Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:196
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: JEANNETTE HARRIS - JUROR DISMISSAL
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 22:10:25 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 686
Sender:
[email protected]
March 22, 1995
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995
9:15 A.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 CAMERA:)
THE COURT: LET'S HAVE 462.
(JUROR NO. 462 ENTERS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: 462, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT.
GOOD MORNING.
JUROR NO. 462: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: HOW ARE YOU TODAY?
JUROR NO. 462: I'M FINE, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: IS EVERYTHING OKAY?
JUROR NO. 462: UH-HUH.
THE COURT: OKAY.
462, THE REASON I ASKED YOU TO COME IN THIS MORNING
-- AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY TIME SOMETHING COMES TO
MY ATTENTION THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE CASE, I HAVE TO MAKE AN
INQUIRY INTO IT; AND I BRING YOU IN HERE FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY AT THIS POINT.
THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS, AN ANONYMOUS PERSON
APPROACHED A POLICE OFFICER WITH REGARD TO YOURSELF INDICATING
THAT IT WAS HIS BELIEF THAT YOU HAD BEEN HISTORICALLY AND
RECENTLY A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REVIEWED SOME COURT
RECORDS AND BROUGHT TO ME A FILE WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE A DOMESTIC
RELATIONS FILE THAT INVOLVES JUROR 462 AND "UU", AND IT INCLUDES
A DECLARATION WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE YOURS ALLEGING CERTAIN
INCIDENTS OF THREATS AND OTHER MISCONDUCT BY "UU".
DO YOU RECOLLECT ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT IN YOUR
PAST?
JUROR NO. 462: THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THAT MY
HUSBAND AND I DID HAVE SOME PROBLEMS IN THE PAST, BUT THERE WAS
NEVER A PHYSICAL -- I'VE NEVER BEEN -- WHEN I THINK OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, I'M THINKING OF SOMEONE BEATING ME. I MIGHT NOT BE
UNDERSTANDING THE TOTAL --
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF
THAT'S YOUR DECLARATION?
JUROR NO. 462: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
JUROR NO. 462: YEAH. THIS IS MINE.
THE COURT: OKAY.
462, YESTERDAY, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WENT OUT AND
INTERVIEWED TWO PEOPLE AT THE **** STREET APARTMENT AND THEY
INTERVIEWED SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, AND THEY REPORTED TWO OF YOUR
NEIGHBORS REPORTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM AT YOUR
APARTMENT HOUSE BETWEEN YOURSELF AND YOUR HUSBAND AND THEY RELATE
ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENT OCTOBER -- APPROXIMATELY OCTOBER THE 9TH,
1994, COLUMBUS DAY, A FIGHT IN YOUR APARTMENT AND THE FACT THAT
YOU APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN ABOUT THE FACE THE NEXT DAY.
JUROR NO. 462: NO. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE -- I GUESS
ANYBODY THAT'S MARRIED HAVE HAD DISAGREEMENTS. MY HUSBAND HAS
NEVER EVER STRUCK -- HE'S NEVER HIT ME.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR 18 YEARS NOW
AND THIS WAS -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE YEAR.
THE COURT: '88.
JUROR NO. 462: OKAY.
IN THE EARLIER YEARS OF OUR MARRIAGE, WE HAD A LOT OF
DISAGREEMENTS. BUT IN THE PAST I KNOW FIVE YEARS, I CAN'T EVEN
REMEMBER ARGUING WITH MY HUSBAND. MY HUSBAND NEVER -- HAS NEVER
PUT HIS HAND ON ME.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME -- I MEAN, WAS THERE SOME OTHER
INCIDENT THAT MIGHT HAVE GONE ON BETWEEN YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR
CHILDREN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE LED THE NEIGHBORS
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU WERE BEING BEATEN?
JUROR NO. 462: IF I FELT THAT WAY, I WOULDN'T EVEN BE
SITTING HERE. MY HUSBAND IS WITH MY CHILDREN.
