND IN 1988, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, THE TWO GENTLEMEN SEATED HERE BEHIND ME, WHO ARE
THESE TWO GENTLEMEN?
A MR. RON REGWAN, MR. MATTHEW SCHWARTZ. THEY ARE MY
ATTORNEYS.
Q AND THEY ARE ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEYS?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND
IMMATERIAL.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD US A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT
THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT FOR SALE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: MAY I REASK THAT?
THE COURT: I THINK SHE ANSWERED IT.
MR. DARDEN: OH, OKAY.
Q THEY ARE ENTERTAINMENT LAWYERS?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. YOU SUSTAINED AN
OBJECTION TO THAT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MR. REGWAN AND MR.
SCHWARTZ HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SELL THOSE TRANSCRIPTS AND THOSE
TAPES?
MR. SCHWARTZ: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, ALSO. I'M OBJECTING
ALSO.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THE QUESTION IS ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THEY HAVE
BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SELL THOSE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS?
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YES.
A NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU -- MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO
CONFER WITH COUNSEL?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: HAVE YOU BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SELL ANY
AUDIOTAPES OTHER THAN THE FUHRMAN AUDIOTAPES?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
HAVE YOU BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SELL ANY TRANSCRIPTS
OTHER THAN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE FUHRMAN AUDIOTAPES?
A THAT QUESTION IS VAGUE TO ME. COULD YOU REPHRASE IT?
IT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE I'M ATTEMPTING TO SELL THE TAPES AND
TRANSCRIPTS AND I'M NOT, SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD
REPHRASE IT.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WHAT IS NEXT IN ORDER?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
THE CLERK: 603.
THE COURT: 603.
PEOPLE'S 603.
(PEO'S 603 FOR ID = 4-PAGE DOCUMENT)
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE A FOUR-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT IS DATED
AUGUST 18, 1985.
IT IS ENTITLED "NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT." IT IS ON
THE LETTERHEAD OF REGWAN AND SCHWARTZ AND THEIR LAW OFFICES.
MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I REMAIN FOR A FEW MOMENTS?
THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED
PEOPLE'S 603, PLEASE.
YOU CAN TAKE IT?
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q IS THAT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT"?
A YES.
Q IS IT ON YOUR ATTORNEY'S LETTERHEAD?
A YES, IT IS.
Q IS IT DATED AUGUST 18, 1995?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU ARE THEIR CLIENT?
A I AM.
Q AND PARAGRAPH 2 IN THAT DOCUMENT, DOES IT READ AS
FOLLOWS:
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT FURTHER
FOUNDATION WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS AND THIS DOCUMENT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: THAT DOCUMENT IS ADDRESSED TO DOVE
PUBLISHING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q TO THE PUBLISHER, MR. VINER?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT HE IS THE PUBLISHER. IT IS
ADDRESSED TO MR. MICHAEL VINER, YES.
Q WERE THE TAPES, THE FUHRMAN TAPES, SUBMITTED TO
MICHAEL VINER AT DOVE PUBLISHING?
A NO, THEY WERE NOT.
Q WAS THERE AN ATTEMPT TO SUBMIT THEM TO HIM?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT, IF YOU WILL.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q IS THERE A SIGNATURE AT THE LAST PAGE?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q AND CAN YOU READ THAT SIGNATURE?
A IT IS RON REGWAN.
Q NOW, IF YOU COULD TURN BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE,
PLEASE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q DOES THE DOCUMENT CONTAIN THE TERM --
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION
THIS WITNESS HAS EVER SEEN IT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: HAVE YOU EVER SPOKEN WITH INSIDE
EDITION?
A HAVE I EVER SPOKEN WITH INSIDE EDITION?
Q YEAH. YES.
A COULD YOU DEFINE WHAT INSIDE EDITION IS? IS THAT A
TABLOID OR TELEVISION SHOW, NEWSPAPER, PERIODICAL?
Q OKAY.
YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM INSIDE EDITION?
A I HAVE HEARD THE TERM, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.
THE COURT: WAIT. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE HEARD INSIDE EDITION, BUT I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DEFINE IT FOR ME, PLEASE, SO I AM CLEAR IN MY RESPONSE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: IT IS A TELEVISION PROGRAM. HAVE YOU
EVER SPOKEN TO ANY REPRESENTATIVE FROM INSIDE EDITION, THE
TELEVISION PROGRAM?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q WHEN DID YOU BRING THOSE TAPES TO CALIFORNIA? DO YOU
RECALL THE DATE?
A WHEN WE WERE SUBPOENAED WE FLEW TO CALIFORNIA ON JULY
13, 1995, AND MY HUSBAND AND I BROUGHT THE TAPES AND GAVE THEM TO
THE COURT.
Q NOW, THE DOCUMENT IN YOUR HAND, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN
THAT DOCUMENT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU AUTHORIZE YOUR ATTORNEYS TO SELL THE
TRANSCRIPT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU AUTHORIZE THEM TO SELL THE AUDIOTAPES?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE SELLING THE
AUDIOTAPES FOR ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS?
A HAVE I DISCUSSED THAT WITH ANYONE?
Q YES.
A NO, I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IT WITH ANYONE.
Q HAVE YOU ALSO GIVEN -- GIVEN YOUR ATTORNEYS THE
AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE SALE OF THE FUHRMAN TAPES?
A I HAVE AUTHORIZED MY ATTORNEYS TO DETERMINE THE VALUE
OF THE TAPES, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT IS WHAT THAT DOCUMENT RELATES TO THEN?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR
SPECULATION. SHE HAS NEVER SEEN A COPY BEFORE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
I WOULD ASSUME, ALTHOUGH THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS
DOCUMENT, THAT THIS IS WHAT THIS RELATES TO. IT IS A
NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DOESN'T THE DOCUMENT SAY THAT THE
TAPES ARE SUBMITTED SO THAT DOVE PUBLISHING CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY WANT TO PURCHASE --
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: THE WITNESS --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ALL RIGHT.
IS IT INDICATED ANYWHERE ON THAT DOCUMENT THAT THE
TAPES ARE BEING SUBMITTED TO DOVE PUBLISHING SO THAT DOVE
PUBLISHING CAN HELP YOU ASCERTAIN THE -- ASCERTAIN THE MARKET
VALUE OF THE FUHRMAN TAPES?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE
QUESTION. SHE HAS NEVER SEEN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WOULD YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHERE IF ANYWHERE ON THAT DOCUMENT
DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE FUHRMAN TAPES ARE BEING SUBMITTED TO A
PUBLISHER SO THAT THE PUBLISHER CAN HELP YOU DETERMINE THE MARKET
VALUE OF THOSE TAPES?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT
QUESTION. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: FIRSTLY, I HAVE NEVER READ THIS DOCUMENT. I
HAVE NEVER SEEN IT. I WOULD HAVE TO READ IT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION CLEARLY.
AND THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS WERE NEVER SUBMITTED TO
DOVE PUBLISHING. THEY HAVE ONLY BEEN GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION
AND THE DEFENSE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: IF YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN SELLING
THE TAPES, WHY THEN DID YOU MEET AND CONFER WITH OTHERS TO
DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE --
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. THAT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR --
Q BY MR. DARDEN: -- OF THE TAPES?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. IT IS
VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: AGAIN PLEASE, AGAIN.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: THE QUESTION IS THIS IF YOU WEREN'T
INTERESTED IN SELLING THOSE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS, WHY THEN DID
YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS GO OUT AND ATTEMPT TO SELL THEM TO
PUBLISHERS TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE?
MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: THE DOCUMENT --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: IF YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN SELLING
THE TAPES, WHY DID YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS CONTACT A PUBLISHER?
A IT IS MORE TO KNOW WHAT THE VALUE OF THE TAPES WERE
AND I AUTHORIZED MY ATTORNEYS TO DO THAT.
Q AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WERE CONSIDERING SELLING THE
TAPES AT THE TIME?
A NO. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE VALUE OF THE TAPES
WERE AND MY ATTORNEYS ADVISED ME THAT IT WAS IN MY BEST INTERESTS
AND THEY WOULD BE NEGLIGENT AS ATTORNEYS IF THEY DIDN'T LET ME
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE VALUE -- MARKET VALUE OF THE TAPES AND/OR
THE TRANSCRIPTS WOULD BE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE WITNESS: KEEP IN MIND I'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF
MATERIAL LEAKED AND THAT IS AN ASPECT THAT I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT
TO BE CONSIDERING.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION TO ATTEMPTING TO
DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TAPES, YOU ALSO HAD YOUR
ATTORNEYS ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF YOUR
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TAPES AS WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YES. I BELIEVE -- I THOUGHT
THAT IS WHAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS IN REFERENCE TO. "CERTAIN
TRANSCRIPTS" I BELIEVE YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
Q WAS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY THAT YOU WERE
OFFENDED WHEN YOU HEARD MARK FUHRMAN USE THAT EPITHET?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU MET WITH MISS CLARK AND MISS LEWIS AND
MR. HODGMAN AND MYSELF ON AUGUST 17, DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING YOU
WHAT YOU THOUGHT OR WHAT CAME TO MIND WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD
FUHRMAN USE THAT EPITHET?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND YOU TOLD ME THAT NOTHING CAME TO MIND; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT, THAT I COULDN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING
COMING TO MIND THE FIRST TIME. YOUR QUESTION WAS WHAT CAME TO
MIND THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD THAT WORD, I BELIEVE.
Q BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT CAME TO MIND AT THE TIME?
A NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO. I
COULD NOT REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME I HEARD THAT WORD USED WHAT
CAME TO MY MIND.
Q YOU DON'T REMEMBER A WHITE POLICE OFFICER USING THIS
EPITHET IN YOUR PRESENCE AND YOUR NOT BEING OFFENDED BY IT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION AND THE
TONE OF THE VOICE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WORD IS THE
MOST VILE WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?
A I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE MOST VILE WORDS IN THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, YES.
Q YOU THINK THERE ARE WORSE?
A YES, I CERTAINLY DO.
WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP? I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. IT IS A VILE WORD. WHY DO I HAVE TO
DEFINE IT MORE SO THAN IT IS?
Q YOU WROTE A SCREENPLAY, RIGHT?
A THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q DID YOU USE THAT WORD IN THE SCREENPLAY?
A YES.
Q DID YOU ATTEMPT TO OUT AND SELL THAT SCREENPLAY?
A CERTAINLY.
Q YOU ARE USING THAT WORD IN YOUR SCREENPLAY TO HELP
MAKE MONEY, RIGHT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF
THE USE OF THAT WORD?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. OBJECT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. IT IS AN APPROPRIATE
QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU MET DETECTIVE FUHRMAN YOU
TOLD HIM THAT YOU WERE A SCREENWRITER?
A THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q AND YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN OTHER
SCREENPLAYS?
A YES.
Q AND HOW MANY SCREENPLAYS HAVE YOU WRITTEN UP TO THIS
POINT?
A I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT A DOZEN SCREENPLAYS, APPROXIMATELY
SIX THAT I WOULD -- WOULD CONSIDER THAT WOULD BE IN APPROPRIATE
SHAPE NOW TO BE READ, BUT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT A DOZEN
SCREENPLAYS, MORE TREATMENTS, SYNOPSES.
Q OKAY.
HOW MANY SCREENPLAYS DID YOU TELL FUHRMAN YOU HAD
WRITTEN WHEN YOU FIRST MET HIM?
MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE THAT SHE TOLD
HIM ANYTHING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HOW
MANY SCREENPLAYS YOU HAD WRITTEN WHEN YOU FIRST MET HIM?
A I DON'T RECALL TELLING HIM HOW MANY SCREENPLAYS I HAD
WRITTEN, BUT IT COULD HAVE COME UP IN CONVERSATION THAT I HAD
THE YEAR BEFORE WON AN AWARD FOR A SCREENPLAY THROUGH THE
WRITER'S GUILD OF AMERICA EAST FOUNDATION. THAT COULD HAVE COME
UP.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE WRITER'S GUILD
TO WIN THAT AWARD?
A NO, YOU DON'T.
Q ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE WRITER'S GUILD?
A NO, I AM NOT.
Q YOU HAVE HAD ONE SCREENPLAY PUBLISHED OR MADE INTO A
FILM?
A HAVE I HAD ONE SCREENPLAY MADE INTO A FILM?
Q YES.
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU HAD ANY MADE INTO A FILM?
A I HAVE HAD SHORT PIECES FILMED, YES.
Q YOU HAD A SHORT PIECE CALLED "THE PAINTER"?
A YES, I DID.
Q OKAY. WHO MADE THAT INTO A FILM?
A THAT WAS DIRECTED -- PRODUCED BY PLAYBOY PRODUCTIONS.
Q WHO DIRECTED THAT FILM?
A DANIEL MC KINNY.
Q YOUR HUSBAND?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THIS PIECE WAS WHAT, SORT OF SOFT PORN KIND OF
PIECE?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT. THIS IS NOT
RELEVANT.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN MARK FUHRMAN USED THESE WORDS IN
YOUR PRESENCE WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL HIM TO STOP?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT
QUESTION. I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: FOR THE SAME REASON I DIDN'T TELL HIM TO STOP
WHEN HE TOLD ME OF POLICE PROCEDURES, COVER-UPS, OTHER
INFORMATION THAT I FELT WERE IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HAVE A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING IN CONTEXT OF THIS MATERIAL THAT I WAS WRITING.
HE TOLD ME MANY THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT
FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, MANY THINGS I HADN'T BEEN AWARE OF, AS DID
OTHER OFFICERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS DID MANY
OF THE OTHER INTERVIEWS THAT I DID AND RIDE-ALONGS I WENT ON.
I WAS IN A JOURNALISTIC MODE. I WAS NOT JUDGMENTAL.
AND I NEEDED THAT INFORMATION TO HELP ME WRITE A MORE REALISTIC
JOURNALISTIC PIECE AND I DID NOT ASK HIM TO STOP USING THE TYPE
OF NORMAL ORDINARY LANGUAGE HE WOULD USE OR OTHER OFFICERS WOULD
USE. I NEEDED TO KNOW HOW HE WOULD SPEAK.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT THERE WAS
NO RACIAL SUBPLOT TO THE SCREENPLAY YOU WERE PLANNING TO WRITE,
CORRECT?
A THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q AND YET YOU USE THIS EPITHET IN YOUR SCREENPLAY
ANYWAY; IS THAT ALSO CORRECT?
A THAT IS TRUE.
Q NOW, YOUR RELATIONSHIP IN 1985 WITH
MARK FUHRMAN, WAS IT ONLY PROFESSIONAL?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS IRRELEVANT AND
IMMATERIAL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: HE WAS -- IT WAS -- I'M SORRY.
IT WAS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. HE WAS A TECHNICAL
ADVISOR FOR THE SCREENPLAY.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: AND THAT IS IT?
A YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: I CAN I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT
COVER-UPS A FEW MINUTES AGO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A I'M SORRY. AGAIN, PLEASE.
Q DID YOU MENTION THE TERM "COVER-UP" A FEW MINUTES
AGO?
A I DID, YES.
Q WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO AT THAT TIME WAS A
DISCUSSION YOU AND FUHRMAN HAD AS IT RELATED TO WOMEN POLICE
OFFICERS; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF
THAT QUESTION AS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: IS THAT CORRECT?
A AGAIN, PLEASE, I'M SORRY.
Q WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO WAS A CONVERSATION YOU HAD
WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS IT RELATED TO FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS
AND THE LAPD'S RECOGNITION THAT FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT
PERFORM WELL IN VIOLENT SITUATIONS; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.
OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: SOME LAPD OFFICERS AND ALSO IN RELATION TO
POLICE PROCEDURAL COVER-UP ISSUES THAT I NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO US ON AUGUST 17 --
CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: I WILL GET MR. COCHRAN A COPY OF THIS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHILE I LOOK FOR THIS -- STRIKE THAT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: I NEGLECTED TO BRING MR. COCHRAN A CLEAN COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU SHOW IT TO HIM.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU RECALL DURING OUR AUGUST 17TH
INTERVIEW THAT MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU MEANT
WHEN YOU USED THE TERM "COVER-UPS"?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, I DO. YES, I DO REMEMBER US DISCUSSING
THAT.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
DO YOU RECALL HER -- STRIKE THAT.
DO YOU RECALL TELLING HER THAT WHAT YOU WERE
REFERRING TO WERE COVER-UPS IN TERMS OF THE LAPD'S RECOGNITION
AND COVER-UP OF THE FACT THAT FEMALE OFFICERS DID NOT PERFORM
WELL IN VIOLENT SITUATIONS, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MISS CLARK OR MISS LEWIS WHO
MADE THAT COMMENT. IT WAS ONE OF THEM.
Q BUT THAT WAS BASICALLY YOUR RESPONSE TO THEM AT THE
TIME?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU ASKED A MOMENT AGO WHY WE ARE INVOLVED IN
SOME ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP.
DO YOU RECALL ASKING THAT?
A I FELT THAT YOU WERE. I DON'T FEEL ADVERSARIAL
TOWARD YOU, BUT I FELT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING NEGATIVE COMING
>FROM SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS, YES.
Q OKAY.
YOU DIDN'T STOP HIM THE FIRST TIME HE USED THE
EPITHET, CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT HAS BE ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: IT HAS.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU DIDN'T STOP HIM THE
TWENTIETH TIME HE USED THE EPITHET?
MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: THAT HAS NOT.
OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU DIDN'T STOP HIM THE FORTIETH OR FORTY-SECOND TIME
THAT HE USED THE EPITHET, CORRECT?
A I DIDN'T ABRIDGE HIS DIALOGUE OR CONVERSATION DURING
AN INTERVIEW, NO.
Q GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED THIS EPITHET IN
YOUR SCREENPLAY, DO YOU FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES TO UTTER OR USE THIS WORD?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS.
OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: DO I PERSONALLY FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE?
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YES.
A NO, I DON'T.
Q WHY THEN INCLUDE IT IN A SCREENPLAY, A SCREENPLAY
THAT YOU INTEND TO MAKE INTO A MOVIE?
A BECAUSE IT IS REFLECTIVE OF PARTICULAR OFFICERS OR
OFFICER'S DIALOGUE, FEELINGS AT A PARTICULAR TIME. IT IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WOULD BE SAID.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q MISS MC KINNY --
A YES.
Q -- YOU DON'T LIKE RACISM, DO YOU?
A NO.
Q BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RACISM EXISTS IN THE WORLD?
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
A YES, I AM AWARE OF THAT.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS --
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE FACT --
THE COURT: THESE ARE ARGUMENTATIVE AND LEADING.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: THE FACT THAT MARK FUHRMAN USED THE
"N" WORD MORE THAN 42 TIMES --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: -- DID THAT MAKE YOU AGREE WITH HIM
WHEN HE WAS USING THOSE WORDS?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q DID YOU AGREE WITH HIM WHEN HE WAS USING THOSE WORDS
IN THAT BASE, VILE MANNER?
A OF COURSE NOT.
Q YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WERE WORKING AS A
JOURNALIST AT THE TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR SCREENPLAY, MEN AGAINST
WOMEN, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT RACISM WAS NOT ONE OF THE --
NOT EVEN A SUBPLOT; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND SO WHEN THESE WORDS, THESE VILE INSULTING WORDS
CAME UP, YOU WEREN'T SAYING THESE WORDS, WERE YOU?
A NO.
Q WHO WAS SAYING THESE WORDS?
A OFFICER FUHRMAN.
Q WHO WAS EXPRESSING THESE VIEWS OF COVER-UPS?
A OFFICER FUHRMAN.
MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO COVER-UP, HE TALKED
TO YOU, DID HE NOT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THERE IS A 352.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I NEED TO BE HEARD. I
CERTAINLY DO.
THE COURT: SIDE BAR.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR INTENDED QUESTION?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MY INTENDED QUESTION WAS THAT HE TALKED
WITH -- MR. FUHRMAN IN THE COURSE OF THESE TAPES TALKED ABOUT
COVER-UPS, MEN AGAINST WOMEN OR HOW WOMEN REACTED.
HE OPENED THE DOOR, YOUR HONOR. HE TALKED ABOUT
COVER-UPS AND HE TRIED TO LIMIT IT TO MISS CLARK OR MISS LEWIS
ASKING THE QUESTION.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER COVER-UPS THAT TOOK PLACE AND WE
HAVE A RIGHT TO BRING THAT UP. I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP. YOU
LIMITED US AND I DIDN'T DO IT. I SAT DOWN.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT UP.
MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP. SHE UNLOADED ON ME,
OKAY, AND MENTIONED THE WORD COVER-UP AND I WENT BACK TO IT TO
CLARIFY THE FACT THAT WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS I ASKED
ABOUT RECOGNITION BY THE LAPD, THAT THEY RECOGNIZED THAT FEMALE
OFFICERS DON'T PERFORM WELL IN THE FIELD AND THAT -- AND THAT --
AND THAT IN FUHRMAN'S VIEW THE DEPARTMENT COVERED THAT PROBLEM
UP.
SHE UNLOADED THAT ON ME. THAT WASN'T IN DIRECT
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION. SHE UNLOADED THAT ON ME IN FRONT OF THE
JURY. SHE IS THEIR WITNESS. IT IS OBVIOUS SHE IS BIASED FOR THE
DEFENSE.
WHAT AM I TO DO? WE HAVE THIS HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY
AND VOLATILE ISSUE HERE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I'M TRYING TO DO
MY CROSS. SHE UNLOADED ME. I TRIED TO REPAIR SOME OF THE DAMAGE.
I DID NOT GO INTO THE ISSUE OF COVER-UPS.
THE COURT: SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK IN RESPONSE TO
THIS, MR. COCHRAN?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE THE RIGHT, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO ASK THE
QUESTION.
THE COURT: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED. I ASKED YOU WHAT ARE
YOU GOING TO ASK?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I RESENT THAT TONE. I'M A MAN
JUST LIKE YOU ARE, YOUR HONOR. I RESENT THAT TONE, YOUR HONOR.
I RESENT THAT TONE, YOUR HONOR.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP
BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
I WILL SEE COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS WITH THE COURT
REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN CAMERA:)
THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE ARE IN
CHAMBERS WITH MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MISS CLARK AND MR.
DARDEN.
I HAVE ASKED COUNSEL TO STEP INTO CHAMBERS.
MR. COCHRAN, LET ME JUST EXPRESS TO YOU SOME CONCERN
THAT I HAVE REGARDING OUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AT THIS POINT IN
TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I HAVE CHOSEN UP TO THIS POINT TO IGNORE YOUR
PRESS CONFERENCE LAST THURSDAY AND WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE IN
DIRECT CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT. I HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THAT.
AND TODAY WHEN WE WERE AT THE SIDE BAR, THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY A VERY VOLATILE ISSUE, AND I ASKED YOU TO DIRECT
YOURSELF TO THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED, WHAT QUESTIONS WERE YOU
GOING TO ASK WITH REGARDS TO MISS MC KINNY AND HER CONVERSATIONS
-- HER TESTIMONY JUST NOW ABOUT A COVER-UP.
AND I THINK THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT I ASKED YOU
A DIRECT QUESTION AND YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
AND I REDIRECTED YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE QUESTION
THAT I ASKED AND APPARENTLY YOU HAVE TAKEN UMBRAGE AT THAT.
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. I TAKE
UMBRAGE AT YOUR RESPONSE AND YOUR REACTION.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE
IT THUS FAR AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF OUR LONG RELATIONSHIP AND WHAT
I WILL HOPE WILL BE OUR CONTINUING FRIENDSHIP.
AND WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE DO IS THAT YOU
AND I BOTH TAKE A DEEP BREATH, TAKE A RECESS AND COME BACK AND
TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE. I
UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WAS TRYING TO AND THE QUESTION
-- BUT WHAT I SAID WAS I --
THE COURT: I WAS TRYING TO CUT TO THE CHASE.
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED AND THE VERNACULAR IS WHERE
ARE WE GOING WITH THAT?
MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
PERHAPS MY REACTION WAS THAT I FELT THAT I WAS A MAN,
YOU ARE A MAN, WE HAVE BEEN FRIENDS AND I THOUGHT THE TONE --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING, "I AM A MAN,
YOU ARE A MAN," THAT IS -- THAT IS A CHALLENGE OF SORTS, WOULDN'T
YOU SAY?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, NO.
I WAS JUST SAYING I DIDN'T WANT TO BE TALKED TO LIKE
A SCHOOL KID. I SAID THAT I FELT THAT WE DO HAVE A LONG
RELATIONSHIP AND THE COURT -- I FELT WE WERE THE ONES WHO WERE
BEING PUT UPON ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE AND I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT
AND I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IT.
AND YOUR HONOR WANTED TO GET RIGHT TO THE ISSUE. I'M
NOT SAYING YOU JUMPED ME, BUT YOU SAID, "THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED
YOU."
I'M SAYING, JUDGE, I'M TRYING TO GET TO IT.
SO I WILL TAKE A DEEP BREATH.
AND I AM PREPARED NOW TO TRY TO TELL YOU WHAT I AM
TRYING TO DO.
THE COURT: NO. I NEED TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, TOO, MR.
COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE SORT OF GOTTEN FAR AFIELD ON
SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS HERE.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A RECESS.
(PROCEEDINGS IN CAMERA CONCLUDED.)
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
MR. COCHRAN, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENT
ON THE --
MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD ASK, YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT
ALLOW DEAN UELMEN TO MAKE THAT FOR ME AT THIS POINT?
THE COURT: WE ARE IN MID-SENTENCE IN YOUR ARGUMENT,
COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: WE WERE, BUT I WOULD ASK IF HE COULD MAKE IT
BECAUSE IT TIES IN WITH THE --
THE COURT: NO, I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU CONCLUDE THE --
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR, FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY.
WHAT I WANTED TO INDICATE TO THE COURT, AND I WILL DO
IT AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE, IS THAT I BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUE MR.
DARDEN OPENED THE DOOR WHEN THE TESTIMONY WAS ELICITED ABOUT A
COVER-UP.
