Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:195
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: Jeannette Harris - 4/12/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 20:41:02 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 1374
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1995
4:15 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
THE DEFENDANT PRESENT WITH COUNSEL,
ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN,
JR., CARL E. DOUGLAS AND ROBERT
KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRES; MARCIA CLARK,
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN AND CHERI LEWIS,
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ALSO PRESENT, MILTON
C. GRIMES AND BRYANT CALLOWAY, ESQUIRES,
REPRESENTING JEANETTE HARRIS, AND RON
JESSE; GLEN A. SMITH AND DENNIS F.
HERNANDEZ, ESQUIRES, REPRESENTING RON
GOLDSTEIN; COMMANDER PATRICK HOLLAND FOR
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT.
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD
IN CAMERA:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDSTEIN, I'M GOING TO MAKE INQUIRY OF JUROR NO.
462 FIRST. SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AND YOUR ATTORNEYS TO STEP
OUT OF THE COURTROOM. I'LL CALL YOU BACK IN A FEW MINUTES.
(MR. GOLDSTEIN, MR. SMITH AND
MR. HERNANDEZ EXIT THE COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK MR. GRIMES AND
JUROR NO. 462 TO JOIN US, PLEASE.
(JUROR NO. 462, MR. GRIMES,
MR. CALLOWAY AND MR. JESSE
ENTER THE COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
JUROR NO. 462, GOOD AFTERNOON.
JUROR NO. 462: HI.
THE COURT: AND, MR. GRIMES, YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF
FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, AND YOUR CLIENT?
MR. GRIMES: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MILTON GRIMES AND BRYANT CALLOWAY REPRESENTING JUROR
NO. 462.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN.
AND WE ALSO HAVE MISS LEWIS, MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN
FOR THE PEOPLE, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS FOR MR.
SIMPSON, WHO IS PRESENT HERE IN COURT, AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT
PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT IS ROBERT KARDASHIAN.
CAN WE HAVE OUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES?
FIRST, THE GENTLEMAN IN THE FIRST ROW.
MR. GRIMES: RON JESSE WORKS WITH MY OFFICE.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
MR. GRIMES: THANK YOU.
MR. HOLLAND: PATRICK HOLLAND, COMMANDER WITH THE L.A.
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMANDER.
JUROR NO. 462, WOULD YOU TAKE THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, JUROR NO. 462.
JUROR NO. 462: HI.
THE COURT: BEFORE I ASK THE CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH
TO TELL THE TRUTH TO YOU, I WANTED TO TELL YOU WHY IT IS I'VE
ASKED YOU TO COME IN AND TELL YOU THE GENERAL TYPES OF QUESTIONS
THAT I'M GOING TO ASK.
YOUR ATTORNEYS ARE BOTH HERE, AND I'VE INDICATED TO
THEM THAT AT ANY TIME YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO TALK TO YOUR
ATTORNEYS, FEEL FREE TO ASK ME TO STOP, AND YOU CAN CONSULT WITH
YOUR LAWYERS.
ALSO, COUNSEL, AT ANY TIME YOU WISH TO INTERPOSE AN
OBJECTION OR MAKE INQUIRY OF THE COURT, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DO
SO.
MR. GRIMES: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: JUROR NO. 462, THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS, AFTER
YOU WERE EXCUSED AS A TRIAL JUROR IN THIS MATTER, YOU WERE
INTERVIEWED ON TELEVISION EXTENSIVELY ON THREE OCCASIONS; APRIL
THE 5TH WITH PAT HARVEY, KCAL, APRIL THE 7TH AGAIN WITH PAT
HARVEY ON KCAL AND AGAIN WITH BARBARA WALTERS ON THE ABC NETWORK,
20/20 PROGRAM IF YOU RECALL.
JUROR NO. 462: RIGHT.
THE COURT: AND YOU HAVE MADE SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE
WAY THE JURY HAS BEEN HANDLED AND SOME ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE JURY
THAT OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU KNOW, HAVE CAUSED ME SOME CONCERN. AND SO
I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT.
I ALSO WANT, BEFORE WE BEGIN TALKING TO YOU, TO TELL
YOU THAT I DO NOT CONSIDER YOU TO BE A SUSPECT FOR ANY CRIMINAL
WRONGDOING. YOU ARE NOT HERE FOR ME TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY OF THAT
NATURE, BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE FOR
OBVIOUS REASONS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT'S INQUIRY?
JUROR NO. 462: YES, I DO.
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.
JUROR NO. 462,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE COURT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST
NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: YES. JUROR NO. 462.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE JUST A LITTLE
BIT CLOSER TO YOU.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, JUROR NO. 462.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: JUROR NO. 462, IN THE APRIL 5TH, 1995 INTERVIEW
WITH PAT HARVEY, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE ARE SOME RACIAL
PROBLEMS WITH THE JURY AND THAT YOU FEEL THAT SOME OF THE DEPUTY
SHERIFFS WHO ARE CHARGED WITH HANDLING THE SEQUESTERED JURY ARE
PROMOTING THAT RACIAL ANIMOSITY OR PROBLEMS.
DO YOU RECALL MAKING THAT STATEMENT?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT KIND OF ACTIVITIES OR
CONDUCT BY THE SHERIFFS THAT YOU FEEL ARE PROMOTING THESE RACIAL
ANIMOSITY PROBLEMS WITH THE JURY? CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT KIND OF CONDUCT?
THE WITNESS: JUST SOME OF THE PREFERENCES THAT THEY GIVE
WHITE JURORS AS OPPOSED TO AFRICAN AMERICAN JURORS.
THE COURT: TELL ME ABOUT THAT. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE
OF THAT?
THE WITNESS: YEAH.
THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH GOING TO THE GYM. THE WHITE
JURORS DIDN'T LIKE GOING TO THE GYM WITH US. I CAN'T EXPLAIN
WHY. THEY BROUGHT IN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND
THEY EXERCISED UPSTAIRS.
YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, THAT WASN'T THE WAY TO
HANDLE THE PROBLEM. IT KIND OF MADE IT -- BROUGHT IT OUT FURTHER
BECAUSE THEY WERE GIVEN THESE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
THERE WAS A MONTH OR SO --
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN JURORS WERE
EXERCISING IN THE DOWNSTAIRS GYM?
THE WITNESS: IN THE HOTEL GYM.
THE COURT: AND THE WHITE JURORS WERE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE
IN THEIR OWN GYM UPSTAIRS?
THE WITNESS: UPSTAIRS.
THE COURT: WERE YOU EXCLUDED FROM THAT OTHER GYM?
THE WITNESS: NO. IT WAS NEVER, "YOU CAN'T COME IN HERE,"
BUT IT WAS MADE CLEAR WE WEREN'T WELCOME. AND TO MAKE A
SITUATION EASIER, WE JUST GO, "OKAY. WE'LL GO ON DOWN TO THE GYM
AT 10:00 O'CLOCK," WHEREAS THE GYM UPSTAIRS, YOU CAN GO ANY TIME
THAT WE WERE THERE IN THE HOTEL.
DEPUTY "A" IN PARTICULAR MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR
US BECAUSE WE TOOK A BAD SITUATION AND MADE THE BEST OF IT. WE
CONTINUED TO GO TO THE GYM AND WE WOULD EXERCISE AND GO TO THE
STEAM ROOM, AND NOW, "YOU CAN'T GO TO THE STEAM ROOM. YOU CAN'T
GO DOWNSTAIRS," AFTER TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. "I DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH MANPOWER TO TAKE YOU DOWNSTAIRS."
SO WE TRIED TO DEAL WITH THAT. "FINE. WE'LL EXERCISE
UPSTAIRS."
AND MY SELF IN PARTICULAR, ONE NIGHT I WAS IN THE
GYM, ANOTHER JUROR, 1233, SHE CAME INTO THE GYM, AND HE TOLD US
WE COULDN'T EXERCISE TOGETHER WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, OTHER
JURORS WERE EXERCISING TOGETHER.
THE COURT: YOU AND 1233 WERE TOLD BY DEPUTY "A" YOU COULD
NOT EXERCISE TOGETHER?
THE WITNESS: TOGETHER.
THE COURT: AND WAS THAT THE DOWNSTAIRS GYM OR UPSTAIRS
GYM?
THE WITNESS: THE UPSTAIRS. THIS IS ACTUALLY WHEN WE WERE
TOLD WE COULD NO LONGER GO TO THE DOWNSTAIRS GYM.
THE COURT: OKAY.
YOU WERE ABOUT TO TELL ME ABOUT ANOTHER INCIDENT OF
PREFERENCE.
THE WITNESS: REGARDING THE GYM?
THE COURT: YES. REGARDING THE GYM OR ANY OTHER
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
THE WITNESS: THE TELEPHONES -- WHEN WE WOULD SIGN UP TO
USE THE PHONE, WE WOULD PUT OUR NAMES ON THE LIST AND YOU KIND OF
-- YOU WOULD STAY IN THE -- NEAR THE TELEPHONE ROOM BECAUSE YOU
DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THERE WHERE OTHER PEOPLE WERE SPEAKING OR
GOING TO THE MOVIE ROOM OR WHATEVER, AND THEY WOULD CALL OUT,
"JUROR NUMBER SO AND SO, IT'S YOUR TURN."
WELL, 353, SHE COULD GO INTO HER ROOM OR WHEREVER SHE
WANTED. THEY WOULD TRACK HER DOWN, "IT'S TIME FOR YOUR PHONE
CALL." BUT IF WE WEREN'T AVAILABLE, YOU MISSED YOUR CALL.
THE COURT: THIS WASN'T DONE FOR ANYBODY ELSE?
THE WITNESS: NOT THAT I RECALL. IF IT'S HAPPENED, YOU
KNOW, WITH ANYONE ELSE, I DIDN'T -- I WASN'T AWARE OF IT.
THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BETWEEN RACE AND GROUP OF PERSONS?
THE WITNESS: WELL, WHAT IS HER NUMBER?
453 CAME OUT TO MAKE A PHONE CALL AND THE PHONE ROOM
WAS LOCKED. SHE ASKED, "CAN I MAKE A PHONE CALL?"
THE DEPUTY -- I MEAN HE REALLY -- "I JUST WENT ON MY
BREAK AND THE ROOM WAS OPEN FOR 20 MINUTES, AND NOW YOU COME AND
YOU WANT TO MAKE A PHONE CALL." AND SHE WAS VERY UPSET BECAUSE
HE JUST REALLY JUMPED ON HER THROAT.
WE CALMED HER DOWN, "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT."