AND AS FAR AS DISCIPLINE GOES, I'M THE ONE THAT
DISCIPLINES MY KIDS. WHEN MY CHILDREN WERE SMALLER, MY HUSBAND
SPANKED ONE OF THEM AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE COULDN'T DEAL
WITH. MY HUSBAND DOESN'T EVEN SPANK MY CHILDREN BECAUSE HE
PERSONALLY HAS -- HE'S AGAINST SPANKING KIDS WHERE I WOULD SPANK
THEM. HE WOULDN'T.
AND HE'S NEVER TOUCHED ME. MY HUSBAND HAS NEVER LAID
HIS HAND ON ME, AND I WOULDN'T BE WITH MY HUSBAND IF HE WERE TO.
I'M THE TYPE OF PERSON -- AS MUCH AS I LOVE MY HUSBAND, IF HE WAS
TO HIT ME, I WOULD PRESS CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
THE COURT: IS THERE -- CAN YOU THINK OF ANY INCIDENT OR
ANY OCCURRENCE IN YOUR APARTMENT IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS OF
OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR THAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE NEIGHBORS TO
INDICATE THAT THEY RECOLLECT A RATHER LOUD FIGHT WITH CRASHING
AROUND AND BREAKING GLASS AND SHOUTING AND THAT SORT OF THING?
JUROR NO. 462: NOTHING COMES TO MIND. I'M REALLY
SURPRISED TO EVEN HEAR ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE.
I DON'T EVEN HAVE A RELATIONSHIP, AND IT'S PROBABLY
UNFORTUNATE, WITH MY NEIGHBORS WHERE I COULD EVEN SEE THE
CONCERN.
I ASKED MY HUSBAND LAST WEEK, I SAID, "WELL, HAVE
ANYBODY ASKED YOU WHERE I AM," OR WHATEVER, AND HE SAID THEY
HAVEN'T ASKED ANYTHING.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE I HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH MY
NEIGHBORS. SO I -- TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD KNOW ANYTHING THAT WAS
GOING ON IN MY HOUSE AND JUST TO THINK OF -- NOTHING COMES TO
MIND THAT -- NO.
I'M VERY CONSCIOUS THAT I HAVE TWO KIDS IN THAT
HOUSE, AND THERE'S NO WAY I WOULD SUBJECT THEM TO ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.
THIS IS A TOTAL SHOCK TO ME. I HAVEN'T HAD A PERFECT
MARRIAGE. I MEAN, ME AND MY HUSBAND HAD TO GROW ACCUSTOMED TO
LIVING TOGETHER, TWO ADULTS LIVING IN A HOUSE, ONE STRONG-WILLED
AS HE IS, BUT WE GOT TO A POINT WE LEARNED TO LIVE TOGETHER.
BUT THERE WAS NEVER VIOLENCE. I WOULD NOT PUT MY
CHILDREN THROUGH THAT. I DIDN'T GROW UP IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
THE COURT: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
NO. 462 --
ANY QUESTIONS, MR. COCHRAN?
MR. COCHRAN: NONE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE COURT: 462, I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT YOU NOT TO DISCUSS
WHAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT HERE WITH ANYBODY ELSE ON THE JURY
OR YOUR HUSBAND FOR THAT MATTER.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I GET ANONYMOUS REPORTS,
I HAVE TO --
JUROR NO. 462: YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.
THE COURT: -- LOOK INTO THEM.
AND I NEED THAT BACK, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUROR NO. 462: THANK YOU.
(JUROR NO. 462 EXITS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS CERTAINLY BAD TIMING FOR 462.
ALL RIGHT.
GENTLEMEN, WHAT'S YOUR -- LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE HERE? ANY COMMENT?
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, SHE INDICATED THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN
ANY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. I THINK SHE SEEMED CREDIBLE TO ME. I
THINK SHE SEEMED CREDIBLE. I THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT BASED
UPON --
THE COURT: WELL HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
MR. COCHRAN: -- HEARING HER TALK ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
THE COURT: BUT HER DECLARATION IN THE COURT FILE INDICATES
THAT SHE WAS ON TWO OCCASIONS FORCIBLY MADE TO HAVE SEX WITH HER
HUSBAND AND WAS SHOVED AROUND.