FURTHER, I THINK IF -- I THINK YOU HAVE TO, FIRST OF
ALL, LOOK AT THE THRUST OF THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE IMPRESSION THEY GAVE TO THIS JURY WAS THAT MISS
MC KINNY WAS IN SOME WAY TRYING TO PROFIT FROM THESE TAPES,
PROFIT FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS, AND NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH.
I NEED HARDLY REMIND THIS COURT THAT WE GOT YOUR
HONOR TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THAT I WENT TO NORTH CAROLINA AND WE
WERE REBUFFED AT THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE COMPARABLE COURT, THE
SUPERIOR COURT. WE HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY TO NORTH CAROLINA COURT
OF APPEALS.
AND THESE LAWYERS, MESSERS. REGWAN AND SCHWARTZ, DID
AN EXCELLENT JOB IN FIGHTING US TO GET THIS. SHE RESISTED COMING
TO CALIFORNIA. WHEN SHE FINALLY GOT HERE AUGUST 1, YOU SAW THE
PROBLEMS WE HAD EVEN GETTING THE TAPES THEN.
THE COURT: I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY. IS THAT WHERE
YOU ARE WITH --
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR CLEARLY TO
THAT.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION TO THAT
-- SO THAT IS THE IMPRESSION THEY GIVE TO THIS JURY. SHE DOESN'T
WANT TO BE OUT HERE. SHE DIDN'T FAVOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT WHEN WE WERE IN COURT THAT DAY
-- I WILL GET TO THE POINT -- MR. SIMPSON, YOU WILL RECALL --
USUALLY I'M SITTING NEXT TO HIM WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: I KNOW, I CAN HEAR MOST OF IT.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT WHEN WE ARGUED ABOUT THE TAPES
BELONGING TO THE DEFENSE OR AT LEAST WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IT, SHE
WENT DOWN THAT SAME DAY AND GAVE A COPY TO THE PROSECUTION. SHE
INTERVIEWED WITH HIM FOR HOURS. THAT IS WHY SHE WAS SO TAKEN
ABACK ABOUT WHAT SHE PERCEIVED AS NEGATIVITY.
YOU LAST WEEK, YOUR HONOR -- I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE TO
BE QUOTED, BUT THIS IS A TIME I THINK I CAN QUOTE YOU
APPROPRIATELY -- BUT YOU SAID LAST WEEK THAT IT WAS CLEAR --
AFTER LISTENING TO THE TAPES IT WAS CLEAR THAT FUHRMAN WASN'T
DESCRIBING A FICTIONAL CHARACTER BUT DESCRIBING HIS POINT OF
VIEW.
I MEAN EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD KNOWS NOW, IF THAT IS
TRUE, THESE TAPES ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING
TO MAKE IT, NOT LIKE SHE IS TRYING TO EMBELLISH THIS. SHE AGAIN
THROWS OUT WITH MICHAEL VINER A NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT IS TO
TEST THE WATER. VINER OR HIS OFFICE NEVER EVER SAW THESE TAPES
OR TRANSCRIPTS. THAT SHOULD BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
I CAN BRING THAT OUT ALSO. THE LAWYERS FELT IT WAS
NOT MALPRACTICE NOT TO KNOW THE OVERALL VALUE OF THESE THINGS.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, LET ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE HERE.
THE ISSUE THAT I WAS CONCERNED WITH -- I AGREE WITH
YOU THAT IT IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE REDIRECT TO GO BACK AND
DISCUSS THE PROCEDURAL FIGHT TO GET THOSE TAPES AND THAT MISS MC
KINNY RESISTED ALL THE WAY TO THE APPELLATE COURTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA, AND THAT ONCE SHE WAS COMPELLED TO COME HERE TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THEN SHE COOPERATED WITH BOTH SIDES.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: I COULD PROBABLY DO THAT IN FIVE QUESTIONS.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE COURT: THE SECOND ISSUE --
MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.
THE COURT: THE ISSUE ABOUT SELLING THE TAPES OR I'M SURE
MISS MC KINNY HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH HER
LAWYERS THE FACT THAT THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS WERE NEVER
TRANSMITTED TO DOVE AUDIO OR TO ANYBODY ELSE FOR COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION PURPOSES, THAT IS FAIR GAME, BECAUSE THAT IS AN
ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WAS OUR LAST
SIDE BAR.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR.
I THINK THAT CLEARLY WHEN MR. DARDEN GOT THE ANSWER
ABOUT A COVER-UP OR COVER-UPS HE THEN WENT BACK, AS HE INDICATED,
TO TRY AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE, HIS OWN WORDS, AND WHAT HE DID WAS
TRY TO ELICIT FROM HER, WELL, YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHEN
YOU TALKED ABOUT COVER-UP THE LAPD COVERING UP MEN AGAINST WOMEN
AND THAT SORT OF THING.
THAT IS NOT CORRECT AT ALL.
AND THIS WITNESS WILL SAY, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THAT
FIRST OF ALL, THERE WERE MANY COVER-UPS, AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE
TAPES. THERE WERE COVER-UPS IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN OFFICERS
WOULD GO OUT AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST
ANYBODY AND TEAR UP THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE. THERE WAS COVER-UPS
IN MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE ALL THROUGHOUT.
BUT SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO MEN AGAINST WOMEN,
AND THE INSTANCE YOU WILL RECALL --
THE COURT: I THINK -- MY RECOLLECTION OF MISS MC KINNY'S
TRANSCRIPTS IS WHICH SHE TALKS ABOUT COVER-UPS, SHE TALKED ABOUT
IT IN TERMS -- SHE USED THE TERM COVER-UP IN THE TERMS OF AN
INCIDENT OF POLICE MISCONDUCT HAVING OCCURRED AND THEN THERE
BEING A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE OFFICER --
MR. COCHRAN: CODE OF SILENCE.
THE COURT: -- BY THE OFFICER INVOLVED TO MAKE SURE THAT
NOBODY WAS DISCIPLINED.
FOR EXAMPLE, MY RECOLLECTION OF THE PLOT WAS THAT ONE
OF THE FEMALE OFFICERS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ARRESTED SOMEBODY,
THEN THE TRANSPORTING OFFICERS THEN BEAT THE ARRESTEE OUT OF HER
PRESENCE.
MR. COCHRAN: RUPTURED HIS SPLEEN.
THE COURT: RUPTURES HIS SPLEEN WITH THE BATONS AND THEN
SHE COME IN AND SAYS, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHO
TRANSPORTED, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND BECOMES PART OF IT.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF HER DISCUSSION OF
COVER-UPS.
MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. WELL, YOU ARE RIGHT ON WITH REGARD TO
THAT.
IT IS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT HE HAS ELICITED, AND
CLEARLY HE HAS OPENED THE DOOR ON IT. IT IS ABOUT A COVER-UP
WHERE TO BE ONE OF THE BOYS THIS FEMALE THEN COVERS UP THE DEATH
OF A SUSPECT WHOM SHE HAS CHOKED OUT, BUT SHE DOESN'T KILL THE
SUSPECT. THE SUSPECT IS KILLED BY THESE OTHER MALE OFFICERS WHO
BEAT THIS PERSON TO DEATH BY RUPTURING HIS SPLEEN.
ACTUALLY, THAT IS NOT FICTIONAL, BY THE WAY, AS THIS
COMMUNITY IS GOING TO FIND OUT.
THE OTHER ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IS THIS:
THAT SHE TALKS ABOUT OTHER COVER-UPS ALSO. I MEAN,
SHE TALKS ABOUT COVER-UPS ALL THE WAY THROUGH, SO I'M SAYING YOU
CAN'T JUST LIMIT IT TO THIS INSTANCE OF THE MEN AGAINST WOMEN
SITUATION. THEY OPENED THE DOOR.
THE COURT: WHICH HENCE BRINGS ME TO MY QUESTION, WHERE ARE
YOU GOING? WHAT SPECIFIC INSTANCES ARE YOU GOING TO?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO -- LET ME TELL YOU THE
QUESTION I WOULD LIKE, YOUR HONOR, SPECIFICALLY.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU
SAID COVER-UP? AND I THINK SHE WILL THEN TELL US ABOUT THESE IN
THE MEN AGAINST WOMEN CONTEXT, BUT ALSO IN THE OTHER CONTEST
WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TALKED ABOUT COVERING UP.
AND THE COURT CAN ASK HER. I'M NOT TESTIFYING. SHE
WOULD BE THE ONE SO INDICATING. AND I THINK WE ARE PERMITTED TO
GO AFTER THAT.
AND THE FINAL THING I WILL SAY ON THIS WAS I THINK
THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEIR ATTACK
ON THIS WITNESS, THIS UNNECESSARY NEEDLESS ATTACK, AND YOU TOLD
THEM ABOUT NOT GOING INTO THIS, AND YET THEY DID IT, WHEN THEY
DID THAT THEY OPENED THE DOOR TO THESE TAPES.
AND I THINK WE WOULD GET A CHANCE TO DO THAT. YOUR
HONOR, FOR INSTANCE, MR. DARDEN'S QUESTIONS ABOUT AS THOUGH SHE
WAS EGGING FUHRMAN ON USING RACIAL EPITHETS OR YOU DIDN'T TRY TO
STOP HIM OR WHATEVER, THAT IS ALMOST WHEN THEY WOULD IN
ROOTS -- AND THEY USED THE "N" WORD IN ROOTS, THAT YOU COULDN'T
TALK ABOUT RACISM.
THIS PLAY IS ABOUT SEXISM. THIS LADY IS OPPOSED TO
SEXISM. IN LITERARY CIRCLES, IN ART, THAT IS HOW YOU ADDRESS
THINGS SO PEOPLE START TO DISCUSS IT AND MAYBE BRING ABOUT
CHANGES. YOU DON'T BUY INTO IT NECESSARILY SO.
NOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE, THIS DOOR HAS BEEN
OPENED, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO THIS,
AND THAT IS WHY, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT TO THE
COURT.
CERTAINLY YOU CLEARED THE FIRST PART OF IT, BUT I
THINK THE REST OF IT IS ALSO CLEAR, YOUR HONOR.
I'M BEING HANDED SOMETHING. MAY I READ SOMETHING TO
THE COURT MY COUNSEL JUST SHARED WITH ME, YOUR HONOR?
THIS HAS TO DO WITH -- LET ME JUST READ THIS AND I
THINK IT PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT LYING AND COVERING UP.
THIS IS DESCRIBING -- THERE WAS OUR
NO. 10 DESCRIBING THE NECESSITY OF POLICE OFFICERS TO BE WILLING
TO LIE.
"WELL, I REALLY LOVE BEING A POLICEMAN WHEN I CAN
BE A POLICEMAN. IT IS LIKE MY PARTNER NOW. HE IS SO HUNG UP
WITH THE RULES AND STUFF" --
THE COURT: "HE HAS MORE MORALS THAN HE HAS GOT HAIR."
MR. COCHRAN: REMEMBER THAT?
"YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING EVEN UNDERSTAND. THE JOB
IS NOT RULES. THIS IS A FEELING. FUCK THE RULES. WE WILL MAKE
THEM UP LATER. HE'S A COLLEGE GRADUATE, AS YOU KNOW, A CATHOLIC
COLLEGE," ET CETERA. "HE WAS GOING TO BE A PRIEST," ET CETERA,
"AND HE HAS GOT MORE MORALS THAN HE HAS GOT HAIR.
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE HAS GOT MORE MORALS?"
"HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BE A POLICEMAN, ESPECIALLY CAN'T
LIE. OH, YOU MAKE ME FUCKING SICK TO MY GUTS. YOU KNOW, YOU DO
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO PUT THESE FUCKING ASSHOLES IN JAIL. IF
YOU DON'T, YOU FUCKIN' GET OUT THE FUCKIN' GAME. HE JUST WANTS
TO BE ONE OF THE BOYS. HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY -- PAY THE DUES,
SO HOW DOES HE DEAL WITH IT? HE DOESN'T LIE. WELL, I KNOW FOR A
FACT IN THIS INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION HE HAS A 10-DAY
SUSPENSION, HE WILL ROLL."
HE GOES ON TO SAY:
"HE WILL DROP A DIME ON ME. HE WILL SQUEAL."
NOW, JUDGE, THAT IS COVER-UP AND THAT IS ANOTHER
COVER-UP, AND CLEARLY I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT IS THE
POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE. WE ARE NOW PERMITTED TO AT LEAST
PLAY THIS TO THE JURY, TO AT LEAST ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. HE
CAN'T TALK ABOUT COVER-UPS AND THEN TRY TO PUT IT ON THIS WILL
LITTLE TINY FRAME, THAT HE WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT MEN AGAINST
WOMEN, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR.
WE CAN CLEAR THAT UP PLUS SHOW, I THINK AS A
REPRESENTATION TO THIS COURT, THAT THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES OF
COVER-UP AND THEY OPENED THE DOOR. YOU RULED, WE ALL UNDERSTOOD
THAT, BUT THEY OPENED THE DOOR, JUDGE.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO ALLOW TO US DO THIS AND LET'S
GET IT OVER WITH SO WE CAN FINISH OUR CASE.
THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DARDEN: CAN I RESPOND?
MR. COCHRAN: ALSO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT
WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING IS COVER-UPS E PROBABLE CAUSE, LYING
TO TRY AND PUT TOGETHER PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER
ISSUE, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY GERMANE THING.
WE HAVE SAT OVER THERE. IT HAS NOW HAPPENED AND IT
SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO THIS, JUDGE.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IN 10:14 AND 44 SECONDS I ASKED
THIS QUESTION:
"WHEN MARK FUHRMAN USED THESE WORDS IN YOUR
PRESENCE WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL HIM TO STOP?"
AND AFTER AN OBJECTION MISS MC KINNY VOLUNTEERED:
"FOR THE SAME REASON I DIDN'T TELL HIM TO STOP WHEN HE TOLD
ME OF POLICE PROCEDURES, COVER-UPS AND OTHER INFORMATION" AND SO
AN AND SO ON.
SO I DIDN'T INVITE THIS WITNESS TO BRING COVER -- THE
TERM "COVER-UPS" INTO THESE PROCEEDINGS IN HER TESTIMONY, JUDGE.
I ASKED HER ABOUT A SPECIFIC WORD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
SPECIFIC EPITHET. BUT SHE BROUGHT IT IN.
AND YES, I DID ATTEMPT TO REPAIR SOME OF THE DAMAGE
AND SO NOW THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS NOW THAT THE WITNESS HAS
VOLUNTEERED THIS, DOES THAT NOW ALLOW COUNSEL -- AND BY THE WAY,
MISS MC KINNY IS HIS WITNESS, NOT THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS --
DOES THAT NOW ALLOW COUNSEL TO DRAG IN MORE INFLAMMATORY AND
IRRELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THIS JURY?
I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR. I
DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE AT ALL.
AND WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW THE WITNESS WAS AN
EXCERPT FROM A TRANSCRIPT OF A CONVERSATION SHE AND I HAD ON
AUGUST 17TH IN MY OFFICE, AND IF I COULD JUST READ INTO THE
RECORD BRIEFLY WHAT THAT EXCERPT SAYS, AND THIS IS MISS MC KINNY
AT PAGE 5, LINE 19:
"HE EXPRESSED VERY STRONGLY THAT IT WOULD BE
WONDERFUL IF SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A STORY FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW,
>FROM THE MEN'S POINT OF VIEW, ABOUT WHY WOMEN WEREN'T SUCCEEDING
IN THOSE AREAS AND WHAT THEY COULDN'T DO AND WHAT KIND OF
COVER-UPS WERE OCCURRING IN TERMS OF THAT AND THAT INTERESTED
ME."
OKAY.
SO EVEN MY SUBSEQUENT FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS WERE
DIRECTED TO MARK FUHRMAN'S BELIEF THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS
COVERING UP THE FACT THAT FEMALE OFFICERS DID NOT PERFORM WELL IN
VIOLENT SITUATIONS.
OKAY. I WASN'T GETTING INTO ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.
AND YOU KNOW, MARK FUHRMAN DID DISCUSS OTHER KIND OF COVER-UPS
AND OTHER ISSUES LIKE THAT IN HIS TAPED INTERVIEWS WITH MISS MC
KINNY AND I CONCEDE THAT AND WE HAVE CONCEDED ALL OF THIS ALL
ALONG, BUT MY POINT TODAY IS THIS:
WELL, IT IS A PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.
WELL, IN ANY EVENT I DON'T THINK THIS OPENS THE DOOR
TO ANY OF THIS. I THINK IT IS TIME TO TAKE CONTROL AGAIN OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS AND LET'S MOVE ALONG WITH THE ISSUES THAT ARE
RELEVANT.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: BRIEFLY.
MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THIS, YOUR HONOR, IS ABOUT THEIR ATTACK ON HER
CREDIBILITY AND THE COURT HAS SAID MANY TIMES, BEEN VERY
CONCERNED MANY TIMES ABOUT LEAVING AN UNFAIR AND MISLEADING
IMPRESSION UPON THIS JURY.
YOU TOLD THE PROSECUTION LAST WEEK HOW THEY SHOULD
CONDUCT THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. WHAT MR. DARDEN DID WAS HE ASKED
THE FAMOUS "WHY" QUESTIONED.
THE COURT: I OFFERED THEM SOME ADVICE.
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, AND I DIDN'T MEAN --
THE COURT: AS I OFTENTIMES OFFER YOU ADVICE.
MR. COCHRAN: BOTH SIDES, YES, BUT YOU MADE A SUGGESTION.
THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT.
THEY ASKED THE WHY QUESTION. THIS ANSWER THAT HE GOT
AND THEN HE WENT INTO IT FURTHER IN COVER-UP, AND WHEN HE DOES
THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT, AND IT IS WRONG AND THEY
ATTACKED HER CREDIBILITY, JUDGE.
AND YOU HAVE HEARD THOSE TAPES AND THAT IS UNFAIR.
THAT IS A MISLEADING IMPRESSION TO THIS JURY AND THEY ARE USING
YOUR RULING AS A SHIELD. USING THE SHIELD AS A SWORD AGAINST US
AND AGAINST MR. SIMPSON SPECIFICALLY.
AND SO THAT IS NOT RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE A
RIGHT, IT SEEMS TO ME, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PLUMB THIS
AREA, TO HIM BRING OUT WHAT YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA,
AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BELABOR IT BUT WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT.
THEY OPENED THE DOOR. I MEAN, THIS ISN'T ANYTHING WE
DID. AND WE DID OUR EXAMINATION AND SAT DOWN. WE ARE BACK UP
HERE NOW BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THEY DID AND I THINK WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO DO THAT.
AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TRUTH WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO DO THAT ALSO.
ALSO IN THE INTERESTS OF A LADY WHO FOUGHT GETTING
OUT HERE, TO MALIGN HER IN FRONT OF THIS JURY AND GIVE THAT WRONG
IMPRESSION IS NOT RIGHT, SO I THINK THE COURT WOULD WANT TO ALLOW
TO US STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT ON EACH OF THESE AREAS AND POINT OUT
THERE IS MORE TO THIS COVER-UP REGARDING MEN AGAINST WOMEN BUT
ALSO THERE ARE OTHER COVER-UPS THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND WHEN YOU ASK "WHY" QUESTIONS YOU GET THOSE
ANSWERS, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THE THING. THAT IS THE POINT
THAT COME ABOUT AND I THINK THAT THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR IN THIS
REGARD AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO RULE AND ALLOW TO US DO IT
AND WE WILL BE -- I WILL BE -- YOU SAID FIVE QUESTIONS. WE WILL
BE VERY QUICK. I WILL TRY TO DO THE WHOLE THING IN TEN OR
FIFTEEN QUESTIONS. IN FACT, I WILL TAKE YOUR ADVICE IF YOU WANT
TO GIVE ME SOME OF THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT.
AS TO THE QUESTION REGARDING THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
AS TO HOW THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS GOT TO CALIFORNIA AND THE
FACT THAT MISS MC KINNY DID RESIST THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURTS
IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS, THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE LINE OF
QUESTIONING.
AS TO THE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING DOVE AUDIO AND THE
NATURE OF THAT AGREEMENT, THAT IS APPROPRIATE REDIRECT
EXAMINATION BASED UPON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
AS TO THE MENTION OF COVER-UPS, THE PROBLEM I HAVE
HERE IS THAT THE ANSWER WHERE MISS MC KINNY MENTIONS COVER-UPS
WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER.
THE QUESTION WAS CONCERNING TOLERATING THE USE OF THE
"N" WORD OR AT LEAST NOT MENTIONING IT IN RESPONSE TO THE -- NOT
MAKING ANY MENTION IN RESPONSE TO THE USE AND THEN ADDING
GRATUITOUSLY THE ISSUE REGARDING COVER-UPS.
HOWEVER IT IS PHRASED IN THE CONTEXT OF A SPECIFIC
STATEMENT BY MISS MC KINNY MADE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, THAT
STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE.
MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY RECROSS -- EXCUSE
ME -- REDIRECT YOUR EXAMINATION AS TO THAT STATEMENT MADE TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
ALL RIGHT. BUT THAT IS THE LIMITATION.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THAT I'M CLEAR, I CAN PLUMB THAT
PARTICULAR AREA AS TO WHAT YOU MEANT BY "COVER-UP" IN THAT AREA;
IS THAT RIGHT?
THE COURT: THAT PARTICULAR AREA ABOUT MEN AGAINST WOMEN,
INADEQUACY OF WOMAN POLICE OFFICERS --
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: -- ALLEGED.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS MC KINNY, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
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.
AND MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR REDIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING,
MS. MC KINNY.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN.
Q IF I MAY CONTINUE, MISS MC KINNY, YOU HAD SHARED WITH
US, IN FACT I THINK ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN OUT HERE SINCE JULY 13TH.
WAS THAT CORRECT? WAS IT JULY 13TH?
A NO, IT WAS INCORRECT.
Q WHAT IS THE CORRECT DATE?
A AUGUST 13TH.
Q IT MAY JUST SEEM LIKE JULY 13TH, IS THAT IT, BUT YOU
HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE AUGUST 13TH?
A IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME.
Q IS YOUR FAMILY HERE WITH YOU?
A YES, MY HUSBAND AND BOYS ARE HERE.
Q NOW, MA'AM, WITH REGARD TO YOUR COMING TO CALIFORNIA,
DID YOU VOLUNTARILY COME OUT HERE AND BRING YOUR TAPES AND
TRANSCRIPTS OUT HERE SO YOU COULD COME TO CALIFORNIA AND TESTIFY?
A NO, SIR, I WAS SUBPOENAED BY THE COURT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU WERE SUBPOENAED BY A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY
JUDGE ITO AND THIS COURT, DID YOU RESIST AND FIGHT THAT SUBPOENA?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHAT YOU DID TO FIGHT
THAT SUBPOENA.
A I HIRED MR. REGWAN AND MR. SCHWARTZ AND THEY --
Q THE TWO GENTLEMEN SEATED THERE?
A THE TWO GENTLEMEN SEATED THERE, AND THEY FLEW TO
NORTH CAROLINA AND FOUGHT THE SUBPOENA IN COURT THERE WITH MR.
COCHRAN AND MR. BAILEY.
Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU FIRST MET ME IN NORTH CAROLINA
ABOUT A MONTH AGO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU FOUGHT THIS SUBPOENA AT THAT TIME; ISN'T THAT
CORRECT? WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA?
A YES.
Q IN FACT, YOU WON IN THE INITIAL HEARING; ISN'T THAT
CORRECT?
A MY ATTORNEYS DID AS WELL AS A LOCAL FIRM WITH WHOM
THEY WERE WORKING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THEREAFTER --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN. I THINK THERE IS --
THERE IS AN IMPRESSION HERE, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE IN NORTH
CAROLINA, I THINK NEEDS TO
BE -- NEED OR MADE CLEAR TO THE JURY THAT YOU WERE ON ONE SIDE
AND MR. REGWAN AND MR. SCHWARTZ WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE AT THAT
TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
Q WHEN WE WERE IN WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA, ON A
FRIDAY MORNING YOU HAD YOUR TWO FINE LAWYERS, MESSERS. REGWAN AND
SCHWARTZ, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT LOCAL COUNSEL THERE IN WINSTON SALEM, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS MYSELF, MR. BAILEY AND OUR
LOCAL NORTH CAROLINA COUNSEL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE IN NORTH CAROLINA
RULED FOR YOU SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME TO CALIFORNIA; ISN'T
THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THEN WE CONTINUED TO FIGHT THIS MATTER AND IT WENT UP
TO THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND THAT IS WHERE WE WON AT THAT POINT; IS THAT
RIGHT? BY "WE" I MEAN MR. SIMPSON'S SIDE WON AT THAT POINT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND I PRESUME NOBODY WAS REIMBURSING YOU FOR THE
MONEY YOU WERE SPENDING? LAWYERS AREN'T FREE, ARE THEY?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOBODY WAS -- IN OTHER WORDS, NOBODY
WAS HELPING YOU PAY FOR THESE LAWYERS YOU HAD BACK THERE, WERE
YOU?
A NO.
Q AND AT SOME POINT WHEN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF
APPEALS UPHELD JUDGE ITO'S SUBPOENA, YOU THEN AGREED TO COME TO
CALIFORNIA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD A CHOICE. CERTAINLY I WOULD.
Q WHEN THE FINAL COURT RULED YOU THEN CAME TO
CALIFORNIA; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS ONLY AFTER THEN WHEN YOU PRODUCED AND
DELIVERED THESE TAPES; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND ONCE YOU CAME TO CALIFORNIA WITH THESE TAPES AND
THESE TRANSCRIPTS, THE SAME DATE THAT YOU DELIVERED THEM TO THE
DEFENSE, MR. SIMPSON, YOU ALSO DELIVERED THEM TO THE PROSECUTION
ON THAT SAME DATE, DID YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU TRIED TO COOPERATE WITH THEM, DIDN'T YOU?
A I HAVE WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE COURT, THE
PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE, YES.
Q IN FACT, MR. DARDEN ASKED YOU IF YOU CAME TO
CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 13TH.
IT WAS AUGUST 17TH AS HE ASKED THAT YOU CAME DOWN IN
THIS BUILDING IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE AND MET WITH ALL THE D.A.'S
AND TALKED WITH THEM; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND IN THAT MEETING THEY TAPE-RECORDED EVERYTHING YOU
HAD TO SAY, DIDN'T THEY?