1427 COMES OUT, WE'RE ABOUT TO LEAVE TO COME TO
COURT, SHE SAYS, "I NEED TO MAKE A PHONE CALL," AND THERE WAS NO
PROBLEM, "FINE." DEPUTY -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH DEPUTY TOOK
HER TO THE ROOM, BUT HE ESCORTED HER BACK TO THE ROOM AND SHE
MADE A PHONE CALL.
THE COURT: WITH REGARDS TO 353, YOU INDICATED THAT THE
DEPUTIES WOULD GO TRACK HER DOWN WHEN IT WAS TIME FOR HER TO MAKE
A PHONE CALL. WHICH DEPUTIES DID THAT?
THE WITNESS: TO BE HONEST, I COULDN'T SAY WHAT DEPUTY
ACTUALLY. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DEPUTIES, BUT
JUST TO CALL A NAME, I CAN'T SAY WHO TRACKED HER DOWN.
BUT IT WAS JUST THE DEPUTY -- YOU JUST KNEW WHEN IT
WAS TIME FOR HER TO MAKE A CALL, IF SHE WASN'T AVAILABLE, HE
WOULD FIND HER. SO I COULDN'T SAY THE NAME, YOU KNOW,
SPECIFICALLY WHICH DEPUTY.
THE COURT: ANY OTHER INSTANCES WHERE YOU FEEL THERE WAS
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT?
THE WITNESS: YES.
WHEN WE FIRST WENT TO THE HOTEL, THERE WAS ONE MOVIE
ROOM. AND AS A GROUP, WE WOULD VOTE TO WATCH WHATEVER. AND AT
FIRST, IT WASN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL. WE WATCHED WHATEVER AND IT
--
JUROR 353, AT THE TIME 217 WAS STILL THERE, 1290,
THEY ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE WATCHED AND THEY WERE
ALWAYS OUTVOTED. THEY WOULD CONTINUOUSLY RUN TO THE DEPUTIES
COMPLAINING, "WE DON'T WANT TO WATCH WHATEVER," AND THEY WOULD
TELL THEM, "WELL, EVENTUALLY YOUR MOVIE'S GOING TO COME UP
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MOVIES."
THE NEXT THING WE FIND OUT, THERE'S ANOTHER MOVIE
ROOM. WE WERE TOLD BY DEPUTY "B" THAT THE MOVIE ROOM WHERE WE
WATCHED MOVIES, "YOU CAN'T WATCH A MOVIE UNTIL THEY'VE VIEWED IT
IN THE FRONT ROOM," THIS NEW ROOM. IF THERE WERE EIGHT MOVIES
AND WE WANTED TO WATCH SOMETHING AND THEY WERE WATCHING
SOMETHING ELSE, WE COULD NOT WATCH THAT MOVIE UNTIL THEY DID.
THE COURT: WHAT DEPUTY TOLD YOU THIS?
THE WITNESS: DEPUTY "B". HE PUT A SCHEDULE ON THE WALL.
I DON'T KNOW WHO CHOSE THE MOVIES OR WHO PUT TOGETHER
THE SCHEDULE, BUT UNTIL THAT ROOM VIEWED THE MOVIES, THE SECOND
ROOM, THE INITIAL ROOM COULD NOT VIEW THEM, WHICH RESULTED IN,
THERE WERE TIMES WHEN THERE WAS SOMETHING WE MAY HAVE WANTED TO
SEE AND IT WOULD GO BACK TO BLOCKBUSTER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET
AROUND TO SEEING IT AND THE MOVIE JUST SAT ON THE SHELF.
THE COURT: OKAY.
WELL, WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE TWO DIFFERENT MOVIE
ROOMS? I MEAN THEY'RE NOT SEGREGATED ROOMS.
THE WITNESS: NO. IT WAS JUST, I GUESS THEY FELT IF THERE
WERE TWO ROOMS, THIS VOTE THING, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T GET OUT OF
HAND.
WHAT WE ENDED UP HAVING TO DO IS GO INTO THE FRONT
AND WATCH THE MOVIES WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HAD THE PROBLEM IN THE
FIRST PLACE, WHICH PUT US BACK TO SQUARE ONE. WE WERE ALTOGETHER
IN THE SAME ROOM, THIS TIME WITH A SCHEDULE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHY DO YOU FEEL CREATING A SCHEDULE WAS PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT, ONE GROUP AGAINST THE OTHER?
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE THE MOVIES THAT WERE ON THE SCHEDULE
>FROM DAY ONE THAT WERE GIVEN PRIORITY WERE MOVIES THEY WANTED TO
SEE. THERE WAS RAPPORT BETWEEN DEPUTY "B" AND THESE PARTICULAR
JURORS AND HE SAID HE CAME UP WITH THE SCHEDULE AND HE HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, BUT I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. THEY
WERE ALL MOVIES THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BUT IF THAT GROUP DIDN'T WANT TO WATCH YOUR MOVIE AND
YOUR MOVIE -- I MEAN, HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT? IT JUST DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE.
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE THEY WERE OUTVOTED AND THEY DIDN'T
LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING OUTVOTED.
THE COURT: OKAY.
TELL ME ABOUT THIS TARGET AND ROSS INCIDENT.
THE WITNESS: ONE DAY WHEN WE WERE ON THE 11TH FLOOR,
DEPUTY "C" TOLD US THAT WE WERE GOING SHOPPING AND YOU COULD
EITHER GO TO TARGET OR ROSS, WHICH WAS FINE. JUROR AGAIN 353 AND
1290, 1386, "WELL, WE WANT TO GO TO BOTH STORES."
SO THEY HAD THEIR LITTLE SIDE CONFERENCE, AND HE
SAYS, "WELL, OKAY. YOU GUYS CAN GO TO BOTH STORES."
AND WE JUST HAPPENED TO OVERHEAR HIM SAY THIS. SO WE
ADDRESSED IT. "WELL, IF THEY CAN GO TO BOTH STORES, WHY CAN'T WE
GO TO BOTH STORES?"
SO HE SAID, "FINE. YOU GUYS, YOU CAN GO 30 MINUTES
TO TARGET, 30 MINUTES TO ROSS OR YOU CAN GO TO -- AN HOUR TO ONE
OR THE OTHER, BUT AN HOUR IS YOUR TIME."
SO WE GOT TO ROSS -- MOST OF US WENT INTO ROSS AND WE
WERE THERE 30 MINUTES. WE WENT TO TARGET. THEY STAYED IN ROSS.
WE WERE WITH DEPUTY "D".
AND AFTER BEING IN TARGET FOR 30 MINUTES, HE RUSHED
US OUT, "IT'S TIME TO GO. YOU GOT TO GO." SO AS HE -- AND WE'RE
COMPLAINING, "WELL, WHAT'S THE RUSH," YOU KNOW, "WE'RE GOING TO
RUSH BACK TO THE HOTEL, SIT DOWN AND WAIT."
SO WE'RE GOING THROUGH OUR EXCHANGES WITH HIM AND
THEY COME STROLLING INTO THE STORE AFTER BEING AT ROSS FOR AN
HOUR. SO WE TOLD HIM, "WELL, THEY'RE COMING TO SHOP NOW. WHY DO
WE HAVE TO LEAVE?"
SO DEPUTY "C" AND DEPUTY "H" WERE ON THE RADIO, HAD
DEPUTY "I" GO WITH THE ONES THAT STAYED AT ROSS, AND THEY HAD
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND IT ENDED UP OKAY. THEY
SHOPPED AN HOUR AT ROSS AND 30 MINUTES AT TARGET WHILE WE WERE
RUSHED THROUGH THE TWO STORES.
THE COURT: YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO GO BACK AND SHOP? DID
YOU ALL GO BACK ON THE SAME BUS OR SAME GROUP OF BUSES?
THE WITNESS: WE ENDED UP WAITING AT BURGER KING COMING OUT
OF ROSS.
THE COURT: DID YOU ASK TO GO BACK AND FINISH SHOPPING?
THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH. WE HAD A BIG DISCUSSION. AND IT
WAS NOT SO MUCH -- IT WAS JUST THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, IF -- AFTER
YOU GO THROUGH THESE THINGS FOR HOWEVER MANY DAYS WE WERE THERE,
IT GETS PRETTY AGGRAVATING.
THE COURT: YOU INDICATED THAT YOU FELT THAT THE DEPUTIES
SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE MORE
PROFESSIONAL.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT LEADS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION,
WHY YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
THE WITNESS: IT'S JUST, I DO A LOT OF WORK WITH EMPLOYERS
AND MY WORK IS HOW TO BE MORE PRODUCTIVE. AND WE FOUND THAT
PEOPLE -- IF YOU GIVE PEOPLE A CERTAIN FEELING OF EMPOWERMENT --
A LOT OF TIMES, THE DEPUTIES MADE US FEEL -- AND I
WON'T SAY US. I'LL SAY ME -- FEEL AS IF I WERE A PRISONER, YOU
KNOW, THE TONE OF THEIR VOICE. AND NOT TO PUT ALL THE DEPUTIES
-- BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME REALLY NICE DEPUTIES THAT WENT OUT --
WHEN DEPUTY "E" WOULD SAY GOOD MORNING TO YOU. IF HE DIDN'T SAY
THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE REALLY APPRECIATED THAT.
DEPUTY "C", HE WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL. BUT SOME OF THE
DEPUTIES WOULD SAY THINGS TO US WHERE YOU JUST FELT LIKE
SCREAMING, "LOOK, I'M NOT A PRISONER." AND MY OPINION, WHEN YOU
PUT YOURSELF IN A POSITION AND SAY, I'M DOING THIS JOB AND IT
AFFECTS A PERSON, YOU SHOULD DO THAT JOB ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, NOT
-- "I UNDERSTAND YOU DEAL WITH PRISONERS, BUT YOU NEED TO
UNDERSTAND I'M NOT A PRISONER."
AND I HAD THAT ENCOUNTER THE VERY FIRST DAY I WAS
HERE IN COURT, YOU KNOW, WHERE I HAD TO SAY, "LOOK, I'M NOT A
PRISONER," AND I DIDN'T APPRECIATE HAVING TO SAY THAT.
THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S A LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM
-- YOU SAID THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH ATTITUDES, BUT ALSO -- WHICH
THAT'S WHAT I TAKE THAT LAST COMMENT TO BE, AN ATTITUDE TOWARD
YOU. BUT YOU ALSO SAID A LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM.
CAN YOU TELL ME -- I MEAN, I SEE THAT AS TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE WITNESS: WELL, THERE WAS NO CONSISTENCY. DEPENDING ON
WHO WAS ON DUTY, THAT WAS THE RULE. FROM ONE DEPUTY TO THE NEXT,
THE RULES CHANGED AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO BOUNCE BACK AND FORTH.