MS. CLARK: SHE FEARED THAT HE WOULD BEAT HER NEXT.
MR. COCHRAN: I MISSED WHAT YOU SAID.
THE COURT: IN HER DECLARATION IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS
FILE, SHE DOES SAY THAT SHE WAS TWICE FORCED TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM
AND THAT HE HAD PUSHED AND SHOVED HER IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN.
SO THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN --
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO IS TO -- I CAN
ANSWER THAT QUICKLY.
SHE SAID HE NEVER BEAT HER, STRUCK HER, SHE WOULDN'T
STAND FOR THAT. MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK HER ABOUT THAT
SPECIFICALLY.
THE COURT: OH, I DID.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T FOLLOW UP AND ASK HER, "WHAT DID
YOU MEAN BY THIS?"
MR. BAILEY: WHY DON'T YOU CALL HIM IN.
MR. COCHRAN: OR THE NEIGHBORS.
SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T REMEMBER AN INCIDENT.
SOMETIMES THERE ARE INCIDENTS WHERE NEIGHBORS FOR
WHATEVER REASON SAY THINGS.
WE'RE DOWN TO SEVEN JURORS. SHE'S BEEN PRETTY GOOD.
I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO HER BECAUSE I SAW WHAT SHE WENT
THROUGH YESTERDAY. IN FACT, SHE STAYED HERE YESTERDAY EVENING.
I THINK THAT, AS WITH 602 AND SOME OTHERS, SHE
DESERVES SOME FURTHER CHECKING AND WE SHOULD ASK HER ABOUT THAT
AND MAYBE THESE NEIGHBORS.
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM NOT
TO DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY. THIS IS THE FIRST JUROR ISSUE THAT
WE HAVE THAT HASN'T HIT THE PRESS FIRST BEFORE WE HAD A HEARING
ON THIS. SO I'D APPRECIATE KEEPING IT THAT WAY, ESPECIALLY ON
THIS ONE.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL SEE IF THE NEIGHBORS ARE AVAILABLE OR THE
HUSBAND IS AVAILABLE.
MR. COCHRAN: THEN I WOULD LIKE TO GET A SHOT AT THE END TO
COME BACK AND ASK THOSE OTHER QUESTIONS. I DIDN'T ASK THEM NOW.
IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME HAVE THE REPORTS BACK.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE GAVE THEM BACK TO YOU ALREADY.
MS. CLARK: MAY MR. DARDEN ADDRESS THE COURT ON THIS?
CAN I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: YOU ARE GOING TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS, RIGHT?
THE COURT: I MIGHT. I'LL THINK ABOUT IT.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
THE COURT: SHE WAS ASKING IF I WANTED TO TALK TO THE
NEIGHBORS. I SAID I MIGHT.
I'LL TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE DO THAT UNDER
SUBMISSION.
MR. COCHRAN: I JUST THINK THAT BASED UPON THAT, YOU HAVE
TO ASK HER SOME MORE QUESTIONS. THIS ISN'T LIKE FINDING A LIST,
YOU KNOW, YOU GET SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE UPSTAIRS MAKING SOME
ALLEGATIONS.
YOU'VE GOT HER SAYING, "HE NEVER HIT ME. HE NEVER DID
THIS." SO I THINK YOU NEED TO TALK TO THEM BEFORE YOU MAKE A
FINAL DECISION.
THE COURT: I WANT TO PULL UP HER VOIR DIRE AS WELL. I
WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.
MS. CLARK: IF THERE'S COMPLETE DENIAL OF ANYTHING EVER
HAPPENING, WE EXCUSED ANOTHER JUROR -- NOT 620.
SHE AT LEAST ADMITTED IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THERE
HAD BEEN PRIOR OCCASIONS OF PROBLEMS.
THE FIRST ONE WE EXCUSED IN FACT I THINK.