A THEY DID.
Q AND YOU ALSO GAVE THEM A COPY OF YOUR SCREENPLAY,
DIDN'T YOU?
A YES, I DID.
Q YOU COOPERATED FULLY, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR WORK AS A SCREENWRITER, ALSO
YOU DESCRIBED FOR MR. DARDEN THAT YOU HAD WON AN AWARD AT SOME
TIME IN THE PAST THROUGH THE WRITER'S GUILD OF AMERICA.
TELL THE JURY ABOUT THAT AWARD AND WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS A CASH STIPEND THAT WENT ALONG WITH THAT AWARD.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER.
A YES. IT WAS AN AWARD I WON IN 1984 THROUGH THE
WRITER'S GUILD OF AMERICA EAST FOUNDATION, SO IT WAS A
COMPETITIVE AWARD FOR SCREENPLAYS AND THERE WAS A CASH STIPEND,
AND ALONG WITH THAT A REQUEST THAT YOU WRITE ANOTHER SCREENPLAY
WITH A MENTOR OF YOUR CHOICE.
THE CASH STIPEND I USED TO PURCHASE A COMPUTER AND MY
LAPTOP.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE DONE OTHER SCREENPLAYS IN ADDITION TO THIS
ONE MEN AGAINST WOMEN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, YOU SHARED WITH US AND THIS JURY THAT THE
PREMISE OF MEN AGAINST WOMEN IS SEXISM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND ARE YOU OPPOSED TO SEXISM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YET YOU WRITE A PLAY ABOUT SEXISM,
RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY WHY AS A WRITER
YOU WRITE A PLAY ABOUT SEXISM?
A IT WAS A TOPIC I WANTED TO EXPLORE FROM THE MAN'S
POINT OF VIEW AND THE WOMAN'S POINT OF VIEW TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND
BETTER WHY SOME MEN WOULD BE SO UPSET BY WHAT THEY FELT AS THE
INCAPABLE ABILITIES (SIC) IN SOME AREAS OF HIGH CRIME THAT THEY
WOULD FORM AN ORGANIZATION CALLED MEN AGAINST WOMEN AND BE A PART
OF THAT AND WHY SOME WOMEN WOULD BE UPSET WITH SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT MEN WERE DOING IN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO PERFORM
THEIR JOBS, EMBARRASSING THEM OR HUMILIATING THEM.
SO I WANTED TO TRY TO HAVE -- TO EXPLORE THOSE ISSUES
AND -- AND DEVELOP SOME KIND OF A DIALOGUE OR DISCUSSION.
Q NOW, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION BEFORE WITH REGARD TO THE
WHOLE CONCEPT OF RACISM AND WRITINGS REGARDING RACISM.
DURING THE TIME THAT YOU -- 1985, WHEN YOU FIRST
ENCOUNTERED THIS MAN, MARK FUHRMAN, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR US I
BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED AT UCLA WORKING WITH TERRY
DONOHUE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I WAS EMPLOYED AT UCLA WORKING UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
COACH TERRY DONOHUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COLLEGE OF LETTERS
AND SCIENCES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN THAT CONNECTION DID YOU WORK FREQUENTLY WITH
AFRICAN AMERICAN ATHLETES?
A YES, I DID.
Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT WHAT YOU DID DURING
THAT TIME, AND THE JURY.
A THE -- SORRY. THE NAA -- THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION --
SORRY.
Q NAACP?
A NO, NOT THE NAACP.
THE COURT: NCAA?
THE WITNESS: YES, NCAA.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS.
A YES.
Q NCAA?
A HAD DEMANDED THAT ATHLETES BE STUDYING COURSES IN
THEIR FIELD OF EXPERTISE AND NOT TAKING ANY CLASS, SO IT WAS
INCUMBENT UPON THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT DURING THAT PERIOD TO HIRE
EDUCATORS WHO THEY FELT WOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WITH ATHLETES,
HIGH-RISK ATHLETES, ATHLETES THEY FELT MIGHT NEED EXTRA
COUNSELING, EXTRA TUTORIAL TIME AND UNDERSTANDING TIME MANAGEMENT
AND STUDY SKILLS.
SO THEY HIRED -- THEY WOULD HIRE SOMEONE SUCH AS
MYSELF TO WORK WITH WHAT THEY CALLED HIGH-RISK ATHLETES AND THAT
IS WHAT I DID DURING THAT TIME.
Q AND WOULD SOME OF THESE HIGH-RISK ATHLETES BE AFRICAN
AMERICAN YOUNGSTERS?
A IN THE BEGINNING THEY WERE, YES.
Q AND DID YOU INTERACT WITH THEM ON A DAILY BASIS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU ENJOY THAT WORK?
A YES, VERY MUCH.
Q YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT A DOCUMENT THAT
MR. DARDEN MARKED AND AT THE TOP OF IT IS CALLED "NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT."
MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT IS, MISS MC KINNY, GENERALLY?
A GENERALLY I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS IT?
A I HAVE JUST RECENTLY LEARNED WHAT A NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT IS.
UMM, IT IS AN AGREEMENT THAT YOU WOULD GIVE TO
ANOTHER PARTY AND WHAT IT DOES IS ASK THEM NOT TO DISCUSS THE
MATERIAL, NOT TO SHOW THE MATERIAL, NOT TO COPY THE MATERIAL.
THEY CANNOT DISCLOSE OR TALK ABOUT THE PRODUCT OR THE MATERIAL TO
ANYONE ELSE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IS THAT ACCURATE?
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
Q I THINK SO.
AS I UNDERSTAND THE LETTER THAT IS
PLACED BEFORE YOU, AUGUST 18, 1995, FROM MR. MICHAEL VINER --
ADDRESS TO MICHAEL VINER TO YOUR LAWYERS, YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THAT
BEFORE MR. DARDEN SHOWED IT TO YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO SINCE YOU CAME TO CALIFORNIA, HAVE
YOU AT ANY TIME EVER AUTHORIZED ANYONE TO TRY AND SELL THESE
TAPES OR SCREENPLAY -- STRIKE THAT -- THESE TAPES OR
TRANSCRIPTIONS?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR LAWYERS, DID THEY AT SOME
POINT TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD BE MALPRACTICE IF THEY DIDN'T TRY
TO FIND OUT FOR YOU WHAT THE VALUE OF THESE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS
ARE WORTH?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DID THEY TELL YOU THAT?
A YES, THEY DID.
Q DID THEY TRY TO FIND OUT THE VALUE OF THESE TAPES AND
TRANSCRIPTIONS?
A YES.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU NEED TO STAND THERE,
BECAUSE YOU ARE BLOCKING JUROR NO. 7?
MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, EVEN THOUGH YOU NOW FOUND
OUT THE VALUE OF THESE ITEMS, AND I WON'T ASK YOU WHAT THE VALUE
IS, YOU STILL HAVE NOT TRIED TO SELL THESE, HAVE YOU?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q WHAT YOU DO WANT TO SELL IS YOUR SCREENPLAY MEN
AGAINST WOMEN; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A YES, THAT WOULD BE LOVELY.
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, MA'AM, YOU MENTIONED, IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MR.
DARDEN'S QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC COVER-UP AS RELATES MEN AGAINST
WOMEN -- AND I WANT TO ASK YOU IN THAT REGARD WHAT DID YOU MEAN
WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT COVER-UP AS RELATES TO MEN AGAINST WOMEN IN
THIS SCREENPLAY THAT YOU ULTIMATELY WROTE?
WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
A YES.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS DISCOVERING THAT SOME
WOMEN WERE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME BEING ACCEPTED INTO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT IN CERTAIN MALE CIRCLES --
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS TIME.
PARDON ME. I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS TIME. IT IS
NONRESPONSIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: IT IS RESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY CONTINUE.
A IN CERTAIN CIRCLES OFFICERS DIDN'T TRUST THEIR
CONFIDENCE OR THEIR ABILITY --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU CONTINUE AND TELL US -- CAN
YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IT IS TURNING INTO A NARRATIVE.
WHY DON'T YOU ASK HER THE NEXT QUESTION, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
Q WHEN YOU -- MR. DARDEN ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS COVER-UP
AS RELATES MEN AGAINST WOMEN, CAN YOU SUCCINCTLY STATE FOR THIS
JURY WHAT YOU MEANT AND WHAT YOU HAD REFERENCE TO?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT
QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: SOME WOMEN ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT
WILLING TO FOLLOW --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY, MAY WE
APPROACH?
THE COURT: NO. OVERRULED.
ANSWER THE QUESTION, MISS MC KINNY, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: SOME WOMEN ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT
WILLING TO ADHERE TO SOME OF THE COVER-UPS THAT MEN WERE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, 352.
THE COURT: ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU SAID THAT SOME WOMEN ON
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT WILLING TO ADHERE --
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH, PLEASE?
THE COURT: THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC, COUNSEL.
LET'S REDIRECT BACK INTO THAT TOPIC.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
Q WITH REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT OF COVER-UP, CAN YOU TELL
US WHAT YOU HAD REFERENCE TO SPECIFICALLY IN THE AREA THAT MR.
DARDEN ASKED YOU ABOUT COVER-UPS AS RELATES WOMEN AND MEN ON THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION IS VAGUE. 352.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MISS MC KINNY, WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC
TOPIC ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT WOMEN AS POLICE OFFICERS IN
AREAS OF HIGH VIOLENCE OR HIGH CRIME, THE TOPIC OF YOUR BOOK.
THE WITNESS: RIGHT. THAT IS THE SEXISM ISSUE THAT RELATES
TO WHY WOMEN WERE UNABLE TO COVER-UP SOME ISSUES THE SAME WAY MEN
WERE AND IT IS RELATED. THEY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THEY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE.
SEXISM IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING INTO, BUT WHAT I FOUND OUT WAS --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: -- RELATED TO COVER-UPS, THAT MEN WERE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, JUDGE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I COULDN'T HEAR THE LAST ANSWER.
THE COURT: FINISH THE ANSWER.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: FINISH, PLEASE.
A SEXISM WAS THE ISSUE THAT INTERESTED ME, WHAT I WAS
LOOKING INTO, BUT WHAT I WAS FINDING WAS THAT --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CONCLUSION.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN SHE FINISH HER ANSWER?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WHAT I WAS FINDING WAS THAT SEXISM IS
INEXTRICABLY RELATED TO CERTAIN COVER-UPS THAT SOME MEN ON THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE DOING AND SOME WOMEN ARE NOT ABLE TO AGREE
WITH THAT OR FOLLOW ALONG THOSE LINES AND THAT WAS A HUGE SCHISM
BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND IN THAT CONNECTION CAN YOU GIVE
US LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS, OF THIS SCHISM BETWEEN MEN AGAINST
WOMEN WHERE -- AS A RESULT OF A COVER-UP?
MR. DARDEN: 352, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
WE'VE COVERED IT.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION IN THIS REGARD,
YOUR HONOR.
Q DID MARK FUHRMAN EVER EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WOULDN'T
TRUST A WOMAN IN THIS -- FROM THE STANDPOINT OF COVER-UP?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
IT IS NOT RELEVANT.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, MR. DARDEN ASKED YOU A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY YOU DIDN'T STOP
MARK FUHRMAN FROM USING THIS "N" WORD OR WHATEVER.
DO YOU RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS?
A YES.
Q AND IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND NOW AS YOU SIT
HERE THAT MARK FUHRMAN USED THIS HORRIBLE WORD 41 OR MORE TIMES
DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM? ANY DOUBT IN YOUR
MIND AT ALL?
MR. DARDEN: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THOSE WERE HIS WORDS COMING FROM
HIS MOUTH; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THOSE WEREN'T YOUR WORDS, WERE THEY?
A NO.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I CONCLUDE, MAY I APPROACH
JUST FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE?
THE COURT: WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE REASON I WANTED TO APPROACH IS I THINK WE SHOULD
BE PERMITTED TO PLAY -- THERE ARE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE TAPE
WHICH I THINK ARE NOW OPEN THAT DEAL WITH MEN AGAINST WOMEN.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE TELLING ME WE CAN FIND IT. THAT IS
FAIR, FROM THE QUESTION, AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
DEALING WITH MEN AGAINST WOMEN AND COVER-UPS.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IS IN THERE, I WOULD LIKE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO DELAY. I THINK WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO RULE -- THAT IF YOU DON'T RULE ALL OF IT, THEN
THAT PORTION THAT RELATES TO COVER-UPS, MEN AGAINST WOMEN, AND I
WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND IT AND
REVIEW IT AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO DO IT?
MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO TRY TO DO IT. SO WE DON'T DELAY
IT, I COULD PUT HODGE ON RIGHT AFTER THIS, AND IT IS GOING TO BE
VERY LIMITED, BY THE WAY, AND THEN COULD I BRING HER BACK IF I DO
FIND THAT, IF YOU WILL PERMIT US TO DO SO. WE CAN DO IT AND HAVE
OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO DO THAT.
MR. DARDEN: YOU ISSUED AN ORDER RELATED TO MC KINNY,
WRITTEN ORDER. YOU ISSUED AN ORDER TODAY REGARDING COVER-UPS.
NONE OF IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, NOT ONE IOTA IN NO MANNER, NO WAY,
NO HOW.
WHERE ARE WE GOING NOW? WHERE ARE WE GOING NOW? YOU
KNOW, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE RULES FOLLOWED BY BOTH SIDES SO
THAT COUNSEL KNOWS, YOU KNOW HOW, TO PLAN A CASE, HOW TO EXAMINE
WITNESSES.
ALL THESE RULES SEEM TO BE GETTING THROWN OUT THE
DOOR, JUDGE. YOU JUST LIMITED HIM SUPPOSEDLY TO A PASSAGE AND A
TRANSCRIPT, BUT NOW WE HAVE GONE INTO MARK FUHRMAN AND COVER-UPS
AND HOW MALE OFFICERS -- FEMALE OFFICERS WON'T COVER-UP FOR MALE
OFFICERS AND ALL THIS OTHER NONSENSE.
OKAY.
I MEAN, WHERE IS 352? OKAY?
NONE OF THIS HAS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE. IT IS -- SHUT
THIS DOWN AND GET THIS WITNESS OUT OF HERE. I MEAN, HAVE YOU
WATCHED THE JURY? HAVE YOU WATCHED THEIR FACES AS ALL THESE
EPITHETS ROLL OFF OF MR. BAILEY'S TONGUE AND MR. COCHRAN'S AND
EVERYBODY ELSE'S?
AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE
ARE NOT GETTING A FAIR TRIAL.
MS. CLARK: WE ARE THERE.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT?
THE COURT: NO. NO, YOU MAY NOT.
MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY, YOUR HONOR.
THIS IS NOTHING WE OPENED UP. THEY OPENED IT UP.
THE COURT: WELL, NO. MR. COCHRAN, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT
YOU DIDN'T OPEN IT UP. THAT WAS A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
THE COURT: NO. THE QUESTION TO MISS MC KINNY WAS DID YOU
STOP HIM FROM USING THE "N" WORD? AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY
THAT SHE GRATUITOUSLY TOSSES IN THIS COVER-UP STUFF.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WHEN YOU HAVE A "WHY" QUESTION, WHY
DIDN'T YOU STOP HIM, WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THIS, IT OPENS UP.
THE COURT: IT DOES.
MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU SAY WHY YOU DO SOMETHING, THAT
PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN TO IT.
THE COURT: JUST BECAUSE IT IS OPENED IT DOESN'T MEAN I
HAVE TO SPEND COURT TIME GOING INTO IT.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS MISINFORMING THE
JURY IN SOME TINY PASSAGE.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, EXCUSE ME. FORGIVE ME FOR
INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT THE REASON I'M DOING THAT, WHAT I'M GOING
TO SUGGEST WE DO IS FINISH YOUR REDIRECT THAT YOU HAVE NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE COURT: WE WILL HIT THE LUNCH HOUR SHORTLY, IN ANY
EVENT. OVER THE LUNCH HOUR YOU CAN FIND YOUR EXCERPT.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE COURT: I DON'T RECOLLECT THE PARTICULAR EXCERPT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT --
THE COURT: WE WILL LOOK AT IT. IF SHE IS STILL AVAILABLE,
IF IT IS AN APPROPRIATE SECTION, YOU CAN RECALL HER. IF NOT, WE
WILL MOVE ON.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
SO WE SAVE SOME TIME, I WILL SAY SOMETHING LIKE WHEN
I FINISH "NO FURTHER QUESTIONS."
IF THEY HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
TO THE NEXT WITNESS SO WE WON'T LOSE ANY TIME ON THAT, BUT I WILL
SAY "NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME" SO I WILL HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
MR. DARDEN: IF SHE RETURNS AFTER LUNCH I WILL IMPEACH HER
WITH HER LOVE LETTERS TO MARK FUHRMAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IF THEY HAVE GOT SOMETHING ELSE
--
MR. DARDEN: LET'S KEEP ON GOING WITH THIS. THIS IS
RIDICULOUS.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS HOW WE GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM, BY
ATTACKING HER.
MR. DARDEN: WE GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ARE
CHASING DOWN ISSUES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TRIAL.
IF MR. SIMPSON IS ACQUITTED JUST BECAUSE MARK FUHRMAN
UTTERED AN EPITHET, WELL, THEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUDGE.
MR. COCHRAN: IT WON'T BE BECAUSE OF THAT BECAUSE I WOULD
LIKE TO MOVE AHEAD IF I CAN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST TWO OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
Q WHEN YOU INDICATED THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAD USED THIS
WORD SOME 41 OR MORE TIMES, MUCH HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU
COUNT THEM YOURSELF FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS AND THE TAPES?
A NO, I DID NOT COUNT THEM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE SEEN THEM, HOWEVER, IN THE VARIOUS AND
SUNDRY DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THIS COURT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: LEADING.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY DOCUMENT FILED
WITH THIS COURT WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THAT WORD?
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I HAVE REVIEWED THE OFFER OF PROOF
SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENSE.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. DARDEN: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE COUNTED THOSE DOCUMENTS,
RIGHT?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
RECROSS.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q MISS MC KINNY, YOU TESTIFIED IN NORTH CAROLINA ON
JULY 30TH; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE. THAT SOUNDS CLOSE.
Q WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IF I SHOWED YOU A
TRANSCRIPT?
SORRY. THE DATE IS WRONG ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
IN ANY EVENT, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE
ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA THESE TAPES FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS ON JULY
14TH?
A AGAIN I DON'T --
Q ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE OBTAINED A COURT
ORDER FROM THE JUDGE ATTEMPTING TO SUBPOENA TO THIS COURT THESE
VERY SAME TAPES FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS ON JULY 14TH?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. ASSUMES
A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU AWARE THAT ON JULY 10TH THE
D.A.'S OFFICE ADDRESSED THE COURT AND ADVISED THE COURT OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THESE TAPES AND SOUGHT GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT IN
TERMS OF RECOVERING THESE TAPES?
A ON JULY 10TH?
Q YES.
A AGAIN, PLEASE, I'M --
Q YES.
A AND DID WHAT? COULD YOU SAY WHAT YOU DID AGAIN?
Q THAT WE WENT TO JUDGE ITO AND TOLD HIM THAT WE HEARD
OF THE EXISTENCE OF THESE TAPES AND WE ASKED THE COURT FOR
GUIDANCE AND HELP IN OBTAINING THESE TAPES AND CAUSING THEM TO BE
DELIVERED TO THE COURT?
A NO, I'M NOT -- I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT.
Q JUST SO IT IS CLEAR, WHEN WAS IT THAT
YOU AUTHORIZED YOUR ATTORNEYS TO CONTACT MEDIA ENTITIES --
ENTITIES TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. THERE IS NO TESTIMONY ABOUT MEDIA ENTITIES.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU AUTHORIZED YOUR
ATTORNEYS TO CONTACT ANY PERSON OR ANY ORGANIZATION OR ANY
BUSINESS OR CORPORATION?
A I DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC DATE THAT I AUTHORIZED MY
ATTORNEYS TO DO THAT.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHICH MONTH?
A WHICH MONTH?
Q YES.
A IT WOULD HAVE TO BE JULY OR AUGUST.
Q OKAY. WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONE?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q OKAY.
WAS THERE ANY CONTACT WITH THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. BY
WHOM, YOUR HONOR?
Q BY MR. DARDEN: BY YOUR ATTORNEYS?
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS CONTACT
THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER?
A I DON'T KNOW IF MY ATTORNEYS HAVE CONTACTED THE
NATIONAL ENQUIRER. THEY MAY HAVE. I DON'T KNOW.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS CONTACT MEDIA ENTITIES
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES?
A I DON'T KNOW. WE WERE -- WE WERE CONTACTED BY PEOPLE
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW, AND MY ATTORNEYS WOULD RELAY THAT INFORMATION
TO ME, SO I DON'T KNOW IF FOR INSTANCE THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER
WOULD HAVE CALLED MY ATTORNEYS OR WHO WOULD HAVE CONTACTED THEM.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
THE DEFENDANT.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q I PRESUME THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST
IN THESE TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS BY A LOT OF THE MEDIA; ISN'T THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT YOU HAVE REFUSED STEADFASTLY TO SELL THESE TAPES;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HAVE EVEN SENT SOME PORTIONS OF THESE TAPES
TO MR. MARK FUHRMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q BACK IN 1985 OR EARLIER?
A YES.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, YOUR HONOR.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q YOU SAID YOU SENT TAPES TO MARK FUHRMAN?
A EXCUSE ME THEN.
MR. COCHRAN: TRANSCRIPTION.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU SAID YOU SENT TAPES TO MR.
FUHRMAN?
A I SENT TRANSCRIPTS.
Q WITH REGARD TO THE TAPES AND THE TRANSCRIPT, WHO OWNS
THOSE TAPES OR TRANSCRIPTS, YOU OR MARK FUHRMAN?
A I ASSUME I OWN THEM. THEY ARE MY TAPES, MY
TRANSCRIPTS.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS ALL.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q YOUR LAWYERS AND YOU HAVE MADE THESE TAPES AND THESE
TRANSCRIPTS AVAILABLE TO MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS LAWYER; ISN'T THAT
CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A YES, AS WELL AS TO ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS ASKED.
Q OTHERS WHO HAVE ASKED CAN GO TO YOUR LAWYER'S OFFICE
AND LISTEN TO THESE THINGS?
A ANYONE WHO HAS STANDING; LAPD, YES.
Q ANYONE WHO HAS STANDING?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: JUST A FEW IF THE MAY.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q THE L.A. POLICE COMMISSION HAS COME OVER TO TAKE A
LISTEN TO THESE TAPES?
A MY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE
WHO HAS STANDING WHO HAS CALLED THE ATTORNEYS TO LISTEN TO THE
TAPES AND TAKE COPIOUS NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
THEY HAVE SPENT HOURS, DAYS THERE TAKING NOTES, BUT
THEY ARE UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH ONLY THE PROSECUTION AND THE
DEFENSE ACTUALLY HAVING COPIES OF THE TAPES OR THE TRANSCRIPTS.
Q OKAY.
AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HAVE
THEY BEEN THERE TO LISTEN TO THE TAPES YET?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q HAS THE FBI BEEN THERE YET?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q THEY WILL BE, WON'T THEY?
A I DON'T KNOW.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS ALL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS MC KINNY, AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO
BE EXCUSED; HOWEVER, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL.
ALL RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
ALL RIGHT.
IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS AVAILABLE?
MR. COCHRAN: ACTUALLY I THINK HE MAY BE.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE MR. DOUGLAS CHECK.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE COURT
REPORTER, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND MR. HODGE IS
NEXT, CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. HODGE IS NEXT AND I WOULD LIKE TO USE
THIS AS A POSSIBLE MOTION IN LIMINE ALSO.
I'M GOING TO DIRECT HIM DIRECTLY AND I WILL TELL YOU
WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE.
CONTRARY TO WHAT MR. DARDEN SAID, THE ARREST WAS ON
JANUARY 12, 1987; IT WASN'T ON THE 13TH OR WHATEVER.
HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WAS LAYING IN THE ALLEY AND HE
WAS PICKED UP AND ARRESTED BY MARK FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, TOM
VETTRAINO, AND PUT IN THE CAR.
FUHRMAN TURNS AROUND AND SAYS, "I TOLD YOU I WOULD
GET YOU, NIGGER," AND THAT IS BASICALLY IT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU TOLD ME I CAN'T GO INTO THE FACT
THAT THEY YANKED HIM UP BY THE HANDCUFFS OR THEY HAD HIM BENT
OVER.
THE OTHER THING, HE HAS A LAWYER FROM CHICAGO AND
THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT 1054.7. THIS MAN HAS NEVER BEEN
CONVICTED OF A FELONY. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS
INFORMATION IS THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THIS LAWYER IS
HERE FROM CHICAGO. HE REPRESENTS HIM BACK THERE.
AND HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FELONY CONVICTIONS AND THE
LAWYER WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY
PROBLEMS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, IN VIEW OF
THE RESTRICTIONS THE COURT HAS PLACED ON US, AND I WILL ABIDE BY
THEM, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED CROSS-EXAMINATION, IF MARK FUHRMAN
SAID THIS OR NOT.
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM COUNSEL FROM
ILLINOIS.
MR. COCHRAN: HE IS HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET HIM UP.
MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THIS
MATTER.
THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE THIS MATTER?
MS. CLARK: I MAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR --
MS. CLARK: I WANT TO ADDRESS A LEGAL ISSUE HERE, AND THAT
IS THAT WHAT COUNSEL IS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO DO TO GET IN THROUGH
THIS PURPORTED STATEMENT IS THE INSINUATION THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAS
BEEN THREATENING TO GET HIM FOR A LONG TIME, THAT THERE WERE
PREVIOUS CONTACTS.
THIS HAS EXPRESSLY BEEN SAID BY THE COURT TO BE
INADMISSIBLE AND INAPPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR EXAMINATION.
BY PUTTING IN THE STATEMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS JUST
REFERRED TO, HE IS ATTEMPTING TO GET BY IMPLICATION WHAT HE CAN'T
DO EXPLICITLY AND THE JURY WILL GET THE MESSAGE.