THE COURT: I SEE. OKAY.
THEN YOU IN YOUR SECOND INTERVIEW WITH PAT HARVEY,
YOU INDICATED THERE WAS A PROBLEM OF -- YOU SAID THERE'S NO
CONSISTENCY IN THE FACES OF THE SHERIFFS. YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE
EVERY DAY, BUT I TAKE IT THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN, BECAUSE THEY
CHANGE SHIFTS AND YOU'RE DEALING WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS OF
DEPUTIES, THAT THE RULES WOULD THEN CHANGE FROM SHIFT TO SHIFT?
THE WITNESS: DRASTICALLY.
THE COURT: OKAY. I SEE.
YOU INDICATED THAT THE JURORS ARE NOT TOTALLY CUT OFF
>FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND YOU STATED THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRIAL TO GET INTO THE JURORS FROM OUTSIDE
SOURCES.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT BRINGS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION?
THE WITNESS: WELL, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ON THE PHONE, THE
DEPUTIES CAN HEAR YOUR END OF THE CONVERSATION, WHICH I GUESS
IT'S FINE. BUT THEY -- THERE WERE TIMES WHEN WE WOULD COME IN
AND THE DEPUTIES WOULD SAY, "WHO ARE YOU CALLING?" YOU WOULD
SAY, "I'M CALLING SO AND SO," THEY'D DIAL THE NUMBERS AND
ADMONISH THEM NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE CASE.
AND I CAN RECALL A COUPLE OF TIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE
LIKE, "WOW, WHAT ARE YOU DOING CALLING HERE," WHEREAS EVEN THAT
PRESENCE MIGHT PUT A PERSON IN THE MIND, "WELL, I CAN'T TALK
ABOUT THE CASE."
THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, SOMETIMES THE FORMAL PROCEDURES
OF DEPUTIES DIALING THE NUMBER VERIFYING WHO WAS THERE, TELLING
THAT PERSON THAT THEY WERE NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE AND THEN
HANDING YOU THE PHONE, THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED EACH TIME?
THE WITNESS: NOT EACH TIME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU ALSO INDICATED IN I BELIEVE IT WAS THE FIRST
INTERVIEW WITH PAT HARVEY THAT THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE
ALLOWED TO MAKE UNSUPERVISED PHONE CALLS.
THE WITNESS: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.
THE DEPUTIES WOULD USUALLY -- THERE'S ONE DEPUTY ON
THE PHONE ROOM AND THERE ARE FOUR PHONES. BUT THERE ARE TIMES
WHEN THE DEPUTIES WOULD PLAY CARDS, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'VE FINISHED
YOUR CALL AND YOU'LL SAY, "WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER
CALL," AND OH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS LIKE YOU WERE AN INCONVENIENCE
AND THEY'D SAY, "WELL, CALL," YOU KNOW, DO -- YOU KNOW, AND
THAT'S NOT SUPERVISED.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT DEPUTIES WERE PLAYING
CARDS AND SAID, "WELL, JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL"?
THE WITNESS: DEPUTY "I" PLAYED CARDS, DEPUTY "B", DEPUTY
"F".
BASICALLY ANY OF THE DEPUTIES -- THE ONES THAT WERE
THERE DURING THE WEEK THAT WERE REGULARS WERE REALLY COMPARABLE.
ON THE WEEKEND, THEY ROTATED AND THEY WERE NEW A LOT OF TIMES AND
THEY DID THINGS PRECISELY BY THE BOOK. BUT I THINK THE ONES THAT
WERE THERE REGULARLY, THEY JUST GOT TOO COMFORTABLE.
THE COURT: CAN YOU REMEMBER A TIME, A SPECIFIC TIME WHEN
SOMEBODY JUST SAID, "JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR OWN PHONE CALL"?
THE WITNESS: MANY TIMES THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
THE COURT: CAN YOU RECALL WHAT DEPUTY TOLD YOU TO JUST GO
AHEAD AND MAKE THE PHONE CALL?
THE WITNESS: DEPUTY "B" DID A LOT OF TIMES. BASICALLY,
DEPUTY "B" WOULD SAY, "GO AHEAD, MAKE YOUR PHONE CALL," BUT THERE
WERE OTHER TIMES -- NOT AS MANY MAYBE AS DEPUTY "B" -- DEPUTY "F"
WOULD SAY, "GO AHEAD, MAKE A PHONE CALL." NOT ROUTINELY. IT
WASN'T ROUTINE FOR HIM. I GUESS BASICALLY, DEPUTY "B" WOULD.
AND THE PHONE ROOM WAS LIKE A PUNISHMENT ASSIGNMENT
FOR THE DEPUTIES. THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT ASSIGNMENT. SO IT WAS A
BIG JOKE TO ALL THE JURORS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO THE PHONE ROOM.
THE COURT: YOU INDICATED THAT THE JURORS WERE NOT CLOSELY
SUPERVISED DURING FAMILY VISITATIONS.
CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT?
THE WITNESS: I GUESS ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO, I HAD
VISITORS, AND WE LOOKED UP, AND THE DEPUTIES WERE IN THE FRONT OF
THE -- WHERE YOU FIRST INITIALLY WALK IN AS OPPOSED TO THE GIANT
ROOM. AND THERE WERE NO DEPUTIES AT ALL ON THE FLOOR. THEY
WERE, ALL FOUR DEPUTIES, SITTING AT A TABLE PLAYING CARDS.
AND I HADN'T NOTICED. SOMEBODY THAT WAS VISITING ME
SAID, "WELL, WHERE ARE THE DEPUTIES?" IT'S LIKE OH, AND THEN
EVERYBODY STARTED NOTICING WHERE ARE THE DEPUTIES, AND THEY WERE
PLAYING CARDS.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL WHICH FOUR DEPUTIES WERE JUST
PLAYING CARDS?
THE WITNESS: I WOULD -- NO. I WOULD HATE TO SAY THIS
DEPUTY OR THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW DEFINITELY. I KNOW IT WAS
FOUR BECAUSE WE HAD THE CONVERSATION.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY WEEKS AGO THIS WAS?
THE WITNESS: THIS WAS -- MAYBE THREE WEEKS AGO. IT WAS
THREE WEEKS AGO.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL WHO YOUR VISITOR WAS? THAT WAY,
I CAN GO BACK TO VISITATION RECORDS AND DETERMINE WHAT DAY THIS
OCCURRED AND WHAT DEPUTIES WERE ASSIGNED TO THE VISITATION ROOM.
THE WITNESS: MY HUSBAND AND MY TWO CHILDREN AND MY SISTER
WERE THERE.
THE COURT: WERE THEY YOUR NORMAL VISITORS?
THE WITNESS: YEAH.
THE COURT: BUT YOU FIGURE ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO?
THE WITNESS: ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL ANY OTHER OCCASIONS WHERE IT CAME
TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE DEPUTIES WEREN'T PRESENT IN THE
VISITING ROOM TO MONITOR WHAT WAS GOING ON OR WAS THIS ONE
OCCASION?
THE WITNESS: ROUTINELY, DEPUTY "G" SAT IN A PARTICULAR
SPOT. THAT'S THE ONLY PERSON THAT I REALLY CAN REMEMBER LIKE
HAVING A POST. THE OTHER DEPUTIES, IT VARIED.
THE COURT: DID YOU HAVE THE FEELING THAT THE DEPUTIES WHO
WERE ON THE OCCASIONS THEY WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE VISITING
ROOM, THAT THAT HAD SOME EFFECT FROM KEEPING ANY DISCUSSION FROM
OCCURRING?
THE WITNESS: OH, I'M SURE IT DID.
THE COURT: YOU INDICATED THAT THERE ARE PRESSURES ON THE
JURY THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND RELIEVED, BUT YOU INDICATED
YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING IT.
FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT KIND OF PRESSURES
YOU THINK THE JURORS ARE UNDER RIGHT NOW THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED?
THE WITNESS: YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT
WAS, WHO'S NEXT, YOU KNOW. THAT WAS -- THE JURY FEELS -- WELL
NOW, I WON'T SAY THE ENTIRE JURY, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE
JURY, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS LIKE, WHO'S NEXT, AND YOU FELT THAT
WAY BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED.
I CAN TELL YOU A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT I'VE COME INTO
MY ROOM -- AND I'M A PERSON THAT VALUES MY SPACE AND I KNOW WHEN
IT'S BEEN INVADED AND I KNOW THAT MY ROOM HAS BEEN SEARCHED, AND
I FEEL LIKE, WELL, IF SOMEBODY IS SEARCHING MY ROOM, SOMETHING'S
UP.
SO YOU SIT THERE AND YOU WAIT FOR THE SHOE TO DROP,
YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S PRESSURE IN ITSELF.
THE COURT: ANY OTHER PRESSURE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE
ADDRESSING WHEN YOU TOLD THE T.V. INTERVIEWER THAT THE JURORS
WERE UNDER PRESSURE AND THAT IT NEEDED TO BE RELIEVED? ANYTHING
ELSE THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAUSE FOR YOU TO
SAY THAT?
THE WITNESS: JUST THE -- IT'S JUST DIFFICULT LIVING -- YOU
LIVE AND BREATHE AND YOU'RE IN THE SITUATION 24 HOURS A DAY.
JUST THOSE PRESSURES THEMSELVES I BELIEVE WOULD CAUSE A PERSON TO
MAYBE SEE THINGS IN A CERTAIN WAY OR NOT SEE IT OR HEAR THINGS IN
A CERTAIN WAY OR NOT HEAR IT BECAUSE OF THOSE PRESSURES.
AND IT'S EASIER -- YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO WORK AND YOU
COME HOME IN THE EVENING, YOU CAN UNWIND. YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO
UNWIND WHILE YOU'RE SEQUESTERED. YOU'RE SEQUESTERED 24 HOURS A
DAY, AND I THINK IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT. I'M SURE IT WILL HAVE
AN IMPACT.
IF YOU JUST REALLY WANT A JURY TO SIT THERE AND DO IT
-- I BELIEVE PROBABLY PEOPLE WANT TO DO THE BEST JOB THEY
POSSIBLY CAN, BUT YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING PUSHED INTO SOMETHING
THAT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU THINK I SHOULD DEAL WITH THAT?
THE WITNESS: WELL, ONE THING, IT SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN THAT
ALL THOSE JURORS AND ALTERNATES ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT
ANY CONCERNS YOU HAVE OR A CONCERN -- "IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
IT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT."
THE COURT: YOU INDICATED -- AND I ASK THIS QUESTION OF YOU
GIVEN YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND FORMER JUROR.