THE COURT: YEAH.
MS. CLARK: AND SO SHE WAS MUCH MORE FORTHRIGHT AND DIDN'T
HAVE -- AND DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE PAPERS FILED.
I MEAN THIS ONE DOES WITH ALL THE REPORTS OF THE
NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, SHE HAD A PROBLEM TOO --
I'M NOT DISPUTING THE RULING. I'M JUST SAYING SHE
WAS EXCUSED AND SHE TOLD THE TRUTH ON HER QUESTIONNAIRE.
MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HISPANIC LADY,
SHE DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH.
MS. CLARK: SHE SAID SHE HAD BEEN SHOVED TWICE.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS LADY SAID --
MS. CLARK: THIS WOMAN'S BEEN RAPED. WHAT DO YOU CALL
THAT?
MR. BAILEY: IT WASN'T LEGALLY RAPE IN '88.
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T ASK HER THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: YOU GUYS DON'T GET TO TALK AT THE SAME TIME.
YOU'RE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS.
LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE QUESTIONNAIRE. I'LL HAVE
ONE OF OUR BUSY BEES PULL OUT THE VOIR DIRE, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT'S
THERE AND WE'LL DEAL WITH IT ACCORDINGLY.
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL WRAP THIS UP THIS WEEK IF WE HAVE
TO. LET'S GO BACK OUT AND FINISH KATO MANIA.
(AT 9:30 A.M., IN CAMERA
PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)
****
March 28, 1995
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995
9:15 A.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 CAMERA:)
THE COURT: WE'RE IN CHAMBERS WITH COUNSEL.
MS. CLARK: ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE 462 NOW?
THE COURT: YOU KNOW, I JUST REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT TO
TELL YOU THE HONEST TO GOD TRUTH. THE DEFENSE HAD ASKED FOR --
THAT WE BRING IN SOME OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE FROM THE APARTMENT TO
TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. MY INCLINATION THOUGH IS NOT TO
NECESSARILY DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SUCH A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE 1980 COURT FILE AND WHAT SHE SAID IN HER
QUESTIONNAIRE.
MR. COCHRAN: THE REASON I ASK IS, IT'S SO PECULIAR. I
MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT, EITHER SIDE, TO
INVESTIGATE THESE JURORS, NUMBER ONE. SO I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE
THAT KIND OF ALLEGATION OR WHATEVER -- I MEAN SOMEBODY MAKES THAT
ALLEGATION, I THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR THAT.
WE ARE FAR INTO THE TRIAL AND WE HAVE SEVEN
ALTERNATES. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. I THINK IT'S THE FAIR THING TO
DO. WE'RE NOT INVESTIGATING ANYBODY. WE DON'T KNOW REALLY IF
THIS INFORMATION IS WRONG, IF THIS WAS SOME KIND OF WAY SOMEBODY
IS TRYING TO GET JURORS OFF. I'M NOT SAYING THAT, BUT I THINK WE
HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW THIS GOT HERE.
THE COURT: YOU KNOW HOW IT GOT HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: I KNOW WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE. I'M JUST
TRYING TO SAY, WE ARE ENTITLED TO HEAR THIS UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR OR
WHATEVER IT IS WITH THE OTHERS.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THE PROBLEM IS, YOU HAVE A
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE FILE WITH A DECLARATION BY HER UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY ALLEGING SPOUSAL ABUSE AND IN FACT CONDUCT
THAT IS NOW A FELONY CRIME. SO IT'S -- NONE OF THAT WAS
DISCLOSED IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE. AND IF YOU RECALL, THE WAY WE
LEFT IT WAS THAT I WAS GOING TO TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION THE REQUEST
TO INTERVIEW THESE NEIGHBORS, AND I WAS ALSO GOING TO GO OVER AND
PULL HER VOIR DIRE FROM THE RECORD TO SEE WHAT SHE SAID REGARDING
SPOUSAL ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ALL THAT. AND SHE SAID
EXACTLY NOTHING, DISAVOWED ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE.