THIS HAS ALREADY GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND THE BOUNDS
OF THE ORDER HAVE BEEN STRETCHED TO THE SNAPPING POINT AND
COUNSEL HAS PUSHED THIS ENVELOPE REPEATEDLY WITH IMPROPER
QUESTION AFTER IMPROPER QUESTION ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT EVERYTHING
THAT THE COURT HAS RULED INADMISSIBLE.
THIS COURTROOM HAS BEEN FILLED WITH SLUDGE FOR THE
LAST TWO DAYS. THEY HAVE HAD MORE THAN THEIR BITE OF THIS APPLE.
THEY'VE HAD THREE APPLES, ALL OF THEM.
AND I'M BEGGING THE COURT PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THIS
AND LET US GET BACK TO TRYING THIS CASE.
MR. HODGE DOES NOT NEED TO BE HEARD FROM. THE
STATEMENT REFERRED TO BY COUNSEL IS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S
ORDER. IT WILL IMPLICITLY INFORM THE JURY OF WHAT THE COURT HAS
SAID CANNOT BE BROUGHT OUT AND IT ADDS NOTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE
TO WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT ABOUT MARK
FUHRMAN.
HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE TO SAY IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I
FRANKLY AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE NO LONGER ANY
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. IT HAS BEEN THROWN OUT THE DOOR AND ALL
WE ARE HEARING NOW IS THE REPEATED EPITHETS TO MAKE THIS JURY
FORGET WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.
MR. HODGE IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM. THEY HAVE HEARD IT AND HEARD IT AND HEARD IT.
AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT IN ONE MORE TIME EXCEPT EVEN
MORE -- IN A MORE INFLAMMATORY WAY.
THERE IS NOTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE HERE. THE FACT
THAT MR. HODGE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN DOES NOT ADD PROBATIVE VALUE
TO IT. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT HE SAID IT TO MR. HODGE
OR ANYONE ELSE, BUT WHETHER HE USES THE EPITHET.
IF YOU THINK OR ANYONE THINKS THAT WE ARE GOING TO
GET UP IN FRONT OF THIS JURY AND ARGUE THAT HE WOULD NEVER
ADDRESS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN IN THAT MANNER, ALL HE WOULD DO IS
TALK ABOUT THEM IN THE THIRD PERSON, YOU ARE ALL NUTS. THERE IS
NO WAY WE ARE GOING TO SAY ANY SUCH THING.
THE COURT KNOWS THAT. I KNOW THE COURT KNOWS THAT I
WOULDN'T DO IT, AS THE COURT WOULDN'T DO IT. THIS IS A
CONCESSION AND WE HAVE BEEN CONCEDING ALL THROUGHOUT. WE HAVE
NOT BEEN FIGHTING THIS. WE HAVE TAKEN IT ON THE CHIN.
BUT NOW WE ARE GETTING KICKED IN THE GUTS. THIS IS
BELOW THE BELT AND THIS IS NOT FAIR.
MR. COCHRAN: FIRST OF ALL, THEY ARE VIOLATING THE
TWO-LAWYER RULE, BUT WE HAVE RULED ON THIS AND WE ARE UP HERE TO
FIND OUT FROM THIS LAWYER ABOUT THE 402.
I UNDERSTOOD YOUR RULING YESTERDAY. MISS CLARK CAME
UP TO TALK ABOUT IT THEN. YOU TOLD US WHAT THE RULING WAS.
IT IS OUR WITNESS IN THIS AREA. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
HEAR FROM THIS LAWYER IN CASE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE.
THE COURT: IN CASE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE?
MR. COCHRAN: HE IS HERE NOW.
MR. SHAPIRO: HE RULED YESTERDAY.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M TELLING YOU THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH BASIS
BECAUSE HE'S HERE AND THEY CAN GO BACK AND TALK TO HIM, SO I
WANTED TO LET THE COURT KNOW THAT.
WHY WE ARE MAKING THESE SPEECHES WE CAN BE FINISHED
WITH THE EXAMINATION.
MS. CLARK: LOOK WHOSE TALKING ABOUT THE SPEECHES.
INTERESTING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, OUR NEXT WITNESS IS A MR. RODERIC HODGE.
MR. HODGE, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, SIR, ALONG WITH
HIS COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T YOU RETRIEVE THE EXHIBIT
THAT IS UP ON THE WITNESS STAND FIRST, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. MILLER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MR. MILLER: JUDGE, IRV MILLER ON BEHALF OF MR. HODGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MRS. ROBERTSON.
RODERIC HODGE,
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: FIRST NAME IS RODERIC, R-O-D-E-R-I-C, HODGE,
H-O-D-G-E.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD MORNING, MR. HODGE.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN.
Q WOULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT BACK, SIR.
THE COURT: JUST PULL IT CLOSER TO YOU.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q MR. HODGE, JUST TELL US WHAT CITY DO YOU PRESENTLY
RESIDE IN?
A IN DALTON, ILLINOIS.
Q AND THAT IS NEAR CHICAGO?
A YES, IT IS JUST SOUTH OF CHICAGO, EIGHT MILES OUT OF
CHICAGO.
Q AND HAVE YOU COME HERE TODAY PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA
ISSUED BY THIS COURT FROM ILLINOIS?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHEN -- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN CALIFORNIA?
A AS OF LATE -- APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK.
Q ABOUT A WEEK WAITING TO TESTIFY?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOW, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION GENERALLY, SIR?
A I'M CURRENTLY A COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR TECHNICIAN WITH
RYAN JENNINGS COMMUNICATIONS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CUT TO THE CHASE AND GET RIGHT TO IT.
DID YOU FORMERLY LIVE IN CALIFORNIA BEFORE YOU MOVED
TO ILLINOIS?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND I WOULD LIKE SPECIFICALLY TO DIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION BACK TO THE MONTH OF JANUARY OF 1987 AND SPECIFICALLY
JANUARY 11 OF 1987.
DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE OR INTERACT WITH A
PERSON BY THE NAME OF MARK FUHRMAN?
A YES, SIR, I DID.
Q WAS HE A LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICER AT THAT POINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ON THAT DATE WERE YOU TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY MR.
FUHRMAN?
A I BELIEVE SO -- I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT DATE, YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WAS IT THE 11TH OR 12TH OR DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT
DATE?
A I AM UNABLE TO RECALL THE EXACT DATE, SIR.
Q WAS IT IN JANUARY OF 1987?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHO MR. FUHRMAN'S PARTNER WAS AT
THAT TIME?
A YES, SIR. IT WAS VETTRAINO. I REFERRED TO HIM AS
VETTRAINO. I BELIEVE IT IS TOM VETTRAINO.
Q TOM VETTRAINO?
A YES, SIR.
Q AT SOME POINT WERE YOU PLACED INSIDE OF A POLICE
VEHICLE?
A YES, SIR, I WAS.
Q AND AFTER YOU WERE PLACED INSIDE THAT POLICE VEHICLE
WERE YOU TAKEN SOMEWHERE?
A YES, SIR.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER WHICH OFFICER WAS DRIVING THE
VEHICLE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHO, WHICH ONE?
A THAT WAS VETTRAINO.
Q WHO WAS VETTRAINO'S PARTNER OFFICER AT THAT TIME?
A OFFICER FUHRMAN.
Q AND WHERE WAS OFFICER FUHRMAN SEATED IN THE VEHICLE,
IF YOU RECALL?
A ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU SEATED?
A IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.
Q WERE YOU HANDCUFFED AT THAT POINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND DID OFFICER FUHRMAN SAY SOMETHING TO YOU AS HE
WAS SEATED IN THE RIGHT FRONT PASSENGER SEAT AND YOU WERE IN THE
REAR PORTION OF THAT POLICE VEHICLE?
A YES, SIR, HE DID.
Q WILL YOU TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY
WHAT OFFICER FUHRMAN SAID TO YOU ON THIS DATE IN JANUARY OF
1987?
A YES, SIR. AT THAT TIME OFFICER FUHRMAN TURNED
AROUND, LOOKED AT ME AND TOLD ME, "I TOLD YOU WE WOULD GET YOU,
NIGGER."
Q DID YOU HEAR -- YOU HEARD HIM CLEARLY?
A VERY CLEARLY, SIR.
Q AND WHEN HE SAID THIS TO YOU CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US
THE TONE OF VOICE THAT HE USED?
A ANGER, HATRED, JUST SOMETHING FROM DEEP INSIDE, IF
YOU WOULD, JUST -- JUST VERY UGLY.
Q AND WHEN HE MADE THIS STATEMENT TO YOU CAN YOU
DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY HOW YOU FELT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: BELITTLED, SCARED, VERY, VERY ANGRY. UMM, I
COULD USE MANY MORE ADJECTIVES, BUT THOSE --
Q DOES THAT ENCAPSULATE HOW YOU FELT?
A LIGHTLY, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TODAY.
NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: PEOPLE.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q MR. HODGE, THANK YOU FOR COMING, SIR.
SIR, YOU USED TO LIVE ON CORNING AVENUE, WAS IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU WERE ARRESTED BY VETTRAINO AND FUHRMAN ON
JANUARY 13, 1987; IS THAT RIGHT?
A I'M UNABLE TO RECALL THE EXACT DATE, SIR.
Q BY THE WAY, DID YOU -- WERE YOU ONLY ARRESTED ONCE BY
VETTRAINO AND FUHRMAN AND PLACED IN A POLICE VEHICLE?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DARDEN: TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE DATE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THE DATE OF JANUARY, '87, IS CLOSE ENOUGH.
MR. DARDEN: PERHAPS I SHOULD APPROACH THEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SEE YOU OVER HERE AT SIDE BAR WITH THE COURT
REPORTER.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN, WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?
MR. DARDEN: I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE DATE IS,
BECAUSE -- I WILL GIVE THIS TO MR. COCHRAN.
THIS IS THE PRINTOUT ON THE F.I.'S WITH THAT TIME
WITH MR. HODGE. THERE WERE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY CONTACTS BY
LAPD, FROM THE NARCOTICS AND GANG UNITS, OF MR. HODGE.
MR. HODGE WAS A CRACK DEALER OVER ON CORNING AVENUE,
AN AREA WHERE CRACK WAS SOLD BY HIM AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAYBOY
GANGSTER CRIPS.
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU A
QUESTION.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU AT THIS POINT SAY, MR. HODGE, YOU
WERE OFFENDED, THAT WAS A HORRIBLE THING? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD-BYE?
MR. DARDEN: WELL, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, OKAY?
ALL I WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE SAME INCIDENT, OKAY? THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO. I CAN SHOW
HIM THE PIECE OF PAPER AND THEN IDENTIFY IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IS
THE DATE.
AND EVEN IF THAT IS THE DATE, I HAVE THREE MORE
QUESTIONS AND WE ARE DONE.
JUST THE BOOKING SLIP, NOT THE ARREST REPORT.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I RESPOND?
MR. DARDEN: OTHERWISE I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT
SOME OTHER DAY, SOME OTHER CONTACT,
BUT --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ISN'T THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT FUHRMAN
ARRESTED THIS MAN AND INDICATED TO HIM -- THE ISSUE HE WAS CALLED
FOR YOU LIMITED VERY SPECIFICALLY WAS WHETHER FUHRMAN TURNED
AROUND AND SAID, "I TELL YOU I WILL GET YOU NIGGER."
THAT IS THE QUESTION. IT HAPPENED IN JANUARY OF
1987. THAT IS THE QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE EIGHT MINUTES MORE, OKAY?
NOW, ALL I WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, HE FILED A --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY.
MR. DARDEN: HE COMPLAINED TO IAD, RIGHT? JANUARY 13, '87,
HE COMPLAINED TO IAD. HE DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. HE
COMPLAINED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN, BUT HE DIDN'T
COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AND THAT IS WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THE
DAY.
THE COURT: THEN WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM WITH REGARDS TO THIS
PARTICULAR ARREST DID YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE MANNER WHICH YOU WERE TREATED?
ANSWER, YES OR NO.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
THE COURT: IS THIS A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT? YES OR NO.
I'M TRYING TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE HERE, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU FINISH BECAUSE
DOESN'T IT OPEN THE DOOR? THIS MAN WAS ACQUITTED AND YOU SAID WE
CAN'T GET INTO THAT.
HE MADE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THESE OFFICERS.
MR. DARDEN: FUHRMAN IS NOT A WITNESS IN THE DRUG
PROSECUTION. FUHRMAN DID NOT WITNESS THE DRUG PROSECUTION.
MR. COCHRAN: HE TOOK HIM DOWN AND HE WAS ARRESTED
ORIGINALLY FOR BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER.
MR. DARDEN: AND FUHRMAN DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL.
MR. COCHRAN: BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER.
THE COURT: I KNOW. I KNOW, COUNSEL.
MR. DARDEN: AND WE KNOW AND JOHNNIE KNOWS THAT THE
PROSECUTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE WHEN IT CAME FOR TRIAL
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WASN'T IN THE STATE. HE NEVER TESTIFIED AT
TRIAL, BUT IT WAS DISMISSED.
MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
MR. DARDEN: 148 ON FUHRMAN, OKAY? AND THE NARCOTICS ISSUE
AND THE 148 OCCURRED WHEN HE TRIED TO ARREST HIM AFTER A
NARCOTICS --
THE COURT: WHY ARE WE DRAGGING THIS OUT? IF YOU WANT THIS
OVER, JUST SAY, GEE, THAT IS HORRIBLE, GOOD-BYE.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL NO NEED TO LAY DOWN OR
ROLL OVER AND DIE JUST BECAUSE THE JURY HAS BEEN POLLUTED WITH
THESE EPITHETS.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE DID THE MURDERS. I'M GOING TO
CONVICT HIM.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM IF HE MADE A COMPLAINT
ABOUT THIS INCIDENT?
MR. DARDEN: I WAS TRYING TO ASK ABOUT THE DATE AND YOU
SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: MR. HODGE, DID YOU COMPLAIN TO THE
LAPD ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU WERE ARRESTED BY THESE TWO
OFFICERS?
A ON WHICH OCCASION, SIR?
Q ON THE OCCASION YOU JUST DESCRIBED FOR MR. COCHRAN?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHEN YOU WERE ARRESTED, WERE YOU HOLDING A DRILL OR
SOMETHING IN YOUR HAND?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: LET ME SHOW YOU A COPY OF AN IAD
COMPLAINT.
BY THE WAY, DID YOU HAVE ANY PORTION AT ALL OF THE
IAD MINUTE THAT YOU FILED?
A AT THIS TIME --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I THINK YOUR QUESTION
ASSUMES IAD AND THAT THE JURY KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
HERE.
MR. DARDEN: CERTAINLY.
Q YOU COMPLAINED TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AT LAPD;
IS THAT RIGHT?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS INTERNAL AFFAIRS, YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THEM?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY A SUPERVISING OFFICER AT
WEST L.A. STATION AS WELL?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS A SUPERVISING OFFICER.
Q OKAY.
AND YOUR NAME IS RODERIC T. HODGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
A RODERIC T. HODGE.
Q WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE?
A AUGUST 22, 1964.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SEE THAT, COUNSEL?
THE COURT: I WILL GIVE MR. COCHRAN A COPY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT THE -- IF YOU WILL JUST TAKE
A LOOK AT THAT, PLEASE, SIR.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION
THAT THE DATE OF ARREST WAS JANUARY 13, 1987?
A NOT REALLY, SIR, BUT I TAKE IT --
Q DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE COMPLAINT THAT YOU FILED
WITH LAPD?
A YES, SIR, IT DOES. IT APPEARS TO BE.
Q OKAY. OKAY.
AND ON THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT DOES IT
INDICATE THAT YOU HAD A SECOND INTERVIEW WITH SOMEONE FROM
INTERNAL AFFAIRS ON JANUARY 23, 1987, AN INTERVIEW WITH A
SERGEANT LAMPREY?
A YES, SIR, IT DOES INDICATE THAT.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU HAVE SUCH AN INTERVIEW?
A YES, SIR, I BELIEVE SO.
Q OKAY.
NOWHERE IN THIS INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT IS IT
MENTIONED THAT YOU COMPLAINED OF FUHRMAN'S USE OF ANY EPITHETS;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A I HAVEN'T READ OVER THE ENTIRE OF THE INTERVIEW, SIR.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
YOUR HONOR, MAY THIS DOCUMENT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 604?
THE COURT: PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, 604.
(PEO'S 604 FOR ID = DOCUMENT)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT AND
SEE?
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: HOW MANY PAGES IS THIS DOCUMENT, MR. DARDEN?
MR. DARDEN: IT IS 17 PAGES, YOUR HONOR.
OTHER THAN A RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION, I HAVE NO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SINCE IT IS -- IT APPEARS TO BE TYPEWRITTEN?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: SINGLE PAGE.
ALL RIGHT.
THEN WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE DO IS ALLOW MR.
HODGE THE TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT AND WE WILL CONCLUDE THE
EXAMINATION AFTER THE LUNCH HOUR.
ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS
FOR THE MORNING SESSION.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG 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.
AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND IN
RECESS UNTIL 1:30.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.
THANK YOU.
(AT 11:59 A.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
1:35 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: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT
PRESENT.
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. BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE
MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: MR. RODERIC HODGE.
MR. HODGE, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, SIR.
RODERIC HODGE,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS, RESUMED
THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGE, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT MR. RODERIC HODGE IS
ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. HODGE. MR. HODGE, YOU'RE
REMINDED, SIR, THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.
AND, MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DO YOU STILL HAVE THE DOCUMENTS FROM THIS MORNING,
MR. HODGE?
A NO, SIR. I GAVE THEM BACK TO YOUR ASSISTANT.
Q AT ANY EVENT, DO THOSE DOCUMENTS --
THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGE, WHY DON'T YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSE TO
YOU, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE THE EPITHET INDICATED
HERE IN THESE DOCUMENTS?
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN SOME OTHER
DOCUMENT?
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: AT ANY EVENT, THANK YOU, MR. HODGE.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. HODGE.
A SIR.
Q MR. HODGE, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT IN
THE MONTH OF JANUARY OF 1987, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REFERRED TO YOU
AS A NIGGER?
A SIR, THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND WHATSOEVER.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D FORGET?
A SOMETHING YOU DON'T FORGET.
Q NOW, MR. HODGE, SIR, WITH REGARD TO THIS DOCUMENT
THAT MR. DARDEN SHOWED YOU, DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS
DOCUMENT OVER AT LUNCHTIME?
A YES, SIR, I DID.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THAT DOCUMENT --
MR. DARDEN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE QUESTION YET.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS DOCUMENT --
MR. DARDEN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS DOCUMENT, IT
INDICATES AFTER YOUR ENCOUNTER WITH MR. FUHRMAN --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. HEARSAY. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?
THE COURT: FINISH THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: AFTER YOUR ENCOUNTER WITH MR.
FUHRMAN AND THE OTHER OFFICERS ON THAT DAY, YOU WENT DOWN AND
MADE A COMPLAINT FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q AND I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS DOCUMENT --
MR. COCHRAN: WHICH IS PEOPLE'S WHAT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: THIS IS 604.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT 604.
AND FIRST OF ALL, YOU ARE RODERIC T. HODGE; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WITH REGARD TO THE TYPE OF COMPLAINT YOU RENDERED
AGAINST THESE OFFICERS, DO YOU SEE THAT -- DO YOU SEE THIS BOX
HERE UNDER "TYPE OF COMPLAINT"?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?
MR. DARDEN: 352.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE THE "TYPE OF COMPLAINT"?
A OH, YES, SIR.
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL THAT YOU WENT DOWN AT
SOME POINT AFTER THE CONTACT WITH MR. FUHRMAN AND THE OTHER
OFFICERS AND MADE THIS ACTUAL COMPLAINT?
A THERE WERE A COUPLE TIMES, YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU -- IN ADDITION, DID YOU GO TO WEST LOS
ANGELES ON SOME OCCASION?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU ALSO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE AND MAKE A COMPLAINT?
A YES, SIR, I DID.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU GO TO MAKE THAT COMPLAINT?
A DOWNTOWN LOCATION, WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE PARKER
CENTER.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU GO TO PARKER CENTER ON THE SAME DATE YOU WENT
TO WEST LOS ANGELES?
A NO, SIR.
Q THAT WAS ON A DIFFERENT DATE?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHY DID YOU GO TO BOTH LOCATIONS TO MAKE
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THESE OFFICERS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: UH, MY BROTHER, WHO'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT --
THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON.
YOU MADE TWO COMPLAINTS, TWO PLACES, BOTH AT WEST
L.A. AND DOWNTOWN PARKER CENTER, CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: SIR, I MADE THREE COMPLAINTS.
THE COURT: THREE COMPLAINTS. WHERE ELSE?
THE WITNESS: MY BROTHER ADVISED ME THAT WEST LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT --
MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE WITNESS: -- WOULD NOT PURSUE --
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME JUST GO QUESTION BY QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE A BROTHER IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHAT KIND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS HE IN?
A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DISCUSS WITH YOUR BROTHER
WHO IS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD MAKE A
COMPLAINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID HE GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE?
A ON MANY OCCASIONS.
Q AND AFTER YOU GOT THIS ADVICE FROM YOUR BROTHER WHO
WAS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHERE DID YOU GO?
A TO THE PARKER CENTER.
Q THAT WAS AFTER YOU HAD BEEN TO WEST LOS ANGELES?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND DID YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AT PARKER CENTER?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU SAID YOU WENT A THIRD PLACE. DID YOU GO SOME
OTHER PLACE AND MAKE A COMPLAINT?
A NO, SIR. I MADE TWO COMPLAINS AT WEST L.A. STATION
AND ONE AT THE PARKER CENTER.
Q SO THAT WAS THE THIRD COMPLAINT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE DOCUMENTS THAT MR. DARDEN
SHOWED YOU, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE PAGES?
WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE PAGES AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS OF THOSE
PAGES.
THE COURT: YOU WANT TO SHOW HIM 604, THE ACTUAL EXHIBIT?
MR. COCHRAN: SURE. I'D BE GLAD TO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO
DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE LAST TWO
PAGES OF 604, SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE NUMBERING
OF THE PAGES THERE.
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT DO YOU SEE? TELL THE JURY WHAT YOU SEE THERE.
A WELL, IT GOES FROM PAGE 6 TO PAGE 17.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO PAGES 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16?
A NO, SIR. I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA.
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THAT DOCUMENT, LOOK IN THE UPPER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER UNDER THE "TYPE OF COMPLAINT" THAT YOU MADE
AGAINST THESE OFFICERS ON JANUARY 13, 1987.
DO YOU SEE THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHAT DOES IT SAY?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COCHRAN: I MAY WANT TO APPROACH JUST BRIEFLY IF I
COULD TO SHOW THE COURT SOMETHING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WAS --
THE COURT: HOLD ON. MR. DARDEN'S MAKING THE OBJECTION.
MISS LEWIS, WOULD YOU STEP BACK, PLEASE. STEP BACK.
MR. DARDEN, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION?
MR. DARDEN: THE QUESTION WENT TO IMPROPER -- WHAT WAS IN
THE BOX IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER SHOWS IMPROPER TACTICS AND
EXCESSIVE FORCE, WHICH IS IRRELEVANT.
MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS WRONG ABOUT THAT. IT DOES SAY
THAT. LET ME MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF. WHAT IT SAYS -- HE OPENED
THE DOOR ON THIS. IT SAYS "IMPROPER TACTICS, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND
DISC," DISCOURTESY.
LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING, JUDGE. I HAVE ANOTHER
DOCUMENT, SUMMARY OF ADJUDICATION CASES DATED ON MARCH 9, 1987
THROUGH MARCH 13TH, 1987, AND WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THIS 22-YEAR
OLD BLACK MALE ALLEGED IMPROPER TACTICS, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND
DISCOURTESY AGAINST THE POLICE. IT'S ALL BLACKED OUT.
THE DISCOURTESY IS THE WORD "NIGGER," AND WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO BRING THAT OUT. THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT
WASN'T THERE. THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED TO THE COURT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, BUT THE DOCUMENTS ALSO SHOW -- WHAT
COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO IS THE ALLEGATION MADE BY ANOTHER PERSON,
NOT BY RODERIC HODGE, AGAINST A DIFFERENT OFFICER, NOT FUHRMAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, SHE'S WRONG. THIS IS MR. DARDEN'S
WITNESS. SO SHE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING.
THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S CORRECT?
THE COURT: ARE YOU HANDLING THIS OR MISS CLARK?
MR. DARDEN: YEAH.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS CONTAINED IN THIS
INVESTIGATION, AND WE WILL BRING SOMEONE OVER FROM IAD TO EXPLAIN
WHAT THE PAGES ARE BECAUSE THEY RELATE TO OTHER OFFICERS BY THE
WAY.
AT ANY EVENT, THERE ARE COMPLAINTS BY MR. HODGE AND
THE OTHER PERSONS HE WAS ARRESTED WITH THAT OFFICERS SAID THINGS
LIKE, "SHUT THE FUCK UP," AND, "GET BACK, GET BACK." THERE'S AN
ALLEGATION THEY CALLED SOMEONE A "FAT ASS." BUT THERE'S NO
ALLEGATION IN THE ENTIRE PACKAGE THAT THE EPITHET WAS EVER USED.
I'VE GIVEN HIM A STACK OF MATERIAL. I ASKED HIM
WHETHER OR NOT THE EPITHET IS CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL AND IT IS
NOT, OKAY. NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME IT OPENS THE DOOR TO
EVERYTHING, TO EVERYTHING ELSE?
THE COURT: NO, IT DOESN'T OPEN THE DOOR TO EVERYTHING
PROBABLY, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES AT THE LEAST, YOU KNOW, OPEN THE
DOOR TO THE FACT HE MADE AN ALLEGATION OF DISCOURTESY.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WELL, IF HE WANTS --
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE'S --
MS. CLARK: I'M TELLING MR. DARDEN.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S CORRECT. NOT AGAINST FUHRMAN. IN
FACT, LOOK AT THE COMPLAINT IN THE NARRATIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE DOCUMENT AND YOU SEE WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE, JUDGE, IN
GENERAL.