YOU INDICATED YOU FEEL MORE TIME SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SELECTED IN SELECTING THE DEPUTIES ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR
ASSIGNMENT.
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? WHAT ARE THE
QUALITIES THAT I SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR?
THE WITNESS: I WOULD HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW THE MAKEUP OF
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, IF THEY HAVE PEOPLE TRAINED IN CERTAIN
-- I'M SURE THEY SHOULD.
BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT MYSELF AND A COUPLE
OTHER JURORS FOUND THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE A LACK OF MANAGEMENT
SKILLS WITH SOME OF THE DEPUTIES, PEOPLE SKILLS, AND I FELT LIKE
--
THE COURT: ARE WE COMING BACK TO THAT ATTITUDE, HOW YOU
DEAL WITH PEOPLE?
THE WITNESS: YEAH. IT'S REAL IMPORTANT AND THEY DIDN'T
SEEM TO HAVE IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT THEY NEEDED A PHD OR SEVERAL
DEGREES IN ANYTHING, BUT MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND PEOPLE SKILLS ARE
VERY IMPORTANT, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT THIS WAS
ADDRESSED.
YOU KNOW, YOU JUST DON'T THROW PEOPLE -- GO IN THERE,
SAY, "WATCH OVER THOSE PEOPLE." AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE WOULD
TALK TO THE DEPUTIES AND SAY SOMETHING, WE WOULD SAY, "GUARD,"
YOU KNOW, "YOU'RE THE GUARD," OR WHATEVER. AND THEY TOOK
OFFENSE, BUT THAT'S HOW THEY PRESENTED THEMSELVES, AS GUARDS.
THE COURT: JUROR NO. 462, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT TWO OTHER
AREAS AT THIS POINT THEN.
THERE'S A REPORTER ON THE SAME CHANNEL, CHANNEL 9, BY
THE NAME OF DAVID GOLDSTEIN, AND HE HAS REPORTED THAT YOU HAD
SAID TO HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHER PERSONS THAT FOUR OR FIVE OF
THE JURORS WHO ARE STILL ON OUR PANEL EITHER AS JURORS OR
ALTERNATES HAVE OPENLY DISCUSSED THE CASE IN YOUR PRESENCE.
CAN YOU TELL ME IF THAT'S TRUE?
THE WITNESS: THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL. I SPOKE WITH MR.
GOLDSTEIN AFTER MY INTERVIEW WITH PAT HARVEY, BUT IT WASN'T A
ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND MYSELF. I WAS IN THE
GENERAL MANAGER'S OFFICE WITH MR. -- MY HUSBAND, TAWNY LITTLE,
PRODUCER BY THE NAME OF STEPHANIE MEDINA. PAT HARVEY WAS IN AND
OUT.
WE WERE SEATED IN THE ROOM. MR. GOLDSTEIN STOOD AT
THE DOOR. HE NEVER EVEN ENTERED THE ROOM. AND AS HE APPROACHED
DURING THE CONVERSATION, I WAS ASKED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE -- HOW DID
THEY CLICK, AND I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SAYING THAT LIKE IN ANY
OTHER SITUATION, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO GATHER TOGETHER AS FRIENDS
THAT HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. IF IT'S AT SCHOOL, AT CHURCH, AT
WORK OR WHATEVER, THAT'S HUMAN NATURE.
BUT TO SAY THAT I SAID THE JURORS SPOKE OUT OR HAD AN
OPINION OR SAID ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I
NEVER SAID THAT AND --
THE COURT: MIGHT YOU HAVE SAID ANYTHING AT ALL THAT COULD
HAVE POSSIBLY REMOTELY BEEN MISINTERPRETED?
THE WITNESS: THERE WAS NOT.
THE COURT: BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT
COMMENT CAUSES ME SUCH GRAVE CONCERN.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, AND IT SHOULD CAUSE YOU GRAVE CONCERN.
BUT I WOULDN'T -- I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE SAYING THAT I SPOKE ABOUT
THE CASE TO A PERSON THAT I'M SEEING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY
LIFE.
WHY WOULD I WALK UP -- WHO IS A STRANGER TO ME, WHY
WOULD I WALK UP TO THEM AND SAY AS A JUROR, I SAT THERE AND
TALKED ABOUT THE CASE? THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. AND I HAVE
YET TO HEAR THAT.
TAWNY LITTLE, PAT HARVEY, THE MANAGER, THE PRODUCER
-- I WAS NEVER ALONE WITH MR. GOLDSTEIN. ANY TIME -- THE WHOLE
TIME I WAS THERE, THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WITH US.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT AT
NO TIME DURING YOUR SERVICE WITH US, WHICH HAS BEEN FOR SEVERAL
MONTHS NOW, THAT ANYBODY EVER GOT TOGETHER AND DISCUSSED THE
FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE?
THE WITNESS: THE ONLY TIME THAT I HEARD A CONVERSATION
THAT REMOTELY RESEMBLED THAT, I REPORTED IT TO YOU, AND I TOLD
YOU 2017 SAID WHAT SHE SAID, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I HEARD
THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
APPROPRIATELY, YOU BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION.
ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
THERE WAS A KICKING INCIDENT THAT YOU DISCUSSED THAT
INVOLVED ONE OF THE JURORS. AND SO OUR RECORD IS COMPLETE, YOU
WERE SEATED IN THE COURTROOM AS SEAT NO. 7, WHICH IS THE FIRST
SEAT COMING OUT OF THE JURY ROOM, THE SECOND ROW.
CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THIS INCIDENT?
THE WITNESS: YEAH.
WHEN WE WOULD COME BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, WE WOULD
TRY TO COME IN SOMEWHAT IN THE ORDER THAT WE SAT SO WE WOULDN'T
HAVE TO WALK OVER ONE ANOTHER. AND A LOT OF TIMES, JUROR 353
WOULD -- SHE WOULD JUST LAG BEHIND. WE WOULD BE FORCED TO COME
IN.
ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY, SHE WALKED IN --
THE COURT: WHEN WAS THIS? DO YOU RECALL?
THE WITNESS: WELL, THE DAY THAT YOU GOT THE NOTE. AND I
DON'T REMEMBER THE DAY. IT WAS THE DAY PREVIOUS TO THAT.
THE COURT: SO BY THE DATE ON THE NOTE, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO
TELL. OKAY.
THE WITNESS: AND WHEN SHE WALKED IN, I MEAN, I WENT OUT OF
MY WAY. I TURNED TO THE SIDE SO THAT MY FOOT WOULDN'T BE IN HER
WAY.
AND WHAT WAS AMAZING TO ME WAS, SHE LITERALLY PICKED
HER FOOT UP AND KICKED ME. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN MY
MIND -- YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO SAY, WELL, MAYBE -- OR EVEN IF IT
WAS AN ACCIDENT, YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, PEOPLE SAY "EXCUSE ME."
BUT SHE PICKED HER FOOT UP, SHE KICKED ME AND SHE
PROCEEDED TO, YOU KNOW, GO DOWN TO HER SEAT AND SHE TOOK HER FOOT
AND STOMPED 1489. WELL, HE'S NOT AS COOL AS I AM AND HE KIND OF
GOT UPSET.
SO WE KIND OF WELL, OKAY, CALM DOWN. THERE IS WAYS TO
HANDLE THINGS LIKE THIS. I MEAN, WHEN WE WENT BACK INTO THE JURY
ROOM, HE WAS STILL UPSET, VERY ANGRY, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW SHE HAD
KICKED ME. HE -- AND I TOLD HIM.
WHEN I SAID, "SHE KICKED ME TOO," HE SAID WELL --
WHAT I TOLD HIM, WELL, LET'S HANDLE IT IN THE PROPER WAY. HE
WENT OUT AND HE TALKED TO DEPUTY "H", AND SHE SAID, "OKAY, GIVE
ME A NOTE." THEN FOLLOWING MORNING, HE GAVE HER A NOTE AND SHE
SAYS, "I'LL GIVE IT TO JUDGE ITO."
THE COURT: CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASON WHY 353 WOULD KICK
YOU IN ANY WAY?
THE WITNESS: I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY SHE WOULD KICK ME.
THE COURT: HAD YOU HAD ANY OTHER CONFLICT OR FRICTION WITH
HER?
THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH. I MEAN, WE WEREN'T -- THERE WASN'T
GOOD -- YOU KNOW, THE BLOOD BETWEEN US WASN'T NECESSARILY GOOD,
BUT WE WOULD -- WE NEVER ARGUED PER SE, BUT THERE WAS THAT BODY
LANGUAGE AND SHE KNEW THAT SHE DIDN'T LIKE ME AND I KNEW THAT I
DIDN'T LIKE HER. BUT WE NEVER -- WE NEVER HAD ANY CONFRONTATION.
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT BETWEEN 353 AND 1489?
THE WITNESS: WELL, 1489, HE INTIMIDATED, I SUSPECT JUST
HIS PRESENCE, AND NOT ONLY THE WHITE JURORS, EVEN SOME OF THE
AFRICAN AMERICAN JURORS HE WOULD.
LIKE IF YOU'RE WATCHING A MOVIE, HE WOULD SAY, YOU
KNOW, "COULD YOU GUYS HOLD IT DOWN," OR WHATEVER. IF YOU WERE
RIDING IN THE VAN, HE DIDN'T LIKE A LOT OF NOISE, BUT I DIDN'T --
THERE WASN'T THE SAME BLOOD BETWEEN -- I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS
THE SAME BLOOD BETWEEN HE AND HER AS IT WAS BETWEEN ME AND SHE.
SHE -- SHE -- I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T EXPLAIN HER. I
CAN'T EXPLAIN HER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE'S COMING FROM.
THE COURT: 1489 IS A RATHER LARGE INDIVIDUAL, 353 IS A
RATHER SMALL INDIVIDUAL.
THE WITNESS: I KNOW.
THE COURT: THAT DOESN'T COMPUTE.
THE WITNESS: MINE NEITHER. I WAS SHOCKED.
THE COURT: WERE YOU A WITNESS TO ANY OTHER CONFLICT
BETWEEN 1489 AND 353?
THE WITNESS: YEAH.
WHEN HE WAS WATCHING A MOVIE ONE DAY, SHE AND 1427,
THEY HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, YOU KNOW, PHYSICALLY HIT HIM IN HIS
HEAD.
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY HIT HIM IN THE HEAD?
THE WITNESS: NO. THEY WERE WALKING BEHIND -- HE WAS
SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW AND THEY WERE WALKING BEHIND HIM, AND
THEY HIT HIM.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE SITTING THERE -- AND THAT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS WE DID. WE TRIED TO KEEP ONE ANOTHER CALM. AND
MYSELF AND 1233 CALMED HIM DOWN AND HE ADDRESSED IT.