SO --
MR. COCHRAN: AND I DON'T -- BUT THE POINT I WAS MAKING,
JUDGE --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: THE POINT IS, WITH HER -- I MEAN SHE DID AND
I SAW THE PAPER -- THE PAPERWORK. SHE DID HAVE AN EXPLANATION.
SHE SAID THAT THIS -- APPARENTLY HER POSITION WAS, IT WASN'T AS
BAD AS IT SOUNDS. I KNOW WHAT THE ALLEGATION SAID, BUT SHE SAID
SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK BY THIS MAN, NEVER PUSHED, THAT SHE WOULDN'T
TOLERATE THAT IS WHAT SHE SAID.
YOU KNOW, I'VE EXPRESSED MYSELF. I JUST THINK WHEN
WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION WHERE WE'VE SPENT LIKE THREE MILLION
DOLLARS AND WE'RE DOWN TO SEVEN AND WE HAVE -- I MEAN, AFTER ALL,
IT WOULD INURE MORE TO OUR DETRIMENT. BUT I THINK GIVEN WHAT WE
HAVE GONE -- I LOOK AT 620. WE HAD WITNESSES FOREVER ON HIM AND
ON THE OTHER PEOPLE. SO THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE WHERE ALL OF
A SUDDEN, WE SAY, OKAY, YOU'RE GONE.
THE COURT: IT'S A MUCH EASIER FACTUAL SITUATION. I HAVE
HER VOIR DIRE AND I HAVE HER QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY AND I HAVE A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED DECLARATION UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER A COURT CASE.
MR. COCHRAN: THE DIFFERENCE IS -- LOOK AT 620. 620, YOU
BROUGHT PEOPLE UP HERE FOR DAYS. AND 620, IT BECAME PRETTY
CLEAR. I MEAN, WE ALL KNEW THAT 620 WAS HAVING HIS LAST SUPPER
ANY NUMBER OF DAYS.
IT WAS JUST LIKE -- I'M JUST SAYING THE SAME
STANDARDS SHOULD APPLY, ESPECIALLY UNDER THIS SITUATION, SO LATE
IN THE TRIAL THAT WE GET THESE ALLEGATIONS. I DON'T SEE WHAT'S
WRONG -- IF THERE'S THESE ALLEGATIONS, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE
PROBLEM OF HAVING THE PEOPLE MAKING THESE ALLEGATIONS COME IN
ABOUT HEARING NOISES UPSTAIRS.
THE COURT: I'M SAYING THOSE ALLEGATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH ANY DECISION THAT I HAVE TO MAKE. IT'S INTERESTING. IT'S
BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT DEPUTY DOWNS AND DEPUTY BROWN FELT
THAT THEY, AS GOOD INVESTIGATORS, SHOULD FOLLOW UP ON.
BUT THE FACT THAT I HAVE A STATEMENT IN OUR JURY
QUESTIONNAIRE AND HER STATEMENTS DURING VOIR DIRE WHICH
COMPLETELY DISAVOW ANY EXPERIENCE WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE AND I HAVE
A DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FILE WHICH SHE FILES UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY ALLEGING VERBAL ABUSE BY THE HUSBAND, BEEN ALLEGEDLY
SHOVING HER IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN AND ALLEGING FORCED SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THAT'S PRETTY HARD TO
IGNORE. AND IT'S IN HER OWN HANDWRITING.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE SAW IT AND YOU HEARD HER RESPONSE.
THE COURT: AND I HEARD HER RESPONSE.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THAT'S OUR POSITION. I THINK THAT WE'RE
ENTITLED TO HEAR FROM AT LEAST ONE OR TWO --
MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION?
THE COURT: SURELY.