JUST BECAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, DO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS
OR ATTEMPT TO DEFEND AGAINST IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
DOESN'T MEAN IT OPENS THE DOOR TO EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE. IF HE
WANTS TO ASK HIM -- I DON'T THINK THEY CAN ASK ABOUT THE WORD
"DISCOURTESY" UNLESS HE USED THE WORD ITSELF. IT IS A WORD THAT
IS UNIQUE TO LAPD AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AND HE IS NOT
COMPETENT TO EXPLAIN THAT TERM.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE HIM --
EXCUSE ME -- REDIRECT ON THE FACT THAT HE DID INCLUDE A COMPLAINT
FOR DISCOURTESY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
LET ME ASK --
THE COURT: BUT THE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND IMPROPER TACTICS
ARE NOT PART OF THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK ONE THING, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WHILE WE ARE HERE?
YOUR HONOR, CAN -- THERE'S SO MUCH NOISE OVER HERE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT -- HE DIDN'T MARK THIS. CAN YOU
LOOK AT THE FIRST THING HERE?
THIS MAN -- I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO -- I'D
LIKE YOU TO READ THIS PART.
HE COMPLAINS THAT HE GOT PULLED UP BY HIS ARMS BY
FUHRMAN AND SUFFERED INJURIES AND HE WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON. IN
FACT, IN THIS INVESTIGATION -- I WANT TO BRING THIS OUT -- THERE
ARE NINE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THIS MAN'S INJURIES AND ANOTHER
REPORT -- ANOTHER REPORT DOWN -- TAKEN PLACE.
LOOK AT THIS, JUDGE. HE REFUSED TREATMENT -- AND
THEY TOOK NINE PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS RIGHT LEG -- FOR HIS BACK WHERE
SOMEBODY PUT A GUN IN HIS BACK, RIGHT LEG AND THIGH AND HIS WRIST
WHERE HE WAS HIT WITH A BATON.
WE CAN BRING THAT IN. YOU SPECIFICALLY STOOD HERE
AGAIN AND TOLD MR. DARDEN WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO CONDUCT -- NOT
TOLD HIM. MADE A SUGGESTION.
JUDGE, WHEN THEY OPEN THE DOOR, I HAVE THE RIGHT --
MAY I FINISH? I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT DISCOURTESY OR THIS
OTHER THING BECAUSE HE OPENED THE DOOR. HE IS THE ONE WHO ASKED
THOSE QUESTIONS.
I ABIDED BY WHAT YOU SAID. I ASKED MY FIVE OR SIX
QUESTIONS AND I SAT DOWN. THIS OPENS THE DOOR. HE'S OPENING
THIS UP WITH HANDCUFFS, JUDGE. HE HAD PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN. AND
THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE A MISLEADING IMPRESSION TO THIS JURY.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY HE DIDN'T MAKE THIS REPORT.
HE MADE THREE REPORTS DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. THIS
REPORT IS MISSING 11 PAGES OR SO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS BACKING UP WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT VIOLENT
TREATMENT AND EVERYTHING AND ALSO SAYS --
THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN.
MR. COCHRAN: -- ALSO SAYS DISCOURTESY, JUDGE, AND I HAVE
GOOD FAITH. I SHOWED YOU THIS OTHER REPORT WHERE IT SAYS IN THE
SUMMARY OF LAPD THINGS HOW HE MADE A REPORT FOR DISCOURTESY AND
IT TALKS -- DOESN'T TALK ABOUT -- THEY TALK ABOUT,
ROBBERY-HOMICIDE, HODGE IS A 22-YEAR OLD --
THE COURT: WHICH ONE OF THESE REPORTS? IS THIS THE ACTUAL
EXHIBIT?
MR. COCHRAN: IT MAY NOT BE THE EXHIBIT. THAT'S MY COPY OF
THE EXHIBIT.
MR. DARDEN: THE WITNESS HAS IT.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S MY COPY OF IT.
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS A COPY.
THE COURT: THAT'S A COPY.
OKAY.
I'VE HEARD ENOUGH. YOU CAN --
MR. DARDEN: MAY I PLEASE MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT?
THE COURT: NO. I'VE HEARD ENOUGH.
YOU CAN REDIRECT ON THE FACT THAT HE DID INCLUDE IN
HIS COMPLAINT AN ALLEGATION OF DISCOURTESY.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S IT.
THE COURT: THAT'S IT.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, MR. HODGE, WHEN YOU MADE THESE
THREE COMPLAINTS TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, DID YOU
INCLUDE A COMPLAINT FOR DISCOURTESY OF THE OFFICERS INVOLVED ON
THAT DATE, INCLUDING MR. FUHRMAN?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHEN YOU INCLUDED THIS COMPLAINT FOR DISCOURTESY, DID
THAT INCLUDE HIM CALLING YOU OR SAYING, "WE TOLD YOU WE WERE
GOING TO GET YOU, NIGGER"?
A YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HAVE NOT TRIED TO PROFIT FROM YOUR
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE IN ANY WAY, HAVE YOU?
A NO, SIR, NOT AT ALL.
Q HAVE YOU TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM PUBLICITY CONCERNED
IN THIS CASE?
A AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE.
Q AND WERE YOU CONTACTED BY ABC NEWS BACK IN MARCH OF
THIS YEAR?
A YES, SIR.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. HODGE, WOULD YOU JUST PULL THE
MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE CONTACTED BY ABC NEWS BACK
IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU DID NOT GO ON CAMERA AT THAT POINT, DID YOU?
A NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q YOU HAVE NOT TRIED TO TELL YOUR STORY TO ANYONE, HAVE
YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU CAME OUT HERE A WEEK AGO FROM ILLINOIS BECAUSE
YOU WERE SUBPOENAED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND AS SOON AS YOU CAN, DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK HOME?
A YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING, SIR.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: HAVE A SAFE TRIP HOME, SIR.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HODGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IF YOU WOULD
RETURN THAT DOCUMENT TO MR. DARDEN, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE COURT
REPORTER, PLEASE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE ONE STIPULATION ON THE WAY DOWN NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: I BELIEVE MR. NEUFELD HAS ANOTHER
STIPULATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD, DO YOU HAVE A STIPULATION THAT YOU'VE
DISCUSSED WITH --
MR. NEUFELD: YES.
THE COURT: -- MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN?
MR. NEUFELD: YES. AND THE STIPULATION IS -- WHAT NUMBER
ARE WE UP TO, DEFENSE EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR?
THE CLERK: 1369.
THE COURT: 1369.
MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
THE COURT: MARK THE STIPULATION 1369.
MR. NEUFELD: YES.
(DEFT'S 1369 FOR ID = STIPULATION)
MR. NEUFELD: WHICH IS SIMPLY THE SUNRISE AND SUNSET TIMES
FOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; AND IN PARTICULAR, THE STIPULATION
THAT ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, THE SUN ROSE AT 5:41 A.M. PACIFIC
DAYLIGHT TIME.
MS. CLARK: YES. SO STIPULATED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU RECOLLECT, A
STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AS TO CERTAIN
FACTS, AND YOU ARE TO ASSUME THOSE FACTS TO BE TRUE FOR PURPOSES
OF MAKING YOUR DETERMINATIONS IN THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT.
AND, MR. DARDEN, YOU SAID THERE'S ANOTHER STIPULATION
ON ITS WAY DOWN?
MR. DARDEN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHILE WE AWAIT THAT STIPULATION
BEING BROUGHT DOWN FROM UPSTAIRS, I AM GOING TO BE EXCUSING YOU
IN A FEW MOMENTS TO BE TAKEN UP TO THE LARGER LOUNGE UPSTAIRS SO
YOU'LL BE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE. THERE'S A COUPLE MORE LEGAL
ISSUES THAT I NEED TO TAKE UP WITHOUT YOU.
AND AS YOU NOTICED, I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH
THE LAWYERS OVER AT THE SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE COURT REPORTER JUST
TO DISCUSS WITH THEM INFORMALLY THE SCHEDULING FOR THE REMAINDER
OF THE TRIAL; AND I ANTICIPATE ON THE BASIS OF THAT DISCUSSION,
THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE CONCLUDING THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR
CASE THIS WEEK. SO JUST A FEW MORE LEGAL ISSUES I NEED TO
RESOLVE, AND THEN WE'LL HOPEFULLY CONCLUDE THAT PHASE OF THE
TRIAL. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS.
BUT I DO HAVE A FEW MORE LEGAL ISSUES I NEED TO IRON
OUT BEFORE WE GET TO YOU. BUT I ANTICIPATE WE MAY HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY FOR YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
MR. DARDEN: SOME MODIFICATION. IT'S ON THE WAY DOWN. THE
COURIER HAS ALREADY LEFT THE 18TH FLOOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER USE OF OUR TIME THEN TO
TAKE OUR RECESS AT THIS POINT, EXCUSE THE JURY AND THEN LAUNCH
INTO OUR ISSUES.
I'M SORRY? MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: NO.
MR. DARDEN: THAT WOULD BE FINE, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THEN AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED,
THEN WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
AS SOON AS WE CLEAR THE COURTROOM WITH THE JURY,
WE'LL RECONVENE.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT
PRESENT.
COUNSEL, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEGAL ISSUES WE NEED
TO RESOLVE BEFORE WE RESUME WITH AND COMPLETE THE DEFENSE CASE,
CORRECT?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
IF THE COURT PLEASES, JUST AS A MATTER OF DIRECTION,
I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO LISTEN TO DEAN UELMEN FIRST FOR OUR
RECITATION, PLEASE.
THE COURT: AS TO WHAT ISSUE, MR. UELMEN?
MR. UELMEN: THIS WOULD BE AS TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION,
YOUR HONOR, AND I ALSO HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF WITH RESPECT TO THE
REMAINING TESTIMONY OF LAURA MC KINNY.
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S TAKE THESE THINGS ONE THING AT A
TIME.
MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT. PERHAPS THE OFFER OF PROOF.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
LAURA MC KINNY BY MR. DARDEN, THE QUESTIONING WITH RESPECT TO
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MISS MC KINNY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH
RESPECT TO COVER-UP OPENED THE DOOR TO ALLOW THE JURY TO HEAR THE
PORTION OF MC KINNY TRANSCRIPT NO. 1. ACTUALLY THIS IS NOT A
TAPED TRANSCRIPT, BUT IT WOULD BE PAGE 41 OF MC KINNY TRANSCRIPT
NO. 1 IN WHICH THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COVER-UP
WITH RESPECT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF WOMEN WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
IT STARTS WITH FUHRMAN, THE SECOND TIME THE NAME "FUHRMAN"
APPEARS ON PAGE 41 AND GOES DOWN TO THE END OF THE PAGE.
WE BELIEVE THE DOOR HAS ALSO BEEN OPENED TO A
DISCUSSION WHICH APPEARS IN TRANSCRIPT NO. 11 BEGINNING AT PAGE
19 AND PROCEEDING THROUGH PAGE 26. THIS IS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN
MISS MC KINNY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REGARDING HOW SHE COULD
PORTRAY IN HER SCREENPLAY THE COVER-UP THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY
WHERE AN OFFICER IS BEING INVESTIGATED AND NEEDS TO CREATE THE
APPEARANCE OF BEING ONE PLACE RATHER THAN ANOTHER AND DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN DESCRIBES HOW LOGS CAN BE FALSIFIED. ALTERNATIVELY, IF
YOUR HONOR WILL NOT ALLOW US TO PLAY THE TAPES, WE BELIEVE THAT
MISS MC KINNY COULD DESCRIBE THESE CONVERSATIONS IN TERMS OF
THEIR GENERAL TENOR.
THE EXCHANGE IN TAPE NO. 11 THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
RELATES DIRECTLY TO MISS MC KINNY'S TESTIMONY AND MR. DARDEN'S
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MEN VERSUS WOMEN
THEME OF HER SCREENPLAY AND THE TOPIC OF COVER-UPS. THAT IS, THE
ABILITY OF MALE OFFICERS TO COVER UP AND FEMALE OFFICERS NOT
HAVING THE SAME ABILITY TO COVER UP THEIR TRACKS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU GOING TO --
ALL RIGHT. NEVER MIND.
PEOPLE, MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT MR. UELMEN IS TALKING
ABOUT AND I THINK WE ARGUED THESE ISSUES THIS MORNING FOR THE
MOST PART, AND I WOULD SAY OBJECTION, SAME GROUNDS AS STATED THIS
MORNING. I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS HEARSAY, THAT ONE -- AND THE NO.
11 PROFFER IS ONE THAT WAS CLEARLY FICTIONAL AND WHY DO WE HAVE
TO GO BACK THERE. THE DAMAGE IS DONE. I THINK THE COURT
UNDERSTANDS WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING WITH THAT PARTICULAR
WITNESS AND WE OBJECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. UELMEN: WITH RESPECT TO THE HEARSAY --
MS. CLARK: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. ONE
SECOND. I ASKED FOR A MOMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, WOULD THE COURT ASK COUNSEL TO READ THE
INFORMATION? JUDGE, WOULD YOU --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS FROM TRANSCRIPT NO. 1, PAGES 41 TO 42.
THEY DON'T RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE ISSUE COUNSEL HAS ATTEMPTED TO
RAISE AT THIS POINT. THEY'RE IRRELEVANT TO THAT TESTIMONY, TO
MISS MC KINNY'S TESTIMONY AS IT RELATED TO COVER-UPS AND WHEN --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN.
MR. UELMEN: WITH RESPECT TO THE HEARSAY ISSUE, YOUR HONOR,
OF COURSE, THESE PORTIONS OF THE TRANSCRIPT ARE NOT OFFERED FOR
THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS ASSERTED. THEY ARE OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE
THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MISS MC KINNY AND
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THE NATURE OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS IN A FALSE LIGHT THROUGH MR. DARDEN'S
CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT MISS MC KINNY WAS
ATTEMPTING TO SENSATIONALIZE THIS SCREENPLAY, THAT THERE WAS EVEN
ALLUSIONS TO A POSSIBLE ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MISS MC
KINNY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO GET
MR. -- DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO PORTRAY THE INFORMATION THAT HE WAS
PRESENTING TO HER IN A DRAMATIC AND EXPLOITATIVE WAY, AND WE
BELIEVE THAT THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE AND TO HEAR HOW THESE
CONVERSATIONS TOOK PLACE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
QUESTION OF COVER-UP THAT MR. DARDEN ALLUDED TO SO THE JURY CAN
SEE THE CONTEXT. AND THE CONTEXT, AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, MAKES ALL
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD IN EXPLAINING HOW THESE CONVERSATIONS
TOOK PLACE AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON BETWEEN LAURA MC KINNY
AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT.
AS TO THE SECOND EXAMPLE FIRST, THE DISCUSSION WITHIN
THE CONTEXT OF THE SCREENPLAY, THE QUESTION BEING FROM MISS MC
KINNY AS TO HOW WOULD A CERTAIN COVER-UP BE PORTRAYED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE SCREENPLAY, THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE DISCUSSION OF
THE CREATION OF A FICTIONAL SCREENPLAY. AS SUCH, IT'S NOT
RELEVANT. THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE DEPARTMENT'S COVER-UP OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF WOMEN AS POLICE OFFICERS, INTERESTING TOPIC, BUT
NOT FOR THIS TRIAL. THE OBJECTION LIKEWISE IS SUSTAINED ON THE
BASIS OF RELEVANCY.
ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ISSUE.
MR. UELMEN: THE NEXT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IS THE RENEWAL OF
THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN: AND I THINK AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BEGIN IS
WITH THE LEGAL STANDARD TO BE APPLIED IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT OF
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE LEADING CASE
ON THIS QUESTION IS PEOPLE VERSUS RAMSEY CITED IN OUR BRIEF AT
PAGE 7, WHICH QUITE CLEARLY HOLDS:
"WHERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, THE FINDINGS OF
THE MAGISTRATE TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE AFFECTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE ARE NOT BINDING ON THE SUPERIOR COURT. THIS ALLOWS THE
SUPERIOR COURT TO EXERCISE ITS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON ISSUES ON
WHICH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCED."
THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WE WISH TO INTRODUCE
RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.
AND OUR POSITION QUITE SIMPLY IS THAT YOUR HONOR, IN CONSIDERING
THIS EVIDENCE, IS NOT BOUND BY WHATEVER FINDINGS WERE MADE WITH
RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT, BUT THAT YOU ARE TO EXERCISE YOUR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON
THE ISSUE OF HIS CREDIBILITY.
NOW, THE PROSECUTION HAS CONTENDED THAT WHAT WE ARE
OFFERING WITH THIS ADDITIONAL PROFFER IS SIMPLY EVIDENCE GOING TO
HIS GENERAL CREDIBILITY. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THE
VERY CLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PORTIONS OF THE MC KINNY
TRANSCRIPTS AND TAPES THAT WE ARE PROFFERING AS NEW EVIDENCE ON
THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND THE TESTIMONY THAT HE
PRESENTED ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO CALL THE COURT'S ATTENTION
TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO DETECTIVES WHO TESTIFIED ON
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN. AND YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A
NUMBER OF MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER IN THE
AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT, THIS COURT MADE A FINDING THAT
DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, SO
THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BECOMES A VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO SUPPRESS.
DO WE OR SHOULD WE PUT ANY FAITH IN THE TESTIMONY OF
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED UP
TO THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE DEFENDANT'S PREMISES ON THE
MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
NOW, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY -- WELL, LET ME IDENTIFY
EACH OF THE ISSUES WHERE WE BELIEVE THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN IS IN ISSUE.
FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE ENTRY TO THE PREMISES, AS YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL, THE
EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE DETECTIVES FOR THEIR TRIP FROM BUNDY
TO ROCKINGHAM WAS THAT IT WAS FOR PURPOSE OF MAKING A
NOTIFICATION.
MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT A SUSPECT. THEIR REASON FOR
GOING TO HIS RESIDENCE WAS TO NOTIFY HIM OF THE DEATH OF HIS
FORMER WIFE AND TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CARE OF HIS MINOR
CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN FOUND IN AN UPSTAIRS BEDROOM AT THE BUNDY
SCENE.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER THEY ARRIVED AT THE PREMISES AND A
SPECK WAS FOUND ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO ABOVE THE HANDLE TO THE
DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE TRANSFORMED, AND
THE OFFICERS DETERMINED THAT THEY HAD SOME SORT OF EMERGENCY THAT
JUSTIFIED AN IMMEDIATE ENTRY TO THE PREMISES WITHOUT A WARRANT.
AND OF COURSE, THE DISCOVERY OF THAT SPECK ON THE
DOOR WAS A DISCOVERY BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IT WAS DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN WHO TESTIFIED HE WENT BY HIMSELF FROM WHERE THE OFFICERS
WERE GATHERED AT THE GATE TO ENTER MR. SIMPSON'S PREMISES, THAT
HE NOTICED THAT THE BRONCO WAS PARKED IN A VERY HAPHAZARD MANNER
AS HE PUT IT, THAT HE WENT OVER AND HE MADE THE DISCOVERY OF THE
SPECK ON THE DOOR.
NOW, IN THAT CONTEXT, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS IS
THE SAME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MC KINNY
TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OFFERS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
THIS IS MISS MC KINNY, AND I'M READING FROM HER
TRANSCRIPT NO. 1, PAGES 24 TO 25.
"SO IF YOU RIPPED UP HIS IDENTIFICATION, YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO MENTION THAT YOU RIPPED IT UP, ARE YOU?"
AND HE ANSWERS:
"NEVER, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T SAY I DIDN'T.
NOBODY ASKED."
AND THE INTERVIEWER, MISS MC KINNY ASKS:
"HOW ABOUT IF SOMEBODY ASKS?"
AND FUHRMAN SAYS:
"WELL, THEN I WON'T. THAT'S AN INVESTIGATION OF A POLICE
REPORT. WHEN YOU SAY FALSIFICATION OF AN ARREST REPORT, THAT'S
WHEN SOMEBODY'S WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND I SEE HIM THROW
SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T SEE WHAT HE THROWS. THEN I GO BACK WHERE
HE THREW SOMETHING AND THERE'S A GUN.
"NOW, IF YOU WANT TO LET THAT GUY GO, IF YOU'RE A
CITIZEN, DO YOU WANT THAT GUY ON THE STREET OR IN JAIL?
OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT HIM IN JAIL UNLESS YOU'RE A JERK TOO. SO THE
ONLY WAY TO PUT HIM IN JAIL IS FOR THE POLICEMAN TO SAY, 'I SAW
HIM THROW THAT GUN.'"
INTERVIEWER MISS MC KINNY:
"OH, IDENTIFYING THE ACTION WITH THE OBJECT?"
"FUHRMAN: OF COURSE HE THREW IT. WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF
GOING TO A PLACE WHERE HE THREW SOMETHING AND HAVING THAT BE A
GUN? 10 MILLION TO 1. 30 MILLION TO 1. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
ODDS WOULD BE, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE ASTRONOMICAL. SO IF THAT'S
CONSIDERED FALSIFYING A REPORT.
"AND IF SOME HYPE, YOU KNOW, SAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER I
SHOT TWO DAYS AGO AND YOU FIND A MARK THAT LOOKS LIKE THREE DAYS
AGO, PICK THE SCAB, SQUEEZE IT, LOOKS LIKE SERUM'S COMING OUT AS
IF IT WERE HOURS OLD, IT'S A HARD FINE. YOU JUST CAN'T FIND THE
MARK BECAUSE HE'S DOWN. HIS EYES DON'T LIE. THAT'S NOT
FALSIFYING A REPORT. THAT'S PUTTING A CRIMINAL IN JAIL. THAT'S
BEING A POLICEMAN."
NOW, OBVIOUSLY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DEFINITION OF
BEING A POLICEMAN AS INCLUDING MAKING UP THE FACTS THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO PUT SOMEONE IN JAIL ONCE YOU'VE DETERMINED THAT
PERSON SHOULD BE IN JAIL IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO HIS TESTIMONY OF
FINDING THE ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT WILL JUSTIFY OR BE OFFERED
AS JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE ENTRY TO MR. SIMPSON'S
PREMISES, AND WE BELIEVE IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT THAT IN THIS
EXAMPLE, HE IS DISCUSSING THE MANUFACTURE OF BLOOD EVIDENCE. HE
IS DISCUSSING SCRATCHING A SCAB TO MAKE FRESH BLOOD TO PROVIDE AN
OFFICER WITH PROBABLE CAUSE TO MAKE AN ARREST, AND HE'S SAYING
THAT'S NOT FALSIFYING A REPORT, THAT'S BEING A GOOD COP.
THE SECOND INSTANCE WHERE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
CONDUCT OF THE OFFICERS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH IS QUESTIONED
RELATES TO THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY MADE ENTRY TO THE
PREMISES. THIS SUPPOSED EMERGENCY THAT WAS CREATED BY THE
DISCOVERY OF THIS SPECK ON THE CAR DOOR MEANT THAT IN ADDITION TO
THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING MR. SIMPSON AND NOTIFYING HIM OF THE
DEATH OF HIS FORMER WIFE, MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CARE OF
THEIR CHILDREN, WE NOW ADD THIS NEW JUSTIFICATION THAT THERE MAY
BE A VICTIM ON THE PREMISES OR THERE MAY BE A PERPETRATOR
LURKING ON THE PREMISES. THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION THAT
INCLUDES SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE.
AND WHAT DOES MR. FUHRMAN DO? MR. FUHRMAN GOES TO
KATO KAELIN'S ROOM, ENTERS THE ROOM, INTERROGATES MR. KAELIN,
SEARCHES THE ROOM, SEARCHES MR. KAELIN'S CLOTHES, LOOKS AT THE
SOLES OF MR. KAELIN'S SHOES AND DOES NOT ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY POTENTIAL VICTIMS ON THE PREMISES.
HE SIMPLY ASKS ABOUT THE THUMPS THAT MR. KAELIN REPORTS HEARING
ON THE WALL THE NIGHT BEFORE. THERE'S NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONING
AT ALL IN TERMS OF EXPRESSING ANY CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER
THERE'S ANY VICTIMS OR PERPETRATORS LURKING ABOUT.
AND IN THIS CONTEXT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THAT THIS IS THE SAME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO IN THE
CONTEXT OF HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS MC KINNY SAYS -- AND NOW
I'M QUOTING FROM PAGES 33 AND 34 OF THAT SAME TRANSCRIPT NO. 1.
"SO UNDER WHAT DID YOU ARREST HIM," THE
INTERVIEWER ASKS.
"FUHRMAN: I DIDN'T ARREST HIM UNDER ANYTHING. JUST TOOK
HIM TO THE STATION, RAN HIM FOR PRINTS, GAVE THEM TO THE
DETECTIVES TO COMPARE WITH WHAT THEY'VE GOT IN THE AREA. I'LL
PROBABLY ARREST A CRIMINAL THAT WAY."
AND HE'S REFERRING HERE FROM THE PRIOR CONTEXT TO AN
ARREST THAT HE HAD MADE HIMSELF JUST THE NIGHT BEFORE.
AND THE INTERVIEWER ASKS:
"SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO JUST PICK SOMEBODY UP THAT YOU THINK
DOESN'T BELONG IN AN AREA AND ARREST HIM?"
AND FUHRMAN SAYS:
"I DON'T KNOW.
"INTERVIEWER: WELL, I MEAN, YOU DID. SO --"
AND FUHRMAN SAYS:
"I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OR THE
SUPERIOR COURT SAYS AND I DON'T REALLY GIVE A SHIT. IF I WAS
PUSHED INTO SAYING WHY I DID IT, I'D SAY SUSPICION OF BURGLARY.
I'D BE ABLE TO CORRELATE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID INTO REASONABLE
CAUSE FOR ARREST."
AND THE INTERVIEWER ASKS:
"BUT NOBODY USUALLY CROSSES YOU, DO THEY, BECAUSE THEY KNOW
IF YOU'RE PUSHED, YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING."
AND FUHRMAN RESPONDS:
"WELL, MY SUPERVISOR HAS CONFIDENCE THAT I KNOW
WHAT I'M DOING, SO THEY DON'T MAKE BEEFS ABOUT IT."