NOW, THIS WAS THE TIME THERE HE ADDRESSED IT. HE
TOLD THEM ONE DAY IN THE JURY ROOM, YOU KNOW, "YOU GUYS HIT ME.
YOU LITERALLY HIT ME, AND I DON'T LIKE IT."
AND 353 JUMPED UP AND RAN AND GOT A DEPUTY. AND THEN
WE WERE TOLD, "DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING IN THIS ROOM," WHERE I
FELT HE HAD EVERY RIGHT -- IF SOMEBODY HIT HIM, HE HAD EVERY
RIGHT TO SAY, "YOU HIT ME AND I DON'T LIKE IT." BUT THE DEPUTIES
--
THE COURT: HOW LONG AGO DID THIS HAPPEN?
THE WITNESS: THIS WAS SOMETIME IN MARCH.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?
THE WITNESS: THE WHOLE JURY WAS PRESENT.
THE COURT: EVERYBODY WAS THERE?
THE WITNESS: EVERYBODY WAS THERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS KICKING INCIDENT OR ANY
OTHER CONFLICT THAT YOU THINK I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?
THE WITNESS: NO. NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT ME TO INQUIRE INTO ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, A COUPLE THINGS.
MR. DARDEN: I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS AT SIDEBAR.
MR. COCHRAN: A COUPLE THINGS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE.
MR. GRIMES, YOU WANT TO JOIN US?
EVEN HERE WE HAVE SIDEBARS.
OKAY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF
THIS?
MR. COCHRAN: JUST A COUPLE THINGS.
SHE WAS GIVING US INCIDENTS THAT SHE COULD RECALL
LIKE THE SHOPPING INCIDENT, AND THE COURT WENT TO ANOTHER
SUBJECT, AND I JUST WANTED TO INQUIRE WHETHER THERE WERE OTHER
INCIDENTS THAT SHE RECALLED. SHE GAVE A COUPLE.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT I ASKED HER THE QUESTION IF THERE WAS
ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT YOU FELT PREFERENTIAL.
MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT'S WHEN YOU WENT ON TO SOMETHING
ELSE. I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT COMES
TO MIND.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASK HER IF SHE COULD GIVE THE
NAMES OF THE DEPUTIES THAT SHE FOUND TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL OR
UNCOURTEOUS OR WHATEVER BECAUSE I THINK SHE GAVE YOU CERTAIN
NAMES, PLAYING CARDS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK SHE NEEDS
TO BE ASKED FACE ON THE DEPUTIES THAT THEY HAD THE MOST TROUBLE
WITH, WHO, YOU KNOW, WERE JUST, YOU KNOW, OUT AND OUT RUDE.
LIKE SHE TOLD US HOW DEPUTY "E" AND DEPUTY "C" SEEMED
TO BE PROFESSIONAL. I THINK WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE. I
HAD READ OR MAYBE IT WAS IN THE TAPE THAT A BLACK DEPUTY HAD
GOTTEN INTO AN ARGUMENT OVER THE SHOPPING THING, AND I WOULD LIKE
FOR YOU TO FIND OUT WHO THAT WAS AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN. WHATEVER
THE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AT ROSS AND TARGET, I WOULD LIKE TO
FIND OUT WHO THE DEPUTY WAS FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WOULD GIVE
SOME CREDIBILITY TO THE INCIDENT.
AND IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM, IF THEY HAD AN ARGUMENT
AMONG THEMSELVES, THAT CERTAINLY DOES GO TO PROFESSIONALISM,
DOESN'T IT, IF THEY HAD A FIGHT AMONG THEMSELVES?
JUDGE, THE ENCOUNTER -- SHE SAYS FROM THE VERY FIRST
DAY, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT, AND WE DIDN'T ASK HER WHAT THAT
INCIDENT WAS. REMEMBER SHE SAID, "THE FIRST DAY DOWN HERE, I HAD
A PROBLEM"? AND I DON'T THINK WE ASKED.
THE COURT: NO. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE HAD A FEELING SHE
WAS BEING GUARDED RATHER THAN --
MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO GET SOME SPECIFICITY AS TO WHAT
THE INCIDENT WAS.
LASTLY WITH --
THE COURT: NO. I'M NOT -- THE SEQUESTRATION FIRST DAY
BLUES. I'M SURE EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE SIMILAR EXPERIENCES.
THAT DOESN'T INTEREST ME IMMENSELY.
MR. COCHRAN: LASTLY, WITH REGARD TO 353, YOU'LL REMEMBER
THAT WE HEARD FROM WHAT NUMBER -- YOU REMEMBER, WITH REGARD TO
602, AN INCIDENT ABOUT -- WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT VARIOUS
THINGS. 353 --
IF YOU COULD JUST ASK ANOTHER QUESTION WITH REGARD TO
THE PROBLEMS BETWEEN HE AND 353 AND -- 353 AND 1489, IF THEY ALSO
HAD STEMMED FROM THIS MOVIE ROOM THING. I MEAN, OBLIQUELY,
THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PROBLEM EARLY
REGARDING THAT. IF YOU RECALL -- I THOUGHT PERHAPS WE SHOULD
FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL I HAD WITH THAT SITUATION. AND THEN MAKE
SURE WE HAVE THE NAMES OF EVERYBODY WHO WAS IN THE ROOM WHEN DAVE
GOLDSTEIN APPEARED IN THE DOORWAY. I HAVE STEPHANIE MEDINA --
THE COURT: WE GOT EVERYBODY. IT'S IN THE RECORD.
MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT --
THE COURT: STATION PRODUCER, HER HUSBAND, SOMEBODY ELSE, A
MANAGER. SO SHE GAVE US ALL THE NAMES.
MR. COCHRAN: WE NEED TO GET EVERYBODY THAT WAS THERE.
THE COURT: YOU'LL GET A TRANSCRIPT TOMORROW MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: MAY I DEFER TO MR. DARDEN?
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: CAN WE BOTH SPEAK ON THE ISSUE AND SAVE YOU
SOME TIME?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN: WITH REGARD TO THE APPARENT GYM FOR WHITE
JURORS AND THE OTHER ONE FOR BLACK JURORS, SHE SAID IT WAS MADE
KNOWN OR MADE CLEAR THAT THEY WEREN'T WELCOME IN THE OTHER GYM.
THE COURT: I ASKED HER THAT.
MR. DARDEN: DID SHE SAY WHETHER IT WAS THE DEPUTIES THAT
MADE IT KNOWN TO HER AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER JURORS?
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DARDEN: AND WITH REGARD TO THE --
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DARDEN: THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHERE SHE AND 1233 CANNOT
EXERCISE TOGETHER. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WAS AN
EXPLANATION GIVEN TO HER BY DEPUTY "A" AS TO WHY THESE TWO
SPECIFIC JURORS COULD NOT WORK OUT TOGETHER.
THEN TOO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHETHER SHE THINKS THAT
BY TRANSFERRING SOME OF THE DEPUTIES OUT AND TRANSFERRING
DEPUTIES IN THAT MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLE THE GENDER, ETHNIC MAKEUP
OF THE JURY, THAT MIGHT HELP THE ATMOSPHERE THERE.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. GRIMES, DO YOU HAVE ANY?
MR. GRIMES: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE MOVIE THING, I THINK IT'S EASY TO OVERLOOK THAT
BECAUSE AT FIRST, THINGS SOUND A LITTLE BIT TRIVIAL TO US. BUT
AFTER SPENDING SO MUCH TIME WITH HER, I KNOW HOW SIGNIFICANT IT
IS TO THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE HOUSED TOGETHER. SO THE POINT IS
THIS.
IN THE MOVIE SITUATION, IT WAS, "EVERYBODY'S IN ONE
ROOM AND WE VOTE ON WHAT MOVIES WE ARE GOING TO SEE." MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WHITE JURORS BECAME DISSATISFIED AND
WAS LED BY 353. SO THEY INSTITUTED A NEW PROGRAM WHEREIN ANOTHER
MOVIE ROOM, THEY SET UP A SCHEDULE.
AND IT SO HAPPENED THAT THE SCHEDULE WAS THAT OF WHAT
THE MINORITY OF JURORS WANTED TO SEE, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THE
WHITE JURORS. AND THE RULE WAS THAT NO VIDEO COULD BE SEEN UNTIL
IT HAD BEEN SEEN IN THAT ROOM. SO IT WASN'T LIKE YOU HAD --
THE COURT: I'M AWARE OF WHAT THE CONFLICT IS AND I'M GOING
TO LOOK INTO THAT.
MR. GRIMES: OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTOOD
THEY COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE MOVIE UNTIL IT HAD BEEN SEEN BY THE
WHITES.
THE COURT: CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME.
MR. COCHRAN: THEY WOULD GO BACK TO BLOCKBUSTER AT SOME
TIME.
MR. GRIMES: THEY WOULD SIT AND SOMETIMES NOT BE SEEN
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SEEN IN THE FIRST ROOM AND THEY FELT THAT
WAS AN INSULT.
MR. DARDEN: IF YOU'RE INCLINED TO ASK -- AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT YOU ARE. IF YOU WOULD ASK JUROR NO. 462 WHICH DEPUTIES SHE
THINKS OUGHT TO BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF THERE, WHAT SPECIFIC
DEPUTIES.
THE COURT: SHE'S GIVEN US NAMES. SHE NAMED NAMES.
MR. COCHRAN: THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE SEEN OUR
MOTION. YOU KNOW, MY MOTION -- FROM THE BEGINNING, I'VE SAID
THAT -- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE HERE. SO I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND
WOULD ASK WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES WHO COULD
PROBABLY DO THIS.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THIS IS MY DECISION. HER OPINION WILL
BE INTERESTING, BUT --
MR. COCHRAN: ONE OTHER THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THESE
SEARCHES IN THE ROOM. I TELL YOU, IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. WE'RE
SITTING HERE WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE TO DROP. WE KNOW WHAT'S
GOING ON, AND I THINK TO GO INTO THEIR ROOMS -- I BELIEVE GOING
INTO PEOPLE'S ROOMS WHO ARE NOT THERE IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY.
THE COURT: I'LL TELL YOU -- LET ME TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING
ON.
THEY HAVE ROOM SERVICE COME THROUGH TO CLEAN AND, YOU
KNOW, MAKE THE BEDS LIKE ANY OTHER FIRST CLASS HOTEL BECAUSE THIS
IS A NICE HOTEL THEY'RE STAYING IN. AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES
DO NOT ALLOW THE CLEANING CREW TO GO THERE UNESCORTED.
AS THEY GO THROUGH CLEANING THE ROOM UP, THE
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY IS STANDING THERE MAKING SURE THE CLEANING CREW
DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING OR DOESN'T PLANT ANYTHING THERE. THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S A STANDARD SEQUESTRATION RULE.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, MAYBE YOU CAN ASK ABOUT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH SHE BELIEVES THE SHERIFFS ARE GOING THROUGH HER PERSONAL
BELONGINGS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: OVER AND ABOVE THE CLEANING PEOPLE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GRIMES: JUST ANOTHER ADDITION, YOUR HONOR.
SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHAINS BEING TAKEN OFF
THE DOORS. SHE DIDN'T FEEL SECURE AT NIGHT BECAUSE THERE WERE
CERTAIN -- SHE FELT THAT MAYBE SOMEONE COULD WALK IN THE ROOM IF
THEY HAD A KEY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
JUROR NO. 462, YOU'VE GIVEN ME SOME EXAMPLES OF
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER EXAMPLES THAT I SHOULD BE
AWARE OF THAT CAN HELP ME ASSESS THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE?
THE WITNESS: I PROBABLY -- THERE ARE TONS OF THINGS THAT
HAPPENED THAT -- YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE WHEN WE WERE GOING DOWN
FOR MEALS OR MAYBE EVEN COMING OVER TO THE COURTHOUSE, WE WOULD
STAND OUT IN THE CORRIDOR AND WAIT UNTIL CERTAIN JURORS WERE
READY WHEREAS WE WERE READY AT A CERTAIN TIME. THEY WERE NEVER
READY. AND THIS WAS ALWAYS TOLERATED, YOU KNOW, THINGS OF THAT
NATURE.
THE COURT: ALWAYS THE SAME PEOPLE WERE LATE?
THE WITNESS: ALWAYS THE SAME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WHICH --
AND WE --
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. THAT HAPPENS IN LIFE. THERE'S
JUST SOME PEOPLE --
THE WITNESS: YEAH, IT HAPPENS, BUT IT WAS NEVER A PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS HAPPEN, BUT IT WAS NEVER A
PROBLEM. AND WE PAID THE PRICE BECAUSE WE STOOD THERE IN THAT
CORRIDOR LINED UP READY TO GO SO MANY TIMES.
THE COURT: ANY OTHER INSTANCES? ANY OTHER SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES THAT YOU FEEL ONE GROUP OR PERSON WAS GIVEN PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT?
THE WITNESS: JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T -- I
CAN'T --
THE COURT: I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
CAN YOU TELL ME IN YOUR OPINION WHO THE PROBLEM
DEPUTIES WERE SPECIFICALLY?
THE WITNESS: SPECIFICALLY, DEPUTY "A", DEPUTY "B" AND I
THINK MAYBE DEPUTY "I", BUT I DON'T THINK HERS WAS SO MUCH --
DEPUTY "A" AND DEPUTY "B" HAD -- WERE THE ONES THAT I ADDRESSED
WHEN I WAS THINKING OF THE RACIAL TENSIONS. BUT DEPUTY "I", SHE
JUST KIND OF MADE IT LIKE EVERYBODY WAS AN INCONVENIENCE. COLOR
HAD NO --
THE COURT: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BAD ATTITUDE?
THE WITNESS: YEAH. EVERYBODY.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WITH REGARDS TO THAT SHOPPING
INCIDENT -- YOU INDICATED THAT THE DEPUTIES CAME OUT AND TALKED
AMONGST THEMSELVES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ONE GROUP WANTED TO GO BACK
TO ROSS. ON THE RADIO, DEPUTY "H", THEY TALKED ABOUT -- WHO WAS
INVOLVED IN THAT DISCUSSION? DEPUTY "C" AND DEPUTY "H"?
THE WITNESS: AND DEPUTY "H". DEPUTY "C" AND DEPUTY "H".
HIS THING WAS, WE HAD A PLAN AND WE HAD -- THIS IS
HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO AND WE SHOULDN'T DEVIATE FROM THAT
PLAN. AND DEPUTY "I" AND DEPUTY "H" WERE WITH THE OTHER JURORS.
AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN ON ANOTHER INCIDENT, WHEN WE WERE
AT TARGET A DIFFERENT TIME, 1290 WAS SCHEDULED TO -- DEPUTY "C"
WOULD BREAK US UP INTO GROUPS OF FOUR OR MAYBE FIVE JURORS, AND
YOU WOULD GO WITH A DEPUTY THROUGHOUT THE STORE. AND IT JUST SO
HAPPENED THAT 1290, SHE WAS IN A GROUP THAT I WAS IN AND SOME
OTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN JURORS, AND THAT DIDN'T SIT RIGHT WITH
HER.
DEPUTY "I" SAID, "FINE," YOU KNOW, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO
-- FINE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO WITH THEM." BUT DEPUTY "C"
INSISTED, "WELL, SHE'S -- THAT'S THE GROUP SHE WAS ASSIGNED TO."
AND THE ONLY REASON SHE ENDED UP SHOPPING WITH US WAS BECAUSE
DEPUTY "C" INSISTED. BUT SHE HAD A BIG PROBLEM. IT'S LIKE, "I
CAN'T SHOP WITH THEM," YOU KNOW, THAT WAS HER ATTITUDE. "I CAN
NOT SHOP WITH THEM."
THE DAY BEFORE I LEFT, 1427, SHE SAT ON THE VAN. SHE
COULDN'T BREATHE THE SAME AIR THAT I THINK 2457, THE LITTLE
ELDERLY AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN -- SHE LITERALLY COULDN'T BREATHE
THE SAME AIR. "I NEED AIR," AND INSISTED ON OPENING THE WINDOW
BECAUSE SHE WAS SITTING NEXT TO THIS JUROR.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT JUST LITTLE TRIVIAL THINGS
THAT COME OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THERE WERE LITERALLY RACIAL
PROBLEMS; I DON'T WANT TO BREATHE THE SAME AIR THIS WOMAN IS
BREATHING.
THE COURT: OKAY.
YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT YOU
WEREN'T WELCOME IN THE SECOND GYM. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT WAS
MADE KNOWN TO YOU THAT YOU WEREN'T WELCOME TO USE THE SECOND GYM?
THE WITNESS: VERBALLY AND --
THE COURT: BY WHO?
THE WITNESS: 1290.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAD AT THE FIRST GYM, WE WOULD
GO DOWN AND THERE WERE MORE JURORS THAN EQUIPMENT. AND SO ONE
DAY, MYSELF AND 1489, HE SAYS, WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD LIMIT
OURSELVES TO 15 MINUTES ON THE EQUIPMENT. "WE CAN'T USE THE
EQUIPMENT FOR 15 MINUTES. I HAVE TO HAVE 30 MINUTES," AND
WHATEVER.
SO WHEN THE EQUIPMENT CAME UPSTAIRS, SHE MADE IT
PLAIN, "I'M NOT USING EQUIPMENT FOR 15 MINUTES AND I DON'T CARE
WHO GETS ON IT OR WHO DOESN'T GET ON IT." AND THEN THEY WOULD --
WE WOULD COME BACK FROM DINNER OR WHATEVER AND THEY WOULD RUN TO
THE ROOM AND OCCUPY THE EQUIPMENT.
THERE WAS A DEFINITE PLAN TO BLOCK US OFF, YOU KNOW.
THEY COULDN'T SAY, "YOU CAN'T COME IN." THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE
RULES, BUT THERE WAS DEFINITE -- THEY ACTUALLY OCCUPIED THE
EQUIPMENT. AND WHEN SHE WOULD BE ON THE TREADMILL, SHE WOULD ASK
353 IF, "YOU WANT THIS?" SHE WOULD GET OFF THE TREADMILL AND
THEY'D SWITCH.
THE COURT: OKAY.
YOU INDICATED SOMETHING ABOUT 1233 INDICATING THAT
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT YOU AND SHE COULD WORK OUT TOGETHER. TELL
ME ABOUT THAT.
THE WITNESS: THIS WAS AN EVENING WHEN NOBODY WAS IN THE
GYM AND IT WAS 10:00 O'CLOCK WHEN WE -- THIS WAS THE FIRST
EVENING THAT WE WERE TOLD WE COULDN'T GO DOWNSTAIRS.
SO THEY USUALLY -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- THEY MUST
HAVE BEEN WATCHING A MOVIE OR WHATEVER. AND WE SAID FINE. SO I
WENT INTO THE GYM MYSELF AND SHE WENT TO CHANGE HER CLOTHES, AND
DEPUTY "A" TOLD HER, "WELL, NO, YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE BECAUSE 462
IS IN THERE."
WELL, SHE CONTINUED TO WALK IN. THEY ENDED UP IN THE
ROOM WITH ME AND THREE OF US ENDED UP HAVING THIS BIG DISCUSSION
THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE DID THIS RULE COME FROM. THIS IS THE FIRST
I'VE EVER HEARD OF THIS. THERE IS A ROOM FULL OF EQUIPMENT, ONE
PERSON IS IN HERE AND I CAN'T EXERCISE? THIS WAS JUST A RULE HE
WOULD MAKE, RULES LIKE THIS JUST AS THEY POPPED INTO HIS HEAD.
THE COURT: THAT WAS THE DEPUTY WHO DID THAT?
THE WITNESS: DEPUTY "A".
THE COURT: YOU KNOW, I WENT TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO GET ALL
OF THAT EQUIPMENT FOR THAT SECOND GYM.
THE WITNESS: AND IT WAS NICE EQUIPMENT.
THE COURT: I KNOW. I KNOW.
TELL ME ABOUT THIS FEELING THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOUR
ROOM IS BEING SEARCHED.
THE WITNESS: WELL --
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IT IS -- I MEAN I
UNDERSTAND THE HEEBIE-JEEBIES.
THE WITNESS: NO. IT WAS MORE THAN A FEELING.
THE COURT: TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
THE WITNESS: I FELT IT AT ONE POINT BECAUSE 2457 MENTIONED
IT SHORTLY AFTER WE GOT THERE, THAT SHE FELT THIS OCCURRED, AND I
FELT LIKE, OH, SHE'S JUST PARANOID. AND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, I
BEGAN FEELING THAT WAY.
SO WHAT I DID WAS, I SAT MY -- SOME OF MY THINGS IN
MY ARMOIRE WHERE I WOULD KNOW -- THE MAID WOULD CLEAN YOUR ROOM,
BUT THEY DIDN'T OPEN DRAWERS. AND I PLACED THINGS IN A PARTICULAR
PLACE, AND WHEN I CAME BACK, THEY WERE REARRANGED. THEY WERE
REARRANGED. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT MY ROOM WAS
SEARCHED.
THE COURT: AND I TAKE IT YOU GAVE NOBODY PERMISSION TO DO
THAT?