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCT OF
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN ESSENTIALLY ENTERING THOSE PREMISES TO
SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE AND THEN MAKING UP A REASON LATER TO JUSTIFY
WHAT HE HAD DONE.
THE NEXT EXAMPLE OF THE RELEVANCE OF THESE NEWLY
DISCOVERED TAPES RELATES TO THE QUESTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE
SEARCH ACTIVITY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THEN ENGAGED IN.
YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL THAT AFTER KATO KAELIN TOLD
HIM ABOUT THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TOLD NO ONE
ELSE ABOUT THAT. HE DIDN'T MENTION THAT TO ANY OF THE OTHER
DETECTIVES. HE SIMPLY SAID TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, "YOU OUGHT TO
TALK TO THIS GUY," AND THEN WENT OFF BY HIMSELF TO THE REAR OF
THE PREMISES WHERE HE WAS FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES ACCORDING
TO HIS OWN TESTIMONY.
AND WHAT'S HE DOING BACK THERE? HE SAYS, "I'M
LOOKING FOR A VICTIM. I'M LOOKING FOR THE BODY OF SOMEBODY THAT
MAY HAVE BEEN INJURED."
NO BASIS WHATSOEVER TO ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY
VICTIM BACK THERE OTHER THAN THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, AND YET HE
DIDN'T QUESTION EITHER KAELIN OR ARNELLE SIMPSON ABOUT WHETHER
THEY HEARD CRIES FROM ANYONE BACK THERE, WHETHER THEY HEARD ANY
OTHER NOISES BACK THERE. HE GOES BACK AND HE LOOKS AROUND FOR
APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES AND THEN HE TAKES THE OTHER DETECTIVES
ONE AT A TIME TO SHOW THEM WHAT HE ALLEGEDLY DISCOVERED.
WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE SAME MARK FUHRMAN WHO
IN HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH LAURA MC KINNY -- AND I AM NOW QUOTING
>FROM TAPE NO. 3 AT PAGE 3 -- MAKES THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
"FUHRMAN: WELL, I REALLY LOVE BEING A POLICEMAN.
"MC KINNY: WHY DO YOU LOVE BEING A POLICEMAN?
"FUHRMAN: WHEN I CAN BE A POLICEMAN. IT'S LIKE MY PARTNER
NOW. HE'S SO HUNG UP ON THE RULES AND STUFF. I GET PISSED
SOMETIMES AND GO, 'YOU JUST DON'T EVEN FUCK'IN UNDERSTAND. THIS
JOB IS NOT RULES. THIS IS A FEELING. FUCK THE RULES. WE'LL
MAKE THEM UP LATER.'"
WELL, THERE ARE RULES ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SEARCH
ACTIVITY A POLICE OFFICER CAN ENGAGE IN WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.
THE ACTIVITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH
RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE FOLLOWED THOSE RULES,
AND THE ATTITUDE EXHIBITED IN THIS EXCHANGE THAT IS ON TAPE IN
THE MC KINNY TAPES CERTAINLY RAISES A QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE
ASKED ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES AND
LIMITS ON THE KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT HE COULD ENGAGE IN.
THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ROLE OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE AFTER HE IS TAKEN OFF
OF THE CASE AT APPROXIMATELY 2:30 IN THE MORNING.
YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL THAT ALMOST THREE HOURS AFTER
HE IS REMOVED FROM THE CASE, IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO LEADS
THE OTHER DETECTIVES FROM BUNDY TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE OF
THE DEFENDANT. IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO FINDS THE SPECK ON THE
BRONCO. IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO THEN LEADS THE DETECTIVES
OVER THE WALL INTO THE PREMISES AND IT IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO
ULTIMATELY FINDS THE GLOVE.
AND WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THIS INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITY, THERE ARE NO NOTES, THERE ARE NO LOGS, THERE ARE NO
REPORTS. HIS TESTIMONY IS:
"I STOPPED MAKING ANY RECORD OF WHAT I WAS DOING AS SOON AS
I WAS TAKEN OFF THE CASE AT APPROXIMATELY 2:30 IN THE MORNING."
PERFECT SETUP. NO WAY TO DOUBLE-CHECK ANY OF HIS
ACTIVITY IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER HE WAS RELIEVED FROM THE
CASE. AND, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE SAME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO IN
HIS EXCHANGE WITH MISS MC KINNY -- AND THIS IS ON THE TAPE 6 --
6A.
I'M READING FROM PAGE 3 TO PAGE 4.
"THIS IS EMBARRASSING."
THIS IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SPEAKING.
"THEN YOU GO TO COURT AND I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO
TESTIFY. YOU HAVE FIVE OFFICERS ON THE CASE, AND I'M THE ONLY
ONE THERE THAT KNOWS HOW TO TESTIFY.
"THE D.A. GOES, 'YEAH, BUT YOU WERE THE FOURTH CAR. BUT
WOULD YOU TESTIFY?'
"'YEAH.'
"'BUT YOU DID SEE --'
"'I SAW IT. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. YEAH, I SAW HIM DO
THAT. YEAH, I SAW HIM DO THAT. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. GOODBYE.'
"WHY DO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING? THAT'S WHAT IT IS COMING
DOWN TO. I HAVE TO FIGHT THE GUY, I HAVE TO CATCH THE GUY, I
HAVE TO KEEP THE GUY'S MOUTH SHUT AT THE STATION BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO DO IT FOR A FEMALE. I JUST CAN WALK BY AND SAY,
'SHUT UP OR I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR FACE IN.'"
NOW, THE RELEVANCE OF THAT OBVIOUSLY IS, IT'S A PRETTY GOOD
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD TO DO EVERYTHING. AND WHAT HE'S SAYING IN
THIS EXCHANGE IS, DOING EVERYTHING MEANS ALSO PROVIDING WHATEVER
TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PRIOR CONDUCT OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY ON THE SUPPRESSION
ISSUES. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GENERAL CREDIBILITY HERE. WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER WHO BELIEVES THAT LYING TO
JUSTIFY AN ARREST OR A SEARCH IS OKAY, THAT THE END JUSTIFIES THE
MEANS IF HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SUSPECT IS GUILTY ANYWAY.
AND THIS IS THE SAME MARK FUHRMAN WHO SAYS TO MISS MC
KINNY -- AND THIS IS TRANSCRIPT 9, PAGES 11 AND 12.
"FUHRMAN: ABSOLUTELY. LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY. IN
ALMOST 12 YEARS ON THE DEPARTMENT, I HAVE NEVER FELT GUILTY ONE
DAY, ONE SPLIT SECOND.
"MISS MC KINNY: WHY?
"FUHRMAN: BECAUSE ALL THOSE PEOPLE OUT THERE DESERVE
EXACTLY WHAT THEY GET AND PROBABLY 20,000 TIMES MORE.
"MISS MC KINNY: SO YOU FEEL THAT YOU MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS
IN A WAY THAT ENSURES THOSE PEOPLE TO GET WHAT THEY DESERVE AND
SO, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR YOU TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT
ANYTHING YOU DO?"
AND FUHRMAN RESPONDS:
"WELL, YEAH. IT'S THE SAME THING, IF YOU'RE IN A RICE
PADDY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND A GUY IN BLACK PAJAMAS IS RUNNING
ACROSS A RICE PADDY WITH AN AK47, ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT HIM OR
WONDER IF HE'S REALLY A COMMUNIST OR IF HE JUST STOLE THOSE
CLOTHES FROM A VC SOLDIER AND HE'S RUNNING AWAY? YOU SHOOT THE
SON OF A BITCH AND YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT HE WAS. YOU DON'T
WORRY WHAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN, JUST WHAT HE APPEARED TO BE AND
THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.
"MISS MC KINNY: AT THE MOMENT?
"FUHRMAN: YOU NEVER KNOW PAST THE MOMENT. THAT'S THE THING
I'VE ALWAYS SAID TOO. EVEN IF YOU GET THE WRONG GUY, THIS GUY'S
DONE SOMETHING BEFORE OR HE'S THOUGHT ABOUT DOING SOMETHING."
NOW, YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO ASSESS
THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES
IN TERMS OF HIS CONDUCT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, THIS
EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED AND YOU MUST ASK THE QUESTION
WHETHER YOU WOULD BELIEVE THIS POLICE OFFICER IN LIGHT OF THIS
EVIDENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ENTITLED TO A FINDING FOR OUR
APPELLATE RECORD OF YOUR CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND WE BELIEVE THE MOST
RATIONAL WAY FOR YOU TO MAKE THAT FINDING IS FOR YOU TO PERMIT US
TO CALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO THE WITNESS STAND AS PART OF THIS
RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND ENGAGE THE MOST POWERFUL ENGINE
THAT WE HAVE TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH; AND THAT IS TO CROSS-EXAMINE
HIM AND TO CONFRONT HIM WITH HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS TO MISS MC
KINNY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MISS LEWIS.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, I NEED TO DEFINE -- I
WANT TO DEFINE FOR THE COURT WHAT THE COURT'S ROLE IS. FIRST,
LET'S RECALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS -- AND I SAY LET'S RECALL
BECAUSE THE COURT HEARD A PRIOR 995 WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THAT WAS HEARD IN THE COURT BELOW. SO THE COURT'S
ALREADY READ THAT TRANSCRIPT OF THAT EARLIER MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS ONE OF TWO POLICE OFFICERS, THE
OTHER BEING DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHO TESTIFIED IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT AT THAT MOTION TO SUPPRESS. AND THAT IS THE FACTUAL
CONTEXT IN TERMS OF WHAT MOTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THIS
COURT LOOKS AT.
WHEN IT CAME TO LITIGATION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT,
THAT WAS DONE BEFORE THIS COURT. DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER WAS
THE AFFIANT ON THAT WARRANT. HIS AFFIDAVIT IS WHAT THE COURT
LOOKED AT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE WARRANT. THE -- UNDER
THE LAW, THE COURT WAS RESTRICTED TO, AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND
NEVER HAD TO GO BEYOND THAT, TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT
OF DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
TESTIMONY REGARDING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS, WE ARE TALKING ONLY
ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE AT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE
ENTRY ONTO ROCKINGHAM BROUGHT BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT.
NOW, AS I INDICATED, WHEN THIS COURT REVIEWS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE -- AND THE COURT HAS ALREADY EARLIER
INDICATED A FINDING, AND I DON'T THINK -- WE'RE NOT. WE'RE
CONCEDING IT'S NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. BUT WHEN THE COURT
REVIEWS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THE COURT LOOKS TO THE
STANDARD ENUNCIATED IN THE BISHOP CASE, WHICH IS BRIEFED IN
LENGTH IN OUR BRIEF ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS SPELLED OUT IN
LENGTH.
AND THE BISHOP CASE MENTIONS SEVERAL STANDARDS IN
THERE. THE -- WHAT THE COURT DOES NOT DO IS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE
OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S CREDIBILITY. WHAT THE COURT DOES DO IS
TO LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE
AFFECTED THE FINDING OF THE MAGISTRATE BELOW.
THE RAMSEY CASE THAT COUNSEL CITED TO THE COURT
INCLUDES THAT STANDARD IN A FOOTNOTE WHERE IT SAYS THE -- THIS
COURT, YOUR HONOR CAN CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN A DE NOVO MATTER ONLY IF YOU DETERMINE THAT
THAT EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE MAGISTRATE'S RULING BELOW.
THEN YOU GO ON TO THIS STEP. AND THAT FOOTNOTE -- DICTA IN
FOOTNOTE IN THAT CASE MENTIONS THAT.
BUT THE STANDARD IS SPELLED OUT VERY CLEARLY IN GREAT
LENGTH IN THE BISHOP CASE. THE COURT WAS TRYING TO DETERMINE
WHAT STANDARD TO LOOK AT TO DETERMINE WHEN SOMETHING IS AFFECTED
BY AND TRY AND GIVE THE TRIAL COURT GUIDANCE IN THIS AREA, AND
THE COURT LOOKED AT THE IDEA OF RELEVANCE. WELL, WHAT IF IT'S
RELEVANT TESTIMONY, RELEVANT EVIDENCE. DOES THAT MEAN IT WOULD
HAVE AFFECTED THE STANDARD?
AND THE BISHOP COURT HELD IT COULDN'T BECAUSE THAT
HAIR TRIGGER TYPE OF STANDARD WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE EVERY
MAGISTRATE'S RULING IN EVERY MOTION TO SUPPRESS BROUGHT IN THE
LOWER COURT TO BE AFFECTED IF MERE RELEVANCE WAS THE STANDARD,
AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE LEGISLATURE IN CHANGING THIS
LEGISLATION BACK IN 1986 I BELIEVE IT WAS TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE
ONE OPPORTUNITY FOR A DE NOVO REVIEW AND ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY
EXCEPT UNDER VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT
APPLIES WHEN THERE'S NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. BUT BECAUSE OF
THE POLICY OF THE LAW TO MAINTAIN THE FINALITY OF LITIGATION, THE
BISHOP COURT HOLDS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A HEIGHTENED STANDARD
UNDER THIS SITUATION. AND THE BISHOP COURT, AS THIS COURT HAS
NOTED IN A PREVIOUS HEARING I THINK IT'S BEEN MANY MONTHS AGO,
NOW LOOKED TO THE AREA OF NEW TRIAL MOTIONS, LOOKED AT THE LAW IN
THAT AREA AND THE AREA OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND TO SEE IF
THAT STANDARD WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE ONE, AND IT HELD THAT THAT
WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD.
AND I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO THE NEW TRIAL MOTION A
LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION, YOUR HONOR, THESE --
THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF STATEMENTS THAT ONLY
GO IN SOME GENERAL MANNER TO BIAS AND CREDIBILITY, NOTHING
SPECIFIC IN THIS CASE, NOT TO ANY SPECIFIC PERSON IN THIS CASE,
NOT TO ANY SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS OR CONDUCT IN THIS CASE. IT
ONLY GOES SOMEHOW GENERALLY, IN A GENERAL MANNER TO CREDIBILITY.
THAT BY DEFINITION IS COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. IT'S
COLLATERAL EVIDENCE ON CREDIBILITY. IT'S NOT EVIDENCE THAT HAS
ANY KIND OF DIRECT INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OR DIRECT IMPEACHMENT
OF ANY OFFICER, EITHER OF THE TWO OFFICERS' TESTIMONY IN
MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THESE --
NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. FIRST OF ALL,
WE KNOW THAT IT'S COLLATERAL JUST BY DEFINITION BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO DIRECTLY WITH WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO
IN MUNICIPAL COURT. IT'S ONLY VERY INDEFINITE REASON BY
INFERENCE UPON INFERENCE. AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE
STATEMENTS ARE, THEY ARE STATEMENTS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MADE
TO A SCREENWRITER.
AND IN THAT CONTEXT -- AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT HE WAS
ROLE PLAYING WHEN HE SAID THIS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, HE WAS THERE
TO IMPRESS THIS WOMAN TO WRITE A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE. AND WE ALL
KNOW THAT HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY PORTRAY BAD
COPS, ARE VICIOUS, VIOLENT, HORRIBLE AND DEPICT DISGUSTING
THINGS. I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S DEPICTING BAD POLICE OFFICERS. I CAN
THINK OF RICHARD GERE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS WENT AROUND MURDERING
PEOPLE. THAT'S HOLLYWOOD. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
SO THESE STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE TO LAURA MC KINNY,
HE WAS THERE TO IMPRESS. THERE'S NO TRUSTWORTHINESS WHATSOEVER
THAT ANYTHING HE ACTUALLY SAID IS SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD DO EVEN
BACK THEN OR THAT HE WOULD DO YEARS LATER AFTER HE SAID THOSE
THINGS TO HER IN THAT CONTEXT IN THIS CASE.
SO YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS, AND THEY'RE NOT
TRUSTWORTHY. THEY'RE NOT SAID IN A CONTEXT THAT MAKES THEM AT
ALL TRUSTWORTHY IN TERMS OF HIS ACTUAL STATE OF MIND OF WHAT HE
WOULD DO EIGHT YEARS LATER WHEN IT COMES TO THE INVESTIGATION OF
THIS CASE DURING WHICH HE PLAYED A VERY NARROW ROLE.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY COLLATERAL EVIDENCE,
BUT EVIDENCE THAT ON ITS FACE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AND PROBATIVE OF
EVEN WHAT IT WOULD PURPORT TO PROVE OR WHAT THE DEFENSE WOULD
HAVE IT PROVE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT FARLY-REMOVED EVIDENCE
IN TERMS OF DIRECTLY REJECTING ANYTHING TESTIFIED IN MUNICIPAL
COURT, IT BECOMES SELF-EVIDENT THAT ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS
VIRTUALLY NIL. THERE'S ALMOST NO PROBATIVE VALUE THERE.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THE BISHOP COURT HELD -- AND I
NOTICE COUNSEL'S LACK OF ADDRESSING THE BISHOP COURT, THOUGH IT
DOES ADDRESS THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN
A RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS AT LENGTH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THAT COURT HELD, THE COURT OF APPEAL, IS THAT THE IMPLIED
CREDIBILITY FINDINGS MADE BY THE MAGISTRATE BELOW HAD TO BE AS TO
-- AFFECTED BY THE NEW EVIDENCE AS TO BOTH OFFICERS WHO
TESTIFIED. AND HERE THAT MEANS NOT ONLY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT
DETECTIVE VANNATTER AS WELL.
IT'S A HEIGHTENED BURDEN. AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE
USED BY THE BISHOP COURT, A HEIGHTENED BURDEN BECAUSE THIS
EVIDENCE REGARDING CREDIBILITY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BOTH OFFICERS.
AND THIS EVIDENCE, THESE MC KINNY TAPES AND
TRANSCRIPTS AND ANYTHING SAID BY MARK FUHRMAN HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER AND NEVER HAS HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH HIM. HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW MARK FUHRMAN BEFORE THEY MET THAT
NIGHT.
SO THE DEFENSE HAS OFFERED NOTHING TO IMPEACH EITHER
DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY, COLLATERALLY, IN ANY MANNER THE TESTIMONY
THAT WAS GIVEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXTENSIVELY DURING THAT
EARLIER MOTION TO SUPPRESS, WHICH ENTIRELY CORROBORATES EVERY
IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION TESTIFIED TO BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER TESTIFIED TO THE SAME THINGS OR
TO THINGS RIGHT IN THAT SAME NATURE. I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THE
TESTIMONY WAS IDENTICAL, BUT HE ALSO TESTIFIED TO THE IMPORTANT
ASPECTS THAT WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THAT MAGISTRATE TO
CONSIDER IN THAT MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
NOW, WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE NEW TRIAL -- THE
STANDARD OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, NEWLY DISCOVERED WITNESSES
IN A -- IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ONE OF WHAT I
CONSIDER THE VIABLES IN THE CRIMINAL LAW IS WICKEN AND EPSTEIN.
AND WICKEN AND EPSTEIN SAY THAT NEW EVIDENCE CALCULATED MERELY TO
DISCREDIT A WITNESS AT THE TRIAL IS CONSIDERED OF SLIGHT
IMPORTANCE AND IT IS FREQUENTLY SAID THAT IT WILL NOT SUPPORT A
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
SO IT IS RARE UNDER THE CASE LAW THAT NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH GOES ONLY TO CREDIBILITY IS GIVEN ANY
KIND OF DEFERENCE AND SUCH THAT A NEW TRIAL MOTION IS GRANTED.
AND THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT THE BISHOP COURT OF APPEAL TELLS US
TO LOOK AT IN WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD HOLD WHETHER OR NOT
EVIDENCE HAS AFFECTED THE MAGISTRATE'S RULING BELOW IN THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS THERE.
AND IN FACT, THE -- IN A CASE CITED IN MY BRIEF IN
PEOPLE VERSUS GREEN, THE -- A WITNESS WAS DISCOVERED, NEWLY
DISCOVERED, WHO WOULD HAVE IMPEACHED THE PROSECUTION'S MAIN
WITNESS, A POLICE OFFICER, REGARDING THAT WITNESS' TESTIMONY AS
TO THE NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS HE HAD ENGAGED IN AND WHETHER HE
MADE NARCOTICS ADDRESS FOR AMOUNTS UNDER A CERTAIN QUANTITY. SO
IT WAS -- IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECT IMPEACHMENT OF THAT POLICE
OFFICER'S TESTIMONY ITSELF.
AND THE COURT OF APPEAL IN PEOPLE VERSUS GREEN DENIED
THE -- UPHELD THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF THE NEW TRIAL MOTION
AND HELD AS A GENERAL RULE EVIDENCE WHICH MERELY IMPEACHES A
WITNESS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENT RESULT
PROBABLE. SO IT'S WHETHER A DIFFERENT RESULT WAS PROBABLE.
THAT'S THE ANALOGY THEY DRAW IN THE NEW TRIAL MOTION CONTEXT TO
-- WHETHER IT WOULD AFFECT THE MAGISTRATE, AND IN DIFFERENT
WORDS, MAKE A DIFFERENT RESULT PROBABLE THERE, THAT THE
MAGISTRATE WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY.
SO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN PEOPLE VERSUS GREEN
RECOGNIZED IT WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT RESULT THERE
WHERE IT WAS DIRECT IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY LET ALONE HERE WHERE WE
HAVE SEVERAL STEPS BY INFERENCES REMOVED UNTRUSTWORTHY, BUT AT
BEST, COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT IN THE TERMS OF AFFECTING
CREDIBILITY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
NOW, WE ALSO KNOW IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE
MAGISTRATE BELOW SPECIFICALLY TOLD MR. SHAPIRO WHEN HE TRIED TO
INTRODUCE COLLATERAL MATTER TO DISCREDIT A WITNESS, SHE
SPECIFICALLY SAID:
"THE WAY I SEE IT, MR. SHAPIRO, IS THAT IF IN FACT THERE IS
AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT WITH SOMETHING -- I'M SORRY -- WITH
REGARD TO SOMETHING THAT THE DETECTIVE TESTIFIED TO DURING THE
COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING, THEN THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE. BUT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE STRAW MEN TO SHOOT DOWN LATER THAT WERE
NOT PART OF THE TESTIMONY."
SO THIS OWN MAGISTRATE TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS
ANY -- I'M NOT SURE IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO
LOOK AT THIS MAGISTRATE'S STATE OF MIND AND WHETHER HER
PARTICULAR -- THIS PARTICULAR MAGISTRATE'S RULING WOULD HAVE BEEN
AFFECTED, SHE -- IT'S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THAT OBSERVATION OF HERS
THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE ADMITTED DIRECTLY IMPEACHING TESTIMONY AND
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DIRECTED -- ADMITTED DIRECTLY IMPEACHING
TESTIMONY, BUT WOULD NOT ADMIT COLLATERALLY IMPEACHING OR
COLLATERAL EVIDENCE REGARDING CREDIBILITY.
AS THE BISHOP COURT ITSELF SAID:
"EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE AN ISSUE, BUT
IS USED ONLY TO IMPEACH OR CONTRADICT AN OPPOSING WITNESS TENDS
TO IMPRESS WEAKLY."
AND THAT'S WHAT THE BISHOP COURT ITSELF SAID WITH
REGARD TO WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE MAGISTRATE'S RULING
BELOW IN THAT CASE.
FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE
PEOPLE'S BURDEN AT THAT MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS BY A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE. AND WE HAD THE TWO -- THE CORROBORATIVE
TESTIMONY OF TWO DETECTIVES WHO TESTIFIED IN DETAIL.
ALL THE DEFENSE HAS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT HERE IN
TERMS OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE GOES TO, AS I'VE MENTIONED,
COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT, COLLATERAL CREDIBILITY ATTACK ON ONLY ONE
OF THOSE OFFICERS. AND I SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT AS A MATTER OF
LAW, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TO, QUOTE, LEGALLY AFFECT THE
MAGISTRATE'S RULING.
AND THAT IS A TERM OF ART, SO THAT THERE'S NO
CONFUSION, AND THAT'S WHAT THE BISHOP COURT HAS TRIED TO DEFINE
AS A TERM OF ART. SO THERE'S SIMPLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE AFFECTED HER
RULING BECAUSE IT IS COLLATERAL AND REMOVED FROM THE ONE OFFICER
WHO IT EVEN AFFECTS AT ALL IN TERMS OF HIS TESTIMONY AND HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER OFFICER.
SO, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE IS NOT ENTITLED TO YET
ANOTHER HEARING IN THIS COURT OF ANY NATURE OTHER THAN THE LEGAL
ARGUMENT WE JUST ENGAGED IN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE APPROPRIATE AND
PROPER RULING FOR THIS COURT TO MAKE IS THAT THIS EVIDENCE WOULD
NOT HAVE, QUOTE, AFFECTED, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE LAW, THE
RULING OF THE MAGISTRATE BELOW.
THE COURT: DO YOU THINK THOUGH THAT THE MAGISTRATE WOULD
HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN HEARING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN BEING CONFRONTED WITH SOME OF THIS MATERIAL ON THE TAPES?
MS. LEWIS: NO, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T.
AND IN FACT, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REMIND THE
COURT OUR COURTS OF APPEAL AND SUPREME COURT -- MOST RECENTLY,
THERE'S A CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, PIEDRAHITA,
P-I-E-D-R-A-H-I-T-A, 1995 AT 34 CAL. APP. 4 508, THAT REPEATS:
"GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE GUARANTEES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION, NOT
CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS EFFECTIVE IN WHATEVER WAY AND TO
WHATEVER EXTENT THE DEFENSE MIGHT WISH. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
THE WITNESSES ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S BROAD
DISCRETION TO IMPOSE A REASONABLE LIMITS TO PREVENT INTERROGATION
BASED ON CONCERNS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, HARASSMENT, PREJUDICE,
CONFUSION OF THE ISSUES" -- AND THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HERE --
"OR INTERROGATION THAT IS REPETITIVE OR ONLY MARGINALLY
RELEVANT."
SO THE COURTS HAVE WIDE DISCRETION. THERE'S ALSO
PEOPLE VERSUS COOPER WHO -- ALSO CITES DAVIS VERSUS ALASKA, WHICH
IS ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS' FAVORITE CASES IT SEEMS -- TO
REPEAT:
"THAT THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE GUARANTEES OPPORTUNITY FOR
EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION, NOT CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS
EFFECTIVE IN WHATEVER WAY AND TO WHATEVER EXTENT THE DEFENSE
MIGHT WISH."