THE WITNESS: I WOULD NEVER GIVE ANYBODY PERMISSION TO
SEARCH MY ROOM.
THE COURT: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY FURTHER
INQUIRY OF JUROR NO. 462 AT THIS TIME.
JUROR NO. 462, I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
PATIENCE AND COOPERATION COMING IN AND TALKING TO US. I MAY -- I
HOPE NOT, BUT I MAY NEED TO TALK TO YOU ONE MORE TIME JUST TO
CLARIFY SOME OF THESE THINGS.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE. AND DO I HAVE YOUR
PERMISSION TO CONTACT YOUR LAWYER TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO TALK TO
YOU?
THE WITNESS: SURE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GRIMES, ANY OTHER COMMENT?
MR. GRIMES: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CALLOWAY: NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS HARRIS,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: AND, MR. GRIMES, IF YOU'LL LEAVE YOUR BUSINESS
CARD WITH MRS. ROBERTSON, I'LL MAKE SURE THAT A TRANSCRIPT OF
TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS WILL BE MAILED TO YOUR OFFICE TOMORROW.
MR. GRIMES: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. GRIMES?
MR. GRIMES: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I HAD DEPARTMENT DOWNS AND DEPUTY BROWN BRING
YOUR CLIENT IN. HOWEVER WAY YOU WANT TO DO IT. DEPUTY DOWNS CAN
ESCORT MR. GRIMES, HIS PARTNER, MR. CALLOWAY AND JUROR NO. 462
OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE TO AVOID THE CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE.
MR. GRIMES: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. GRIMES: COULD WE HAVE A FEW MOMENTS WITH THE CLERK,
YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE LEAVE?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. GRIMES: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: JUROR NO. 462, WHY DON'T YOU WAIT FOR YOUR
COUNSEL IN THE JURY ROOM. I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT.
(JUROR NO. 462, MR. GRIMES,
MR. CALLOWAY AND MR. JESSE
EXITED THE COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY "G", WOULD YOU ASK MR. GOLDSTEIN AND HIS
CLIENT TO STEP IN, PLEASE. I MEAN HIS ATTORNEYS. MR. GOLDSTEIN
AND HIS LAWYERS.
(MR. GOLDSTEIN, MR. SMITH
AND MR. HERNANDEZ ENTERED THE
COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. GOLDSTEIN. WOULD YOU STEP OVER
HERE, PLEASE. AND YOUR COUNSEL CAN APPROACH IF THEY LIKE, TAKE
THE OTHER SEATS OVER HERE BY MISS LEWIS.
ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. GOLDSTEIN. AND MR. GOLDSTEIN --
COUNSEL FOR MR. GOLDSTEIN, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAMES FOR THE
RECORD.
MR. SMITH: GOOD AFTERNOON.
GLEN SMITH, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL OF KCAL
TELEVISION.
MR. HERNANDEZ: DENNIS HERNANDEZ, BAKER AND HOSTETLER.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN.
MR. GOLDSTEIN, THE REASON THAT I'VE ASKED YOU TO COME
IN THIS AFTERNOON -- AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATING WITH US --
I NEED TO ASK YOU ABOUT A REPORT THAT YOU MADE CONCERNING JUROR
NO. 462, ONE OF OUR FORMER JURORS HERE AND A COMMENT THAT SHE
MADE.
YOUR COUNSEL ARE HERE AND THEY'VE INDICATED TO ME
THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO TESTIFY REGARDING PUBLISHED COMMENTS THAT
YOU'VE MADE, REPORTS THAT YOU'VE MADE ON KCAL DURING NORMAL NEWS
BROADCASTS. THEY'VE ADVISED ME HOWEVER THAT YOU ARE COGNIZANT OF
YOUR RIGHT UNDER THE SHIELD LAWS HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND THAT IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO INVOKE THAT SHIELD.
I'VE INDICATED TO YOUR ATTORNEYS THAT AT ANY TIME
DURING THE COURT'S QUESTIONING, IF YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE TO TALK TO YOUR COUNSEL, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK FOR THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS AN INQUIRY INTO
THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY THAT WAS REPORTED AND IS NO REFLECTION
ON YOUR ACTIVITY, PROFESSIONAL OR OTHERWISE. JUST MERELY THAT
YOU ARE THE CONDUIT TO SOME VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION THAT THE
COURT FINDS NECESSARY TO MAKE INQUIRY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I ASK MRS. ROBERTSON
TO SWEAR YOU IN?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: NO QUESTIONS. I UNDERSTAND.
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE COURT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: 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 IN THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: DAVID GOLDSTEIN, G-O-L-D-S-T-E-I-N.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. GOLDSTEIN.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION IS?
THE WITNESS: REPORTER FOR CHANNEL 9 KCAL TELEVISION.
THE COURT: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU ARE THE REPORTER
SPECIALLY ASSIGNED TO THE TRIAL OF THE CASE THAT WE'RE INVOLVED
IN HERE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VERSUS ORENTHAL
SIMPSON.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: YOU'RE REGULARLY ASSIGNED HERE TO THE
COURTHOUSE?
THE WITNESS: YES, I AM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE REASON I'VE ASKED YOU TO COME IN IS, ON APRIL THE
5TH, 1995, JUROR NO. 462, NOW PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED AS JUROR NO.
462, WAS INTERVIEWED BY YOUR COLLEAGUE PAT HARVEY OF KCAL RATHER
EXTENSIVELY. MY RECOLLECTION, THE INTERVIEW WAS APPROXIMATELY 35
MINUTES.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: SUBSEQUENT TO THAT INTERVIEW, IT WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING -- AND I DID PERSONALLY SEE THE KCAL BROADCAST
WHERE YOU REPORTED SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT JUROR NO. 462 HAD
INDICATED OR HAD STATED TO YOU THAT FOUR OR FIVE OF THE JURORS
STILL SITTING EITHER AS ALTERNATES OR REGULAR JURORS IN THE CASE
HAVE ACTIVELY DISCUSSED THE CASE.
CAN YOU TELL ME IF JUROR NO. 462 MADE A COMMENT
SIMILAR TO THAT?
THE WITNESS: SHE DID.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME AS BEST YOUR RECOLLECTION
ALLOWS HER SPECIFIC COMMENT TO YOU?
THE WITNESS: SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS WITH A GROUP OF FIVE
OR SIX OTHER JURORS, THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED THE CASE, AND THAT
AT THE TIME, THEY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OR THAT THEY
HAD SIMILAR FEELINGS TO HER FEELINGS.
THE COURT: DID SHE ELABORATE IN ANY OTHER WAY? DID SHE
MAKE ANY OTHER STATEMENT TO YOU IN THAT REGARD?
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: CAN YOU AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE GIVE ME THE
SPECIFICS THAT SHE SAID -- THE SPECIFIC WORDS THAT SHE STATED TO
YOU?
THE WITNESS: I THINK THAT WAS -- THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT.
THIS IS NOT A DIRECT QUOTE, BUT IN ESSENCE WHAT SHE TOLD ME.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU WERE WHEN THIS
STATEMENT WAS MADE TO YOU?
THE WITNESS: IN AN OFFICE IN THE CHANNEL 9 NEWSROOM.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?
THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.
THE COURT: WHO WERE THEY, THOSE PERSONS? WHO WERE THOSE
PERSONS?
THE WITNESS: AT VARIOUS TIMES, PEOPLE WERE COMING IN AND
OUT OF THE ROOM. BUT OUR EXECUTIVE PRODUCER BOB LONG, ANCHOR
DAVID JACKSON, PRODUCER STEPHANIE MEDINA, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER
KEITH ESPARROS AND JUROR NO. 462 AND HER HUSBAND.
THE COURT: DID YOU ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND INTERVIEW JUROR
NO. 462 OR WAS -- CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THE CONVERSATION CAME
ABOUT, THE CONTEXT, DESCRIBE IT FOR ME?
THE WITNESS: WE WERE JUST TALKING IN A COMFORTABLE SETTING
OF TALKING ABOUT THE TRIAL OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THE COURT: WAS THIS BEFORE OR AFTER PAT HARVEY'S
INTERVIEW?
THE WITNESS: AFTER.
THE COURT: OKAY.
NO DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THIS HAPPENED?
THE WITNESS: NO DOUBT.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: SHALL WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: YES.
AND, COUNSEL, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH?
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WOULD LIKE -- MINDFUL OF THESE
GENTLEMEN -- AND I WANT -- I WOULD LIKE -- HE'S TOLD US WHO WAS
PRESENT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THIS WAS A
COMFORTABLE SETTING, WHETHER DAVID WAS SITTING DOWN OR IN THE
DOORWAY. I WANT TO FIND OUT WHERE HE WAS AND THEN SHE AND HER
HUSBAND OR WHATEVER WERE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT HOW COMFORTABLE THIS
WAS. I MEAN, DID THEY TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS, WAS THIS PART OF
A LENGTHY CONVERSATION, WAS THIS JUST LIKE HE JUST POSED THIS ONE
QUESTION OR, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT THE CONTEXT OF
HOW THIS CAME UP AND SPECIFICALLY WHO WAS PRESENT WHEN THIS
STATEMENT WAS MADE.
AND WHEN SHE SAID THAT -- WHEN HE SAID THAT, WAS
THERE FURTHER CONVERSATION, WAS THERE FURTHER FOLLOW-UP? WAS
THIS A NATURAL CONVERSATION? WELL, CAN YOU TELL ME WHO THESE
OTHER PEOPLE ARE, THAT SORT OF THING? I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED
A LITTLE FOLLOW-UP IN THAT AREA, JUDGE, TO TRY TO GET A LITTLE
FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: WELL, I'M TRYING TO BE VERY PRECISE HERE, MR.
COCHRAN, BECAUSE I HAVE THE FEELING FROM WHAT I SAW OF MR.
GOLDSTEIN'S REPORT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT HE SAID AND KCAL IS
LIKELY TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT THAT'S ALL WE'RE GOING TO GET.
MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE, BUT --
THE COURT: WE'LL SEE. I'LL ASK THE QUESTION, SEE WHAT
HAPPENS.
MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT?
MS. CLARK: LET ME DEFER TO MR. DARDEN.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANY OF THIS
PARAPHRASING IS A PARTIAL OR DIRECT QUOTE AS TO ANYTHING SHE
SAID. ALSO, WAS TAWNY LITTLE OR PAT HARVEY PRESENT.
THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE.
ANY OTHER COMMENT, COUNSEL?
MR. SMITH: NO.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. GOLDSTEIN, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER EITHER PAT
HARVEY OR TAWNY LITTLE WAS ALSO PRESENT DURING ANY OF THIS
COMMENT?
THE WITNESS: BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, PAT WASN'T BECAUSE I
THINK SHE WAS ON THE AIR WITH THE 9:00 O'CLOCK BROADCAST. TAWNY
MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE ROOM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
THE COURT: BECAUSE I KNOW SHE'S HAD SOME INTEREST IN THE
CASE AS WELL.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: DO YOU RECALL WHERE YOU WERE PHYSICALLY IN THE
ROOM WHEN THIS COMMENT WAS MADE?
THE WITNESS: I WAS STANDING UP IN THE DOORWAY OF THE
OFFICE.
THE COURT: DID YOU FOLLOW UP THAT STATEMENT IN ANY WAY BY
ASKING HER TO IDENTIFY WHO THOSE OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN?
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: DID YOU ASK HER ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AT ALL?
THE WITNESS: NOT REGARDING THAT. I THINK THE -- WHAT I
BROADCAST AND WHAT I TOLD YOU WAS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY WERE, THOSE QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS AS PRECISELY AS YOU CAN RECALL?
THE WITNESS: THAT'S THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, WAS WHAT
I REPORTED.
THE COURT: AND THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU
POSED TO HER AND SHE ANSWERED?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE QUESTION, IF I MAY ASK FROM HERE.
WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS THIS, THE TIME?
THE COURT: PROBABLY AROUND 9:00 O'CLOCK BECAUSE MISS
HARVEY WAS DOING THE 9:00 O'CLOCK BROADCAST.
THE WITNESS: MY GUESS, BETWEEN 9:00, 9:30.
THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE, MR. COCHRAN, MISS CLARK?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR ON WHAT MR. GOLDSTEIN IS SAYING.
WAS THE STATEMENT HE GAVE A COMPILATION OF, SERIES OF
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?
THE COURT: THAT'S THE IMPRESSION I GOT.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: BUT HE CAN'T RECALL THE PRECISE QUESTION AND
ANSWER. HE SAID THAT'S THE BEST OF HIS RECOLLECTION.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: IF THE COURT WILL INQUIRE, WERE THERE ANY
CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES TAKEN?
THE COURT: ANY NOTES, ANYTHING RECORDED?
THE WITNESS: NO.
MR. DARDEN: HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MR. --
BETWEEN THE GENTLEMAN AND THE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT ABOUT THEIR
CONVERSATION?
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WERE FOUR TO SIX PEOPLE
ALSO PRESENT IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME THE STATEMENT WAS ALLEGEDLY
MADE?
THE COURT: ANYBODY DISCUSS THAT WITH JUROR NO. 462, THAT
PARTICULAR ISSUE?
THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DARDEN: AND HOW LONG WAS HE STANDING IN THE DOORWAY?
THE COURT: HOW LONG WERE YOU THERE?
THE WITNESS: ANYWHERE FROM 15 MINUTES TO A HALF HOUR.
THE COURT: STANDING IN THE DOORWAY?
THE WITNESS: AND TALKING TO HER, YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS AFTER THE INTERVIEW WITH PAT HARVEY?
THE WITNESS: AFTER THE INTERVIEW.
MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE INTERVIEW WITH PAT HARVEY,
HAD THIS SUBJECT COME UP AT ALL DURING THAT INTERVIEW?
THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S NOT FOR HIM TO TESTIFY TO. WE
HAVE THE VIDEOTAPE. I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN IT.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK I SAW IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. DARDEN: WAS PAT HARVEY PRESENT DURING ANY PART OF THAT
15-, 30-MINUTE TIME PERIOD THAT YOU WERE PRESENT?
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANY COMMENT FROM KCAL COUNSEL?
MR. SMITH: NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDSTEIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNSEL, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO WITH OUR TRANSCRIPT IS
-- I DID TAKE NOTES DURING THE COURSE OF MY CONVERSATION WITH
JUROR NO. 462, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO STUDY THOSE COMMENTS WITH
SPECIFICALLY BREAKING DOWN, AS YOU KNOW I DO, EACH INDIVIDUAL AS
I CHARTED HER COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO BREAK THESE DOWN BECAUSE
THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, NAMES AND INCIDENTS HERE
THAT I WANT TO LOOK INTO.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S MY INTENTION TO, ONCE I
CATALOG THE NATURE OF THESE EVENTS, MAKE INQUIRY OF SPECIFICS
WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER JURORS WHO ARE SITTING, IF THEY CAN
TELL US IF THERE ARE ANY SIMILAR INCIDENTS.
OBVIOUSLY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WILL GET A COPY OF
THIS TRANSCRIPT, AND THEY CAN TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES IF THEY
FEEL IT NECESSARY TO CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY OF THEIR OWN STAFFING AS
FAR AS THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. AND OBVIOUSLY I WILL CONSULT
WITH COUNSEL BEFORE I MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REGARDING SEQUESTRATION ISSUES.
BUT I NEED TO STUDY THE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS
HERE, AND WE'LL TAKE IT UP AGAIN LATER IN THE WEEK.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A MOTION ALSO THAT WE
FILED. YOU ARE GOING TO SET THAT AT SOME POINT, WHICH MAY FOLLOW
THIS TRACK PART WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
THE COURT: YES. IT'S DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO IT, BUT I THINK
WE NEED TO DO SOME FACT FINDING AT THIS POINT BEFORE WE ADDRESS
THE MOTION. I PREFER TO DO THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: IT'S MY INTENTION TO SPEAK TO EACH AND EVERY
JUROR WHO REMAINS.
MR. COCHRAN: AND IN THOSE INSTANCES, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO RENEW AGAIN WHILE WE'RE IN CHAMBERS AND ASK YOUR
HONOR TO PONDER THIS.
MR. SIMPSON DOES VERY MUCH DESIRE -- I MEAN THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY HIS LIFE -- TO BE PRESENT. IF THERE CAN BE SOME
ACCOMMODATIONS MADE FOR THOSE INQUIRIES REGARDING THE JURORS.
IF HE WERE NOT IN CUSTODY -- AND PERHAPS -- I DON'T
KNOW. PERHAPS HE CAN BE MADE TO DO THAT. MAYBE WE CAN DO THIS
IN OPEN COURT AS IN CHAMBERS, BUT HE DOES NOT WANT TO WAIVE HIS
BEING PRESENT FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO BE AWARE OF
THAT.
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, AS I INDICATED TO YOU, I
ACCEPTED YOUR REQUEST TODAY. IF YOU CAN FIND ME ANY CASE LAW
THAT INDICATES HE'S ENTITLED TO BE PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF
THOSE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING INQUIRY REGARDING JURY CONDUCT, I'LL
HEAR THE AUTHORITY.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: BUT YOU KNOW MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT, BUT
I'LL BE DELIGHTED TO ENTERTAIN IT.
BUT I HAVE THE FEELING SINCE I WOULD -- JUST SO YOU
CAN PLAN YOUR DAYS, I DON'T ANTICIPATE GETTING THIS TRANSCRIPT
UNTIL FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING, AND I WILL HAVE TO SIT DOWN
AND LOOK AT IT, WHICH MEANS I'LL HAVE TO SPEND SOME OF MY EVENING
HOURS TOMORROW. I REALLY DON'T ANTICIPATE HAVING A PLAN OF
INQUIRY REGARDING THE REMAINING JURORS UNTIL POSSIBLY MONDAY.
BUT I THOUGHT I'D LET YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT I ANTICIPATE
TIMETABLE.
MR. DARDEN: I UNDERSTAND THE COURT WANTS TO BE FAIR TO
EVERYONE INVOLVED. BUT HAVING HEARD JUROR NO. 462'S TESTIMONY
REGARDING THESE TWO DEPUTIES, DEPUTY "A" AND DEPUTY "B" -- I
UNDERSTAND THE COURT WANTS TO TAKE -- BE CAREFUL IN DECIDING WHAT
TO DO NEXT, BUT I NOTICE A COMMANDER FROM THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IS HERE. AND THESE ALLEGATIONS BY JUROR NO. 462 ARE
VERY, VERY SERIOUS AND WE WOULD LIKE A VERDICT IN THIS CASE, AND
MY THINKING IS PERHAPS THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO
PERHAPS REMOVE DEPUTY "B" AND DEPUTY "A" FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS
WHILE THE COURT PONDERS WHAT TO DO NEXT.
I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT SOME OF THE BLACK JURORS
FEEL THAT THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO LIVE IN AN OPPRESSIVE
ENVIRONMENT AND THAT THAT SOMEHOW IS GOING TO AFFECT THEIR
ABILITY TO RECEIVE ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT, UNTIL I MAKE INQUIRY OF
THE OTHER JURORS, I'M NOT -- I DON'T FEEL I'M IN A POSITION TO
DIRECT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. I
WANT TO COMPLETE MY INVESTIGATION. I WANT TO BE AS THOROUGH AND
CAUTIOUS AS POSSIBLE.
I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. DARDEN, WE SHOULD ERR ON THE
SIDE OF CAUTION. BUT AT THIS POINT, I FEEL I AT LEAST NEED TO
TALK TO AT LEAST SOME OF THE OTHER JURORS, A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER
OF THEM TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE SIMILAR BEFORE I TAKE ANY
ACTION, MAKE ANY DIRECTION TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. I AM
RELUCTANT TO DO THAT WITHOUT MAKING COMPLETE INQUIRY.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT I
INDICATED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY AT SIDEBAR THAT I FELT THAT THE
COURT NEEDED TO IN SOME WAY EXPRESS TO 1489 THAT THE COURT WAS
GOING TO GET TO THAT ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK PART OF WHAT MR.
DARDEN IS SAYING --
THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT IN ONE OF THOSE
INTERVIEWS, JUROR NO. 462 HAD SAID THAT THEY FELT THAT -- FIRST
OF ALL, BEING STRUCK BY A PARTICULAR JUROR, THEY TRY TO DEAL WITH
IT THE RIGHT WAY, CALM HIM DOWN, BUT THEN THEY DON'T HEAR BACK
ANYTHING'S GOING ON.
CLEARLY -- WE KNOW YOUR HONOR IS BUSY WITH A LOT OF
THINGS. I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT I FEEL REAL BAD -- I THINK BOTH
SIDES FEEL BAD IF ONE OF THE JURORS -- I MENTIONED YESTERDAY WE
NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME INQUIRY DONE TO
NOTES THAT ARE WRITTEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL?
ALL RIGHT. THEN IT BEING 5:30, WE WILL STAND IN
RECESS.
MS. LEWIS: WAIT, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
(AT 5:30 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY,
APRIL 13, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