MOST COURTS, IN PARTICULAR, MUNICIPAL COURTS HEARING
THESE MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS ALONG WITH THEIR PRELIMINARY HEARINGS
DAY IN AND DAY OUT ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LETTING THE DEFENSE GO
FAR AFIELD INTO THE NETHERLAND IN CROSS-EXAMINING WITNESSES.
THEY WANT TO HEAR EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PERTAINS TO THAT
WITNESS' TESTIMONY AND THAT IS RELEVANT AND DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO
THAT WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
SO BY ALL INDICATIONS, THIS PARTICULAR MAGISTRATE
WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN ALLOWED CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS ISSUE, LET
ALONE HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
I'M SORRY. MISS LEWIS, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ONE
OTHER ISSUE, THE REQUEST AT THIS POINT TO RECALL -- BASED UPON
THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WHAT YOU CONCEDE THE TAPES ARE
NEWLY DISCOVERED SINCE THIS DISCOVERY OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE ORIGINAL 1538.5 MOTION, WHAT IS YOUR
POSITION ON AT LEAST THE PROSECUTION -- EXCUSE ME -- THE DEFENSE
ABILITY TO RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS TO CONFRONT HIM
WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS?
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE HAS NO SUCH RIGHT.
THIS IS HIGH -- AS I JUST ARGUED AND POINTED OUT TO THIS COURT,
THIS IS HIGHLY COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. THEIR RIGHT WAS TO PRESENT
TO THIS COURT THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
THEY'VE DONE THAT. THIS COURT HAS READ ALL OF THE
TRANSCRIPTS, I'M SURE LISTENED TO ALL OF THE TAPES. WELL, I KNOW
IT'S LISTENED TO ALL THE TAPES, MADE A DETAILED LENGTHY RULING
WITH REGARD TO THE 60 WHATEVER PROFFERS.
SO THIS COURT HAS HEARD AND HAS TAKEN IN THAT
EVIDENCE. IT'S IN THE RECORD, IT'S THERE, AND THE DEFENSE HAS
NO RIGHT, AND IN FACT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE I BELIEVE FOR
THIS COURT TO GET INTO ANY KIND OF FACTUAL DETERMINATION, WHICH
IT WOULD BE DOING IF IT HEARD -- ATTEMPTED TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. LEWIS: AS MISS CLARK POINTS OUT, THE STATUTE DOES NOT
ALLOW FOR -- IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT
AND CROSS-EXAMINE ANY WITNESS WITH REGARD TO THIS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
AND THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S CLEAR, YOUR HONOR,
THE MAGISTRATE BELOW WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED, AS MUCH AS I CAN
READ HER MIND -- BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING WORKED IN THESE MUNI
COURTS FOR MANY YEARS -- AND THIS COURT KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE IN
MUNI COURTS WITH THE NUMBER OF FELONIES PROSECUTED BY THIS OFFICE
AND THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT ARE CALLED DAILY AND 10 TO 15
PRELIMS A DAY. THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL DOWNTOWN.
I MEAN NOT ONLY AS A LEGAL MATTER, BUT IN TERMS OF
THE EXERCISE OF THESE MAGISTRATES' DISCRETION, IT'S VERY EASY TO
PREDICT THAT SHE WOULD HAVE NOT -- BECAUSE NO MAGISTRATE BELOW IN
MUNICIPAL COURT IN THIS BUILDING OR IN ANY OTHER BUILDING
PROBABLY IN L.A. COUNTY WOULD ALLOW THE KIND OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO BRING ON AT THIS POINT FOR THIS COURT TO
HEAR.
BUT I -- I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET SIDETRACKED. NO, THEY
DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO CONFRONT HIM
WITH THIS AND IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO DO SO.
THE COURT HAS THE INFORMATION THAT IT NEEDS, HAVING
HEARD THE TRANSCRIPTS AND LISTENED TO THE TAPES, TO DETERMINE IF
INDEED THAT WAS EVEN ADMITTED BY THE MAGISTRATE BELOW, WHICH I
SUBMIT IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, THAT WOULD HAVE HAD THE LEGAL
EFFECT OF AFFECTING HER PRIOR RULING AND CAUSING HER TO GRANT THE
MOTION; AND IT SIMPLY COULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT EFFECT WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT TWO POLICE OFFICERS TESTIFYING WHERE THAT EVIDENCE
AFFECTS ONLY ONE. AND THE BISHOP COURT HOLDS THAT THE DEFENSE
HAS A HEIGHTENED BURDEN OF IT AFFECTING BOTH OFFICERS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. UELMEN.
MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, HAVING HAD THE BENEFIT OF
PARTICIPATING IN THE DETERMINATION BY THE MAGISTRATE OF THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, I CAN ASSURE YOUR
HONOR IT WAS NOT ONE OF 15 OR 20 MOTIONS BEING HEARD ON A ROUTINE
BASIS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT WENT ON
FOR MORE THAN A WEEK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MAGISTRATE WHO TOLD
US HOW TROUBLED SHE WAS BY THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO
SUPPRESS AND WHO MADE SOME VERY CAREFUL FINDINGS WHICH WERE
LARGELY DEPENDENT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIFYING OFFICERS.
THAT IS, SHE BELIEVED THE REASONS THAT THEY OFFERED
TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS THAT THEY TOOK AND SHE BELIEVED THEY WERE
REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF
KNOWING -- WHAT'S THE MATTER? IS MY ZIPPER OPEN?
THE COURT: NO. I WAS JUST NOTICING ONE OF OUR CCB
RESIDENTS ON THE -- CRAWLING ON THE TABLE THERE.
MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: NEVER MIND.
MR. UELMEN: SHOULD I KILL IT?
MS. LEWIS: GOT IT.
WOMEN DO KILL ROACHES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SORRY ABOUT THAT.
MR. UELMEN: THE -- THE ISSUE BEFORE YOUR HONOR, HOWEVER,
IS NOT WHAT EFFECT WOULD THIS EVIDENCE HAVE ON THE MAGISTRATE.
AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE RAMSEY DECISION.
WHERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, THE FINDINGS
OF THE MAGISTRATE, TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE AFFECTED BY ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE, ARE NOT BINDING ON THE SUPERIOR COURT. AS THE RAMSEY
COURT PUT IT, THIS ALLOWS THE SUPERIOR COURT TO EXERCISE ITS
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON ISSUES ON WHICH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS
INTRODUCED.
SO WE'RE NOT IN THE POSITION OF TRYING TO GO BACK AND
RECREATE HOW JUDGE KENNEDY-POWELL WOULD HAVE REACTED IF SHE HAD
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING THE FUHRMAN TAPES IN DECIDING
WHETHER SHE SHOULD BELIEVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT
HAPPENED ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH. TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT FINDING DOES
YOUR HONOR MAKE ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH
RESPECT TO THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE
13TH.
AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE BISHOP CASE RELIED ON BY THE
PROSECUTION IS INAPPOSITE. THEY'RE SAYING, YOU MUST CHALLENGE
THE CREDIBILITY OF BOTH OFFICERS. BUT THAT OCCURS IN A CONTEXT
WHERE THE TWO OFFICERS CORROBORATE EACH OTHER, WHERE YOU HAVE TWO
OFFICERS TESTIFYING TO THE SAME THING.
OF COURSE, JUST ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE
OFFICER ISN'T GOING TO UNDERCUT THE FACTUAL FINDING. BUT WITH
RESPECT TO EACH OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, THE
DISCOVERY OF THE SPECK ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY IN TERMS OF SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE THAT
TOOK PLACE IN THE ROOM OF KATO KAELIN, THE SEARCHING ACTIVITY
THAT TOOK PLACE BEHIND THE HOUSE AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DECIDED
TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT KAELIN TOLD HIM, EVERY ONE OF THESE WERE
JUDGMENTS OR DISCOVERIES MADE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITHOUT ANY
CORROBORATION. HE WAS BY HIMSELF, HE WAS ALONE AND HIS
CREDIBILITY STANDS ALONE WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THOSE ISSUES.
WE'RE NOT ASKING TO RELITIGATE EVERYTHING HERE. OF
COURSE, WE'RE NOT SEEKING A HEARING DE NOVO ON THE SEARCH MADE
PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT, ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IF THE EVIDENCE
FOUND IN THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH SUPPLIES THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT, THEN OF COURSE THE EVIDENCE
DISCOVERED PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE
SUPPRESSED.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A WARRANTLESS
ENTRY TO PREMISES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
DECISIONS AND THE JUDGMENTS MADE BY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN ACTING
ALONE AND WE ARE ASKING WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN YOU HAVE IN HIS
CREDIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THAT ACTION THAT HE TOOK KNOWING WHAT
YOU NOW KNOW FROM THE FUHRMAN TAPES.
AND THE FUHRMAN TAPES, YOUR HONOR IS IN A VERY GOOD
POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS JUST IMPRESSING
A SCREENWRITER. WE BELIEVE THE TAPES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE HE WAS
EXPRESSING HIS OWN ATTITUDES, HE WAS EXPRESSING HIS OWN OPINIONS,
HE WAS DESCRIBING HIS OWN PRACTICES, AND THOSE ARE CERTAINLY
RELEVANT AREAS TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON BEFORE WE MAKE A
DETERMINATION OF HIS CREDIBILITY. AND THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT
WAS DEPRIVED TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT
AVAILABLE AT THE TIME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS CONFRONTED IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT.
AND BEAR IN MIND THAT WHEN DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN
TESTIFIED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, HE WAS THERE TO IMPRESS A
JUDGE, JUST AS COUNSEL SUGGESTS HE WAS THERE TO IMPRESS MISS MC
KINNY. AND THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IS WHETHER THAT WAS
A FALSE IMPRESSION, WHETHER THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE DRAW WITH
RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS WITNESS, OF THIS KEY WITNESS
ON THIS ISSUE OF THE SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE CAN BE TRUSTED
IN LIGHT OF THIS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: MR. UELMEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS THOUGH.
WHAT WOULD CALLING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ADD TO THE
COURT'S RECORD IN EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY ISSUES THAT YOU
RAISE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE TAPES THAT THE COURT HEARD ARE
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S VOICE? I MEAN, THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN LAID
EITHER THROUGH MISS MC KINNY THROUGH THE 402 HEARING OR DURING
THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT
IS IN FACT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S VOICE AND HIS STATEMENTS.
IS THERE ANYTHING TO BE SERVED BY CALLING DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN? WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU ADD? "DID YOU SAY THIS? IS THIS
YOUR VOICE?" I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF TWO OR THREE QUESTIONS WE
MIGHT ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT --
MR. UELMEN: WELL, CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE BASED ON
THE ENTIRE GALAXY OF THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESS, THE FACTUAL
ACCURACY OF HIS ACCOUNT. WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING WE HAVE
POINTED TO IN THE FUHRMAN TAPES GOES DIRECTLY TO ISSUES THAT HE
TALKED ABOUT IN HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT
HE WAS SAYING.
THE COURT: WELL, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR OFFER AT THIS POINT
GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE COURT HAS, WITH REGARD TO PREVIOUS
RULINGS, REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WITH
REGARDS TO PRIOR MOTIONS REGARDING THE MC KINNY MATTER, THE COURT
HAS READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, LISTENED TO THE TAPES -- I DID SIT
THROUGH, MY RECOLLECTION, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE OR SIX DAYS
OF TESTIMONY BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
TRIAL.
WHAT MORE CAN WE ADD TO THE RECORD? WHAT MORE DO YOU
THINK WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD FOR THE COURT AT
THIS POINT TO EVALUATE ALL THESE THINGS ANEW?
I AGREE WITH THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE, THAT BASED UPON
THE SHOWING OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE,
NOT REASONABLY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THAT THE MAGISTRATE'S FINDING IS NOT BINDING UPON THIS COURT AND
THAT THIS COURT UPON APPROPRIATE MOTION, WHICH YOU'VE MADE, IS
REQUIRED TO GO BACK AND REASSESS WHAT'S HERE. BUT YOU'RE ASKING,
IN ADDITION TO THAT, ASKING TO RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND I'M
JUST ASKING FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO WHAT YOU -- WHAT LINE OF
QUESTIONS YOU WOULD VENTURE INTO THAT WOULD ADD TO THE COURT'S
STORE OF KNOWLEDGE WITH REGARDS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
MR. UELMEN: WE WOULD CONFRONT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WITH EACH
OF THESE KEY ACCOUNTS OR JUSTIFICATIONS THAT HE OFFERED FOR HIS
CONDUCT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH AND WE WOULD QUESTION HIM AS
TO WHETHER ON PRIOR OCCASIONS HE HAS INDICATED THAT HE DOESN'T
PLAY BY THE RULES, THAT HE MAKES THE RULES UP LATER, THAT HE
DOESN'T REALLY CARE WHAT THE COURTS SAY ABOUT WHAT OFFICERS CAN
DO AND CAN'T DO.
THE COURT: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD GO THROUGH EACH
ONE OF THE 61 INCIDENTS THAT YOU PUT FORTH IN YOUR OFFER OF PROOF
WITH REGARDS TO THE OFFER REGARDING MISS MC KINNY.
MR. UELMEN: NO. NO, YOUR HONOR.
WE'VE SUBMITTED A NEW OFFER OF PROOF JUST RELATED TO
THIS WHICH LAYS OUT I BELIEVE SEVEN EXCERPTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
WHICH WE BELIEVE ARE RELEVANT JUST TO THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OPEN UP RACIAL ATTITUDES. WE ARE
NOT TRYING TO OPEN UP THE WHOLE SPECTRUM OF POLICE MISCONDUCT
THAT WAS RAISED IN THE MC KINNY MOTION. WE'VE TRIED TO FOCUS
THIS RIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR
POLICE CONDUCT IN WHICH HE ENGAGED.
AND I KNOW YOUR HONOR HAS HEARD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
TESTIFY, BUT I REALLY WOULD ASK YOU WHETHER YOU WOULD HEAR HIS
TESTIMONY WITH THE SAME EARS TODAY KNOWING WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD ON
THOSE TAPES.
THE COURT: WELL, IT'S NOT -- AND IT'S NOT JUST KNOWING
WHAT I KNOW ON THOSE TAPES. IT'S WHAT I HEARD FROM MISS SINGER,
IT'S WHAT I KNOW FROM MISS BELL AND WHAT I HEARD FROM MR. HODGE.
MR. UELMEN: AND THAT TOO IS ALL NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,
YOUR HONOR. THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS PERJURED HIMSELF
IN THIS TRIAL WE BELIEVE IS RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY THAT WE
GIVE TO THE TESTIMONY AT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
I DARE SAY THAT IN ANY CASE, BEING TRIED IN THESE
COURTROOMS, IF IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, A COURT WERE CONVINCED
THAT AN LAPD OFFICER HAD COME INTO THE COURTROOM AND COMMITTED
PERJURY, THE COURT WOULD NOT HESITATE TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE
AND RE-EXAMINE THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PRETRIAL
MOTIONS. IN FACT, WE HAVE INQUIRIES GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE ON
THE BASIS OF THE DISCOVERY OF FORGED EVIDENCE, WE'RE GOING BACK
TO CASES THAT WERE TRIED YEARS AGO TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, TO
GET TO THE TRUTH OF IT.
AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO HERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GIVEN THAT OFFER, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LIKELIHOOD IS
THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD BE -- FORMER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY?
MR. UELMEN: THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT, YOUR HONOR.
LET'S BRING HIM IN, PUT HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND AND PUT THE
QUESTIONS TO HIM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. UELMEN: COULD I HAVE JUST A MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
MS. LEWIS: MAY I --
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU WAIT UNTIL MR. UELMEN FINISHES
TALKING TO MR. NEUFELD.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. UELMEN: I'M IN DEBT TO MR. NEUFELD.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PEOPLE ARE ARGUING THAT
THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS SAID IN THOSE
TAPES, THAT IS WHETHER HE IS SPEAKING HIS OWN MIND, WHETHER HE IS
PUFFING, WHETHER HE'S TRYING TO IMPRESS MISS MC KINNY, THE WAY TO
DETERMINE THAT IS BY QUESTIONING AND CROSS-EXAMINING HIM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS LEWIS.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, THE CONCERN HERE OF COURSE IS THAT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS NOT HIMSELF IN THE SAME POSITION THAT HE WAS
DOWN AT THE MUNICIPAL COURT BELOW. THERE IS NO -- THERE HAD BEEN
NO TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE "N" WORD. THERE HAD BEEN --
THAT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING, THIS HEARING. BUT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN NOW FINDS HIMSELF IN A POSITION BECAUSE OF THAT
AND BECAUSE OF THE --
IT'S CLEAR THERE'S BEEN AN OUTCRY IN THIS CITY, YOUR
HONOR, AND PERHAPS APPROPRIATELY SO. BUT AS WE STRESSED OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, THAT IS FOR ANOTHER FORUM, ANOTHER PLACE, ANOTHER
TIME.
TO BOX THIS COURT IN TO CALLING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN,
MAKING HIM HAVE TO MAKE THE DIFFICULT DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT
TO TAKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT CREATES ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY AND ADDS
ISSUES AND MISLEADS -- WELL, IT DOESN'T MISLEAD, BUT IT CONSUMES
TIMES, TAKES AWAY FROM THE SEQUESTERED JURY WE HAVE IN THIS CASE,
ADDS NOTHING TO THIS COURT'S KNOWLEDGE WITH REGARD TO WHAT IT
NEEDS TO KNOW TO DETERMINE IF THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE AFFECTED
THE PRIOR MAGISTRATE'S RULING.
IT DOES NOT. IT IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE COURT'S
DISCRETION TO DENY ANY SUCH MOTION AND I THINK, AS A MATTER OF
LAW, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO EVEN ENTERTAIN SUCH A MOTION BY THE
DEFENSE.
AND IN ADDITION, AS MISS CLARK POINTS OUT, EVEN IF IT
WERE TRUE THAT THAT'S HOW HE FELT BACK IN 1985, THERE'S NO PROOF
THAT THAT'S HOW HE FEELS NOW OR FELT IN 1994. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS
A MAN WHO --
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE HISTORY. THE
COURT, YOU KNOW, HEARD EVIDENCE IN CONTEXT OF THE PITCHESS
MOTION. BUT PEOPLE CHANGE OVER TIME. THIS MAN BECAME MARRIED,
HAD TWO CHILDREN.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO HERE A PERSONAL
DEFENSE OF MARK FUHRMAN. THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HERE, YOUR HONOR,
AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
WHAT I DO WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT
THIS IS COLLATERAL EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT GO TO DIRECTLY IMPEACH
HIM AND THAT THERE ARE TWO OFFICERS WHO TESTIFIED, AND FOR THIS
COURT TO GET SIDETRACKED OFF INTO A SIDE ISSUE OF WHETHER MARK
FUHRMAN IS GOING TO TAKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE,
NOT IN THIS CONTEXT ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
RENEWAL OF THEIR MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
THE COURT, AS IT'S JUST EXPLAINED, HAS ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE IT NEEDS. IT HAS A VERY COMPLETE -- THERE'S NO SUCH
THING AS VERY. THE RECORD IS COMPLETE, AND THAT MEANS ONE THING.
IT IS COMPLETE IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS COURT NEEDS TO ASSESS
WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE RULING OF THE
MAGISTRATE BELOW UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE.
AND THIS COURT IS NOT I SUBMIT ENTITLED TO THIS
DEFENSE ARGUMENT OF THE PERJURY, WHETHER OR NOT PERJURY WAS
COMMITTED HERE IN THIS CASE IN ASSESSING WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE
AFFECTED THE MAGISTRATE BELOW.
AND, YOUR HONOR, WHETHER THE DEFENSE OFFERS SEVEN
EXCERPTS FROM THEIR NEW PROFFER OR THE 70 -- 60 OR 70 THAT THEY
OFFER BELOW, THE LAW IS THE SAME IN THIS REGARD. THE COURT HAS
HEARD ALL THOSE. THE COURT HAS READ THE ONES THAT -- ALL OF THEM,
PLUS THE ONES THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO HEAR ON TAPE.
SO THE COURT ALREADY IS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
IT'S TIME FOR THE COURT TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DIFFICULT DECISION
AND TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE WITH MAKING A RULING ON THIS CASE. BUT
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- THAT BURDEN IS NOT GOING TO BE
LIGHTENED AND WOULD JUST BE DRAGGED OUT AND LIKELY THE COURT'S --
THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RULING WOULD BE MAGNIFIED BY HAVING
ADDITIONAL UNKNOWN FACTOR THROWN IN AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: BUT IF I DON'T DO THAT, DON'T I HAVE AN
INCOMPLETE RECORD?
MS. LEWIS: OH, ABSOLUTELY NOT, YOUR HONOR. PLEASE, THE
COURT CAN SEE THIS IS COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. IT DOES NOT AND NEVER
HAD TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS EVIDENCE AT ALL.
THE DEFENSE IN THEIR NEW PROFFER IS TALKING ABOUT
MISCONDUCT THINGS. THEY RECOGNIZE IT APPARENTLY BECAUSE THEY
LEFT IT OUT. THEY EVEN LEAVE OUT THE "N" WORD STUFF.
I MEAN, THE COURT HAS HEARD ALL THIS STUFF. THE
COURT HAS HEARD THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS PLAYED. THE COURT --
AND IN FACT, IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GETS UP HERE AND
TAKES THE 5TH, THE COURT -- I THINK THE STATE OF THE LAW WOULD
BE, THE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER HIM HAVING TAKEN THE 5TH IN TERMS
OF DECIDING THE EARLIER RULING BECAUSE THE JURY IS NOT ALLOWED TO
HEAR THAT SOMEBODY TOOK THE 5TH. AND I'M SURE THE SAME LAW WOULD
APPLY, THAT THE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THAT FACT BECAUSE YOU
WOULD BE IMPINGING ON HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.
IT GETS UNDULY COMPLICATED, YOUR HONOR, AND IT'S NOT
NECESSARY. THE RECORD IS COMPLETE. I KNOW YOU AS A VERY
THOROUGH -- METICULOUSLY THOROUGH JUDGE, BUT I'M TELLING YOUR
HONOR, AS A METICULOUS AND THOROUGH ATTORNEY, THIS RECORD IS
COMPLETE ON THIS ISSUE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. MOUNGER, MR. DARRYL MOUNGER IS ALSO HERE WITH US,
COUNSEL FOR MR. FUHRMAN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.
MR. MOUNGER: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU'VE BEEN PRESENT FOR OUR DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE DEFENSE MOTION TO -- BASED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE, TO REVISIT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, AND ONE OF THE KEY
ISSUES IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT WOULD ALLOW YOUR CLIENT TO BE
RECALLED AS A WITNESS FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THAT?
MR. MOUNGER: WELL, BEFORE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MAY I BE
ALLOWED TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE MOTION?
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOUR
CLIENT IS AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY.
MR. MOUNGER: WELL, YOUR HONOR, FIRST, I WOULD ASK THAT,
SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE WHEN MR. KARDASHIAN WAS ASKED TO BE A
WITNESS, BECAUSE OF THE POSITION THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS IN, I
WOULD FIRST LIKE TO SEE IF THE COURT COULD ALLOW IT, THE
QUESTIONS, THE EXACT QUESTIONS THAT THEY PLAN ON ASKING HIM
BECAUSE ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY AT THIS POINT IN TIME MAY HAVE A
DIFFERENCE DEPENDING UPON THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN, DO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COPY OF YOUR
SPECIFIC OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING THIS ISSUE AVAILABLE?
MR. UELMEN: I'M SURE WE CAN HAVE A COPY DUPLICATED, BUT WE
DON'T BELIEVE A WITNESS IS ENTITLED TO A PREVIEW OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IS TO TEST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WITNESS IN REACTING TO QUESTIONS AS THEY ARE PUT AND --
THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT, COUNSEL, SINCE -- I MEAN,
THAT OFFER OF PROOF IS NOT UNDER SEAL. IT'S NOT EXACTLY A
MYSTERY AS TO WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND WE'VE
DISCUSSED IT HERE IN OPEN COURT JUST NOW.
MR. UELMEN: YES. WELL, I'M SURE WE CAN SIMPLY DUPLICATE
THE COPY WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, IN ANY EVENT, I NEED TO GIVE THE COURT REPORTER
A BRIEF RECESS. SO WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.
COUNSEL, IF YOU'LL PROVIDE MR. MOUNGER WITH A COPY OF
THAT, HE CAN PERUSE THAT, AND WE'LL DISCUSS IT, CONTINUE THIS
DISCUSSION IN ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES.
MR. MOUNGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: LET'S HAVE IT QUIET, PLEASE.
WHERE DID MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. COCHRAN DISAPPEAR TO?
MR. DOUGLAS: MR. COCHRAN IS IN LOCKUP.
MR. NEUFELD: THE TWO WE NEED.
(THE DEFENDANT IS NOW PRESENT.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT, INCLUDING COUNSEL KENT
SPAULDING. THE COURT HAS ACTED UPON THE APPLICATION PRO HAC VICE
AND APPROVED THAT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.
MR. SPAUDLING: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
OVER THE -- DURING THE BRIEF RECESS, COUNSEL HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INFORMALLY DISCUSS SCHEDULING MATTERS AND BASED
UPON THE BRADY ISSUE THAT THE COURT STILL NEEDS TO DEAL WITH THIS
AFTERNOON.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: ONE THING, YOUR HONOR, ON THE BRADY MATTER.
I HAD INDICATED TO THE COURT THAT WITH REGARD TO BRADY, MRS.
SCHECK AND SHAPIRO ALONG WITH MISS SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN WILL BE
DOWN AT 4:00 O'CLOCK.
THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING WITNESSES.
THEY DID INDICATE TO ME THAT THERE MAY BE -- THEY MAY NOT BE
READY TO PROCEED COMPLETELY TODAY ON THAT AND MAY ASK TO START
THAT TOMORROW MORNING, AND I TOLD THEM TO COME BY 4:00 O'CLOCK SO
THEY COULD LET THE COURT KNOW THAT. THAT'S THE ONLY HOLDUP, WHAT
WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND I SEE MR. MOUNGER STEPPED OUT BRIEFLY.
MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MAY I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY VERY
BRIEFLY JUST TO MENTION SOMETHING THAT I NEGLECTED -- IT'S MY
FAULT -- I NEGLECTED TO MENTION TO THE COURT EARLIER?
THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK SO, MISS LEWIS. WE'VE --
YOU'VE FILED YOUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. I'VE HEARD RATHER
EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT --
MS. LEWIS: WELL, THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FILED
BY THE DEFENSE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THEY HAD ALREADY FILED
THEIR TWO OTHER MEMOS IN THE SAME THING THAT I DID NOT PAY
CAREFUL ATTENTION TO. SO I -- JUST BRIEFLY FOR THE RECORD,
PLEASE. PLEASE. I CAN SEE YOUR -- WE HAVE TIME. WE ARE WAITING
FOR MR. MOUNGER. VERY QUICKLY. VERY QUICKLY. IT MIGHT HELP THE
COURT IN ITS RULING.
THE COURT: THE MOMENT HE WALKS IN THE COURT.
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
FIRST OF ALL, ON PAGE NO. 4 OF THEIR DEFENSE --
THE COURT: BUT THEN I HAVE TO LISTEN TO MR. UELMEN AS
WELL.
MS. LEWIS: OKAY.
OFFER OF PROOF OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE FOR
MOTION TO SUPPRESS, THE FIRST -- THEY HAVE THREE THINGS. VERY
BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE FIRST THING IS THAT THEY SAY THE DECISION TO MAKE
ENTRY BY CLIMBING THE WALL. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS THE D2. WE
KNOW THAT THE OTHERS OUT THERE WERE ALL D3'S.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY.
MS. LEWIS: I'M SURE.
IT WAS THEIR DECISION.
THE SECOND OFFER HAD TO DO WITH MARK FUHRMAN
SEARCHING KATO'S ROOM, BUT THAT -- THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
MARK FUHRMAN WOULD ADD NOTHING TO THE -- MARK FUHRMAN'S
CREDIBILITY ON THAT BECAUSE KATO TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING DURING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND TESTIFIED TO THE THUMPS
--
THE COURT: HE INDICATED HE GAVE CONSENT, HE GAVE CONSENT
TO THE SEARCH.
NEXT QUESTION.
MS. LEWIS: YES. AND ALSO INDICATING THE THUMPS ON THE
WALL.
SO THAT MAKES DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY THAT KATO
TOLD HIM HE HEARD THUMPS ON THE WALL -- I MEAN, THERE'S NO
CREDIBILITY ISSUE THERE WHATSOEVER.
AND THE THIRD ONE WAS THAT, GIVEN THE STATEMENTS THAT
KATO MADE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHICH WE KNOW WERE MADE, THAT WAS
OBVIOUSLY WHY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT BEHIND THE WALKWAY. SO HOW
IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO HURT HIS CREDIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHY HE
WENT TO THE WALKWAY WHEN WE KNOW KATO TESTIFIED DURING THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING AS TO THOSE THREE THUMPS BEHIND THERE.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WANTED
TO POINT OUT THAT THEIR INTENDED CROSS-EXAMINATION WOULD NOT SHED
LIGHT ON THE ISSUES THEY LIST IN THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. UELMEN, DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO THAT?
MR. UELMEN: NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE BEEN REJOINED NOW BY COUNSEL DARRYL MOUNGER WHO
REPRESENTS MARK FUHRMAN.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, COUNSEL.
MR. MOUNGER: YOUR HONOR, OVER THE BREAK, I TALKED TO MR.
FUHRMAN, AND IT IS OUR POSITION THAT BECAUSE I AM WALKING INTO
THIS TRIAL AFTER EIGHT MONTHS, I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE
TESTIMONY. I HAVE BEEN HANDLING MY OWN CASES AND NOT FOLLOWED
THIS TRIAL INTIMATELY.
I HAVE COME INTO THIS COURT ASKING FOR THE MC KINNY
TAPES AND A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPTS SO THAT I MIGHT REVIEW THEM
WITH MY CLIENT, ALTHOUGH I HAVE REVIEWED MOST OF THEM. I HAVE
TRIED TO CORRELATE THAT INFORMATION AND INTERVIEW MY CLIENT, AND
I'M UNABLE TO PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT WHICH IT DESERVES.
BASED UPON THIS COURT'S JULY 31ST -- I'M SORRY --
AUGUST 31ST RULING AND THE WORDS SPECIFICALLY I BELIEVE ON PAGE
5, ON THE INFORMATION I DO KNOW AND THE INFORMATION ESPECIALLY I
DO NOT KNOW, I HAVE ADVISED MR. FUHRMAN THAT HE SHOULD NOT ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT. THEREFORE, IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WILL ASSERT HIS 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IF
ASKED ANY QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, WILL YOU
ACCEPT THAT REPRESENTATION?
MR. UELMEN: NO, YOUR HONOR. WE BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY FOR
HIM TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE FROM THE WITNESS STAND IN RESPONSE TO
A QUESTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SINCE THERE'S AN UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT AND
STIPULATE TO THAT, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR MR. FUHRMAN TO RESUME
THE WITNESS STAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MOTION AND TO ASSERT
THE PRIVILEGE.
MR. MOUNGER: HE WILL BE HERE SHORTLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. THEN, MR. UELMEN, MISS LEWIS, I'VE
INDICATED TO YOU OFF THE RECORD THAT I NEED TO -- IN ORDER TO
RULE ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS, I
NEED TO REVIEW THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT, WHICH I HAVE
NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SINCE EARLIER -- MUCH EARLIER IN
THE TRIAL. SO I'LL NEED TO DO THAT. SO I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD
ANTICIPATE A RULING THIS AFTERNOON ON THAT MOTION.
MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND, MR. COCHRAN, I DID SEE MISS CHAPMAN COME
IN. THERE SHE IS.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE IS HERE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DID SHE GIVE YOU A STATUS REPORT?
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONFER WITH THE TWO OF THEM?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M INFORMED BY MR. SCHECK AND
MISS SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN THAT THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF
INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, THAT THEY WILL TAKE THE REST OF THE DAY
TO TRY AND DO THAT. THEY CANNOT FINISH THEY THINK UNTIL TOMORROW
MORNING IN THAT REGARD.
THEY'RE ASKING THAT WE COME BACK TOMORROW AT 10:00
O'CLOCK, AND THEY WILL BE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE BRADY MOTION.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE WITNESSES BROUGHT DOWN SHORTLY WITH
MR. SHAPIRO I BELIEVE ALONG WITH MR. YOCHELSON TO ASK THAT THEY
BE ORDERED BACK. THEY'LL FINISH TODAY AND THEN ORDERED BACK FOR
TOMORROW MORNING. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT MR. SCHECK
HAS INDICATED, AND WE CAN START AGAIN AT 8:30 TOMORROW MORNING
AFTER THEY FINISH TODAY.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. I HEARD 8:30 AND I HEARD 10:00
O'CLOCK.
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. 8:30. THEY WANT -- THEY WANT --
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO FINISH INTERVIEWING THE WITNESSES THIS
AFTERNOON. IN CASE THEY CAN'T, THEY WANT TO RESUME THE
INTERVIEWING TOMORROW MORNING AT 8:30. AND THEY SOMEHOW MANAGE
--
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT WE FINISH THE INTERVIEWS TONIGHT AND
START TOMORROW MORNING AT OUR REGULAR 9:00 O'CLOCK?
MR. COCHRAN: I'M SURE THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT,
YOUR HONOR. BUT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, THEIR THOUGHT
WAS -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES -- THEY WOULD PERHAPS NEED
UNTIL 10:00, TO HAVE THE WITNESSES ORDERED BACK TOMORROW FOR
8:30.
I THINK THAT WAS THE PLAN. THEY ARE TRYING, YOUR
HONOR. WE HAD THEM GO DO THAT THIS AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE -- HOW MANY WITNESSES ARE
WE --
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME LET ONE OF THEM SPEAK, YOUR HONOR, IF
I MIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CHAPMAN.
MS. CHAPMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
MS. CHAPMAN: I KNOW THAT OFFICER -- DETECTIVE MAXWELL WAS
GOING TO LEAVE BY 4:00 O'CLOCK TODAY TO TRY TO PICK UP A CHILD
>FROM SCHOOL. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO INTERVIEW HIM
THIS EVENING. MR. YOCHELSON WILL BE DOWN WITH THE REST OF THE
WITNESSES, AND WE'LL TRY TO INTERVIEW WHOMEVER WE CAN THIS
AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: BUT HOW ABOUT IF WE COME BACK AT 9:00 O'CLOCK,
AND IF WE THEN AT THAT POINT CAN'T --
MS. CHAPMAN: OKAY. OKAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THE DEFENSE
HAS HAD SIX MONTHS TO TALK TO THESE PEOPLE. THEY INTERVIEWED
LUCIENNE COLEMAN IN APRIL.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. COUNSEL.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THEY INTERVIEWED MISS COLEMAN IN APRIL. THAT
MEANS THAT AS OF THIS DATE, WE HAVE MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS THAT
THEY HAVE HAD TO TALK TO THESE WITNESSES, AND NOW WE NEED EXTRA
TIME AT THE 11TH HOUR FOR THEM TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES THEY'VE HAD
ACCESS TO, OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO AD NAUSEAM FOR MORE THAN FOUR
MONTHS AND IN SOME INSTANCES SIX MONTHS?
THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY I'M INCLINED TO RESUME TOMORROW
MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, AT OUR REGULAR TIME. THERE ARE OTHER
MOTIONS WE DO NEED TO CONCLUDE HOWEVER AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
MS. CLARK: AND CAN WE GET A REPRESENTATION ON THE RECORD
AS TO WHAT OTHER WITNESSES THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO CALL OTHER THAN
THE BRADY WITNESSES, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, AND I USE THE TERM LOOSELY
THAT THEY INTEND TO CALL BEFORE THE JURY?
THE COURT: I THINK PART DEPENDS ON THE COURT'S RULING ON
THE 1538.
MS. CLARK: HOW WOULD THAT BE? ASSUME THE COURT GRANTS IT,
WHAT FURTHER WITNESSES WOULD THEY NEED TO CALL.
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T ASK.
MR. COCHRAN, WHO ELSE DO YOU HAVE AFTER -- SINCE
WE'VE FINISHED MR. HODGE AND THE COURT'S RULING, WE'RE FINISHED
WITH MISS MC KINNY.
MR. COCHRAN: PART OF IT IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE ARE TWO
WITNESSES AS THE COURT IS AWARE THAT I MENTIONED, MR. VETTRAINO
AND MR. GOULSTON, WHO ARE UPSTAIRS -- I PRESUME THEY'RE GOING TO
BE TALKED TO. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A REPORT ON THOSE TWO AT THIS
POINT.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOWNTIME --
I'VE INDICATED THIS TO COUNSEL EARLIER -- TO KNOW WHO THEIR FIRST
REBUTTAL WITNESSES ARE SO WE CAN PREPARE FOR THOSE. IN OTHER
WORDS, SO WE DON'T HAVE DOWNTIME ON THAT ALSO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOUR REPRESENTATION IS GOULSTON AND VETTRAINO
BASED UPON THE INTERVIEWS THAT YOU CONDUCT THIS AFTERNOON.
MR. COCHRAN: AND FUHRMAN IF -- THE COURT'S AWARE OF THAT,
AND THEN PLUS THE BRADY MOTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE GOING TO NEED
THE REBUTTAL WITNESSES ALSO, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: AS SOON AS THE DEFENSE RESTS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN, I TAKE IT AT THIS POINT THEN, YOU WISH TO
RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
MR. UELMEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, MY RECOLLECTION IS
THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO IS NOW PRESENT IN COURT WITH COUNSEL,
MR. MOUNGER, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS
EXCUSED, BUT NOT RELEASED AND WAS SUBJECT TO RECALL. IS THAT
YOUR RECOLLECTION?
MR. UELMEN: THAT IS CORRECT. YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. UELMEN: HE WAS NOT EXCUSED.
THE COURT: WELL, LET ME REPHRASE THAT. SUBJECT TO RECALL.
EXCUSED FOR THE DAY, SUBJECT TO RECALL, NOT TERMINATED AS A
WITNESS BEFORE THE COURT.
MR. UELMEN: THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND, MR. MOUNGER, IF YOU WISH TO STAND NEXT TO YOUR
CLIENT, YOU MAY.
MR. MOUNGER: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS
STAND, PLEASE.
MARK FUHRMAN (402),
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED FURTHER AS
FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED, SIR, THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER
OATH.
MR. UELMEN, YOU MAY PROCEED.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. UELMEN:
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WAS THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE AT
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE COMPLETELY TRUTHFUL?
A I WISH TO ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE.
Q HAVE YOU EVER FALSIFIED A POLICE REPORT?
A I WISH TO ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE.
Q IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO ASSERT YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT
PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO ALL QUESTIONS THAT I ASK YOU?
A YES.
MR. UELMEN: CAN I HAVE A MOMENT?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. MOUNGER: YOUR HONOR, FURTHER QUESTIONS DON'T SERVE ANY
PURPOSE SINCE MY CLIENT HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THAT HE WILL NOT
ANSWER ANY QUESTION AND WILL ASSERT HIS 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE.
ANYTHING FURTHER CAN ONLY BE A SHOW.
MR. UELMEN: I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHAT WAS THAT, MR. UELMEN?
Q BY MR. UELMEN: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DID YOU PLANT OR
MANUFACTURE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
A I ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BASED UPON THE WITNESS' ANSWERS, THE REPRESENTATION
BY HIS COUNSEL, MR. MOUNGER --
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE MAKE AN OBJECTION TO THE
LAST QUESTION AND ASK THE COURT TO STRIKE IT AS BEING IMPROPER
AND DOES NOTHING BUT HEADLINE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS
WITNESS?
MS. CLARK: NO QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THEN, GIVEN THE ASSERTION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT
PRIVILEGE, WE WILL NOT CONDUCT ANY FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
AND -- BUT, HOWEVER, DETECTIVE, I AM GOING TO RELEASE
YOU FROM FURTHER ATTENDANCE THIS AFTERNOON. HOWEVER, YOU ARE
STILL SUBJECT TO RECALL.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK THE -- IF THE DEFENSE
INTENDS TO RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING HIM
ASSERT THE 5TH AGAIN, I SUGGEST WE DO IT NOW. WHY HAVE HIM COME
BACK FOR THAT PURPOSE? THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED TO DO IT IN FRONT
OF THE JURY.
THE COURT: NO. COUNSEL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
PRESERVE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN CASE THERE ARE ANY
OTHER ISSUES THAT COME UP.
MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS,
WILL THIS ASSERTION SUFFICE FOR THE TRIAL TESTIMONY AS WELL?
I CAN SEE NO PURPOSE BEING SERVED OTHER THAN A
FURTHER WASTE OF TIME TO HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RECALLED TO
REASSERT THE 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAIN, AND I'M ASKING THAT
IF COUNSEL INTENDS TO DO SO, THAT WE ALLOW THAT RECORD TO BE MADE
AT THIS TIME.
THE COURT: THAT RECORD'S BEEN MADE AT THIS POINT.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRIAL TESTIMONY?
THE COURT: BASED UPON THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL THAT
HE'S NOT GOING TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
CASE.
MR. MOUNGER: YOUR HONOR, SINCE HE LIVES WITHOUT THE STATE,
IS HE FREE TO TRAVEL HOME?
MR. COCHRAN: WILL THE COURT ALLOW US TO APPROACH FOR A
MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
ALL RIGHT. WITH MR. MOUNGER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT I'M
NOT SURE WE ARGUED THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT. I WANTED SOME
CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE THE ONES THAT PAID TO HAVE HIM BROUGHT HERE.
SO IT WOULD FALL ON US WHETHER HE STAYS OVER. BUT WE OBVIOUSLY
WOULD WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO BRIEFLY ARGUE WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE IN
THIS REGARD.
NOW THAT HE'S CLAIMED THE 5TH AMENDMENT, THEY CAN'T
JUST TRY TO HIDE THAT FROM THE JURY. WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE
EITHER A JURY INSTRUCTION OR WHATEVER, SOME WAY -- WE ARE BEING
DISQUALIFIED FROM FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS MAN, AND WE
PROPOSE A PARTICULAR REMEDY.
AND SO I MEAN -- SURE, THEY'D LIKE TO RUSH HIM AWAY
QUIETLY. IT'S NOT THAT EASY. WE WILL ACCOMMODATE MR. MOUNGER'S
SCHEDULE. WE HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR HIM, BUT WE HAVE --
I THINK THE COURT WANTS SOME ASSISTANCE, SOME
ARGUMENT FROM US, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ABOUT WHAT OUR REMEDY IS
IN REGARD TO THIS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO BY THE
SEAT OF YOUR PANTS.
THE COURT: I ASSUMED YOU ALL HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DID. WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE'D LIKE AN
OPPORTUNITY --
THE COURT: AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE PROSECUTION
INDICATED THEY HAD A MEMORANDUM, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES READY TO
GO.
MR. COCHRAN: MR. DARDEN SAID THAT. WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
MS. CLARK: WE HAVE IT. WE'VE RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE, WE'RE
PREPARED TO ARGUE IT. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE HIM INVOKE IN
FRONT OF THE JURY.
MR. COCHRAN: NASTY ATTITUDE. WE'RE NOT --
MS. CLARK: JUST AN ASSERTION.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL WE'RE SAYING, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, TO GIVE YOU OUR BRIEF IN THAT REGARD
AND WE DON'T WANT HIM TO LEAVE UNTIL THAT POINT. IT WOULD JUST
BE A DAY OR SO.
SO I THINK IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM AS WITH MC KINNY.
WE DON'T WANT TO LET HER GO BEFORE WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT TOMORROW.
THE COURT: MR. MOUNGER, WHAT I'M INCLINED TO DO IS ALLOW
COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE ISSUE AND HAVE YOUR CLIENT
ON CALL FOR TOMORROW.
MR. MOUNGER: AND IF IT DOESN'T MATERIALIZE BY TOMORROW,
ARE WE FREE TO --
THE COURT: THEN HE WILL BE RELEASED SUBJECT TO RECALL AND
I'D SAY WITHIN 72 HOURS' NOTICE. BUT I ASSUME WE'LL RESOLVE THIS
ISSUE TOMORROW.
MR. MOUNGER: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONVEY THAT ORDER
TO YOUR CLIENT?
MR. MOUNGER: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. MOUNGER: SO I UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY, IF WE HAVE NO
ORDER BY THE CLOSE OF COURT TOMORROW, THEN --
THE COURT: HE'S FREE TO TRAVEL BACK.
MR. MOUNGER: -- FREE TO TRAVEL?
MR. SHAPIRO: ON 72-HOUR CALL. I WILL CALL HIM.
WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES WE WANT TO GET ORDERED BACK
FOR TOMORROW.
THE COURT: AND, MISS CLARK, IF YOU WOULD FILE YOUR POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES.
MS. CLARK: YES. YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE GO OFF THE RECORD FOR
SCHEDULING ON THE BRADY MOTION?
THE COURT: YES.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD.
MR. SHAPIRO OR MISS CHAPMAN, DID YOU HAVE SOME
WITNESSES YOU WANTED ORDERED BACK?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR.
WE HAVE ONE WITNESS WHO IS IN COURT, DETECTIVE ANDREW
PURDY, WHO IS PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL. WE'D LIKE HIM BACK FOR
TOMORROW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
MR. HADDEN: WILLIAM J. HADDEN, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. HADDEN, YOU AND MR. PURDY ARE ORDERED BACK
TOMORROW MORNING, 8:30.
MR. HADDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. YOU ARE EXCUSED.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WE'D LIKE TO HAVE FOR TESTIMONY
TOMORROW THAT WE'VE INFORMED MR. HODGMAN OF. WE NEED NOT GIVE
THEIR NAMES TONIGHT.
AND WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER OFFICERS THAT MR. HODGMAN
HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE US WITH BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD
TIME TO INTERVIEW, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU THAT LIST, BUT
NOT IN OPEN COURT. WE HAVE NO OTHER WITNESSES IN COURT.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HODGMAN?
MR. HODGMAN: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU THAT LIST.
THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE FOR YOUR BRADY
MOTION?
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF
INTERVIEWING SOME OF THE WITNESSES. MR. PURDY HAS BEEN VERY, VERY
COOPERATIVE. WE HAVE ABOUT ANOTHER HALF HOUR WITH HIM, AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW THE REMAINDER OF THE WITNESSES TODAY.
I WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO GIVE YOU THAT
ESTIMATE TOMORROW MORNING WHEN MR. SCHECK, MISS CHAPMAN AND I
HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ASSIMILATE ALL OF THE MATERIAL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO WHAT ADVICE DO YOU GIVE THE COURT ON THE QUESTION
THAT WEIGHS MOST HEAVILY ON MY MIND?
MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY NO EARLIER THAN
10:00 O'CLOCK, YOUR HONOR. I THINK BY THAT TIME --
THE COURT: I'M GETTING ADVICE.
ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION?
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK I'VE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR.
THEY'VE HAD SIX MONTHS TO TALK TO THESE PEOPLE AND NOW THEY WANT
MORE TIME. ANOTHER DELAY WITH THIS JURY ON ICE AGAIN, IT'S SO
UNNECESSARY. AND AS THE COURT PONDERED --
THE COURT: NO. I'M JUST ASKING, DO YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE
AS TO HOW LONG YOU THINK THE HEARING WILL TAKE BASED UPON WHAT
YOU KNOW FROM THE MOVING PAPERS, WHO THE WITNESSES ARE AND WHAT
THE ISSUES ARE POSED? I MEAN, DO YOU JUST HAVE A GUESS -- I'M
JUST INVITING YOU TO HELP ME A LITTLE SO WE CANNOT KEEP THE
JURORS TOO INCONVENIENCED FOR TOO LONG. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
MS. CLARK: WELL, THERE'S NO TESTIMONY NECESSARY ON THE
MOTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL CAN MAKE THEIR PITCH TO THE COURT.
THE BOTTOM-LINE ISSUE OF THIS I THINK COMES BACK TO WHAT THE
DEFENSE LIKES TO CHARACTERIZE AS A LOG, AND THAT'S -- OF OFFICER
PURDY AND THAT'S IT.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, BUT IT
CERTAINLY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. AND IF
THIS HEARING IS CONDUCTED IN THAT FASHION, WHICH IS ALL THAT IS
REQUIRED, THEN IT SHOULD BE DONE IN ABOUT HALF AN HOUR, BECAUSE
THERE IS NO EXCULPATORY INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED
OVER, JUDGE.
YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE IN THIS MATTER TURNED OVER
EVERYTHING THAT CAME TO THEM BACK IN FEBRUARY AS THE COURT KNOWS,
SUBMITTED IT TO THE COURT FOR EXAMINATION, FOR IAD INVESTIGATION,
ALL OF WHICH WAS TURNED OVER TO THE COURT BACK IN FEBRUARY OF
THIS YEAR. SO AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE HAVE SATISFIED
THEIR OBLIGATIONS. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE, AND THE
COURT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT FINDING IN ABOUT 2 MINUTES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'LL GUESS AN HOUR THEN.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION,
ORDINARILY, THE FACTS WOULD NOT BE IN DISPUTE WHEN WE'RE DEALING
WITH DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, WE'RE IN A PARADOXICAL SITUATION
HERE WHERE WE HAVE CERTAIN STATEMENTS AND ONE UNDER PENALTY -- A
DECLARATION THAT'S BEEN FILED THAT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED THAT
INDICATES A CERTAIN SET OF FACTS FROM AT LEAST ONE AND POSSIBLY
TWO DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND A STATEMENT THAT WE UNDERSTAND
WAS GIVEN UNDER OATH IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SAYING THAT THE DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS A LIAR FROM ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IF WE COULD GET A RESOLUTION OF THE FACTS WITH THE
HELP OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MOVE
THIS PROCEEDING ALONG.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: MAY I REMIND THE COURT THAT IT ASKS COUNSEL TO
BRING IN THEIR REPORTS AND NOTES TO ASSIST THE COURT IN
DETERMINING WHAT STAGE THEY WERE AT, AND I THINK THE COURT ASKED
THEM TO DO IT LAST WEEK. WAS THAT TURNED OVER?
THE COURT: YES. YES, IT WAS.
MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH ANY OF
THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
10:00 O'CLOCK WITH THE JURY.
ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE IN RECESS.
(AT 4:15 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 7, 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
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
VOLUME 217
PAGES 44196 THROUGH 44408, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 44179 THROUGH 44195, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
KENNETH SPAULDING, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
ALSO PRESENT: IRVING MILLER, ESQUIRE
MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE
DARRYL MOUNGER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM J. HADDEN, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 217 PAGES 44196 - 44408
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 A.M. 44196 217
P.M. 44312 217
-----------------------------------------------------
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.
MC KINNY, 217
LAURA HART
(RESUMED) 44205C 44215D 44237C 44283D
(FURTHER) 44286C 44287D
(FURTHER) 44288C 44288D
HODGE, RODERIC 44297C 44302D 217
(RESUMED) 44315D 44316C
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE (402)
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUHRMAN, MARK 44397U 217
(402)
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUHRMAN, MARK 44397U 217
(402)
HODGE, RODERIC 44297C 44302D 217
(RESUMED) 44315D 44316C
MC KINNY, 217
LAURA HART
(RESUMED) 44205C 44215D 44237C 44283D
(FURTHER) 44286C 44287D
(FURTHER) 44288C 44288D
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
603 - 4-PAGE DOCUMENT 44218 217
DESCRIBED AS A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
FROM THE LAW OFFICES OF REGWAN AND SCHWARTZ
604 - 13-PAGE DOCUMENT 44309 217
DESCRIBED AS A PERSONNEL COMPLAINT FILED BY
RODERIC HODGE
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1369 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 44331 217
ENTITLED "SUNRISE AND SUNSET AT LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA"