MR. BAILEY: I THINK IN CASES LIKE THIS, IT'S NECESSARY FOR
THE COURT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING INNOVATIVE. AND MY
SUGGESTION WOULD BE -- AS YOU MAY COME TO A POINT WHERE YOU ARE
GOING TO THROW AWAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- TO RELAX A LITTLE BIT
ON JURORS. IF THIS WOMAN EXAGGERATED IN THE COMPLAINT IN COURT,
SHE WAS ESSENTIALLY TELLING THE TRUTH TO YOU, I DON'T THINK SHE
SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED.
BUT EVEN SO, IF YOU COULD FROM NOW ON CULL, WHAT WE
CALL, AND CONDITIONALLY DISCHARGE THESE PEOPLE SO WELL INTO THE
TRIAL, THEN IF YOU FACE THE PROSPECT OF GETTING DOWN TO 11 OR 10,
AT LEAST YOU'VE GOT SOME BALANCE. IF YOU SEND HER HOME NOW, YOU
CAN NEVER GET HER BACK. SHE'S SO CLEAR-CUT. IT WOULD BE ONE
THING IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD A
MULTITUDE OF WITNESSES SAYING, HE SAID, SHE SAID SITUATION. BUT
YOU DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. THIS IS VERY STARK.
THE COURT: THE ONE THING THAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS THAT,
WERE ONE TO LOOK AT THIS CASE IN THE ABSTRACT AND WHAT WE HAVE
HERE, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD WANT HER OFF IN
THE WORSE WAY, THAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD WANT TO KEEP HER. AND
I SEE THE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POSITION.
MS. CLARK: IT HAS TO DO WITH THE REASON FOR LACK OF CANDOR
AND, YOU KNOW -- BUT IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PARITY OF TREATMENT,
WE EXCUSED 320 ALTHOUGH SHE WAS FORTHRIGHT IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE
ABOUT HAVING SUFFERED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND INDICATED --
INDICATED -- AT LEAST THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING TO BE FLAGGED
THERE AND SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE DEFENSE ACCEPTED
HER. YES, IT'S TRUE THE EVENT OCCURRED DURING HER STAY IN THE
COURTROOM.
BUT THERE WAS REALLY NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT SHE
WAS ATTEMPTING TO HIDE ANYTHING, UNLIKE THIS SITUATION WHERE WE
HAVE A REAL OBVIOUS EFFORT TO HIDE AND DENY PRIOR EXPERIENCE THAT
IS PROVEN BY DOCUMENTARY PROOF. THIS ONE IS SO BLATANT THAT IT'S
NOT -- IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE BALANCING, ALTHOUGH I THINK
THAT MR. BAILEY MAKES A GOOD POINT. IF WE DO HAVE THAT SITUATION
WHERE WE HAVE GRAY AREAS WITH THE JURORS, WE MIGHT WANT TO HOLD
ON TO THE VERY END AND SEE WHO WE MUST EXCUSE AND WHO NOT. BUT
THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE OF THEM.
MR. COCHRAN: I DISAGREE WITH THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT --
AS WE OFTEN DO DISAGREE -- THAT WITH REGARD TO 320, 320 WAS --
THIS RELATIONSHIP, THAT WAS THE WORSE -- 320 HAD A RELATIONSHIP
THAT WE ALL AGREE WERE BIZARRE. WHEN THAT MAN CAME IN HERE, "R",
SHE HADN'T TOLD US THE EXTENT OF THAT PHYSICAL ABUSE. THAT WAS
CLEAR. I THINK THAT YOU KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION HAS BEEN BECAUSE
WE INDICATED IT TO YOU.
THE COURT: OKAY. I'LL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION MR. BAILEY'S
GRAY AREA ARGUMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: PART OF WHAT MR. BAILEY IS SAYING TO YOU,
WE'RE ALL GOING TO -- LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT ALL GOING TO DINNER
AFTER THIS CASE IS OVER. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE IN
PUBLIC, SOME OF US WON'T BASED UPON -- IF WE FOOL AROUND ON THIS
CASE AND YOU SPEND 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS OF THE COUNTY'S MONEY, AND
AT THE END, THEY WON'T STIPULATE TO 11, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, IS
GOING TO HAPPEN. SO WE OUGHT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
MS. CLARK: WE WOULD PROBABLY.
MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU PUT THAT ON THE RECORD?
MS. CLARK: WELL, I HAVE TO TALK TO CHRIS ABOUT THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE, YES. I DON'T
THINK THAT THE GRAY AREA EXISTS WITH THIS JUROR, BUT IT MAY --
WITH FUTURE JURORS, VERY WELL BE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL MASTER ISSUE, IS THERE
ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T BE APPRISED OF THE NATURE, WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT NOW?
THE COURT: WELL, HOW ABOUT WE WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE REPORT
SO I KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YET.
(AT 9:30 A.M., PROCEEDINGS
WERE CONCLUDED.)
****
April 5, 1995
(PAGES 21822 TO 21844 REDACTED.)
THE COURT: WITH REGARDS TO -- WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER THAT WE
WERE DEALING WITH? WAS IT 462 WE WERE DEALING WITH?
ALL RIGHT. I'VE DECIDED TO EXCUSE 462 BASED UPON OUR
CONVERSATIONS PREVIOUSLY, AND I AM GOING TO BRING HER IN AND --
LET ME JUST DO SOMETHING HERE REAL QUICK.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST WITH REGARD TO 462, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
YOU CAN DO, BUT -- WE'VE ALREADY SOMEWHAT ARGUED THAT. BUT THE
PROBLEM IS, THE PRESS IS ALREADY AT HER HOME.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING SHE'S DONE FROM EVERYTHING
WE HEARD AT THIS POINT THAT WARRANTS -- ANYBODY THAT VOLUNTEERS
FOR JURY SERVICE, I AM VERY COGNIZANT OF HOW THEY GET A LOT OF
CRITICISM. EVERYBODY THAT COMES IN THIS CASE GETS TARRED OR
WHATEVER AND IT REALLY IS UNFAIR.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE CHOOSES TO SAY, WHAT PROGRAMS
SHE WILL BE ON OR WHAT HER REACTION WILL BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW
WHAT YOU CAN SAY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IT'S NOT FAIR TO HER FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF THE PRESS. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WANTED -- THE
PRESS THINKS SHE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT SHE WAS A VICTIM OF
SPOUSAL ABUSE, WHICH SHE DENIED.
THE COURT: I CAN DO TWO THINGS. I CAN DELAY DOING THIS
FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND THE PRESS WILL GET TIRED OF SITTING AT
HER HOME, OR I CAN -- THE SHERIFF'S ALREADY HAVE A GAME PLAN FOR
THIS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE ALREADY AT HER HOME WAITING FOR
HER. THEY HAVE A GAME PLAN THAT THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER TO HER
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AS MANY PHONE CALLS AS POSSIBLE TO MAYBE
STAY WITH A RELATIVE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS OR SOMETHING TO
THAT EFFECT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL HELP.
MS. CLARK: THE PRESS WILL BE THERE UNTIL KINGDOM COME.
MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU CAN SAY
>FROM THE STANDPOINT -- I JUST HATE TO SEE PEOPLE'S LIVES --
TRYING TO DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY, TO HAVE THEIR LIVES TOTALLY
IMPACTED OR BEYOND THIS. THERE'S ALSO PARANOIA OF THE NEIGHBORS.
YOU KNOW, WE TOLD HER ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS. THIS IS A BAD
SITUATION IN A WAY.
THE COURT: YEAH. NO. IT'S NOT GOOD.
WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS?
MS. CLARK: I THINK THE ONE YOU HAD ABOUT HAVING HER MAKE
PHONE CALLS, STAY WITH A RELATIVE SHE SHOULD BE APPRISED OF.
THE COURT: YEAH.
MR. DARDEN: OR PUT HER UP AT A HOTEL SOMEWHERE.
MS. CLARK: FOR A FEW DAYS.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE BROUGHT OUT
OF A ROOM FULL -- PLUS HEARING ALL THESE PROBLEMS, WHAT IT'S
GOING TO DO, IT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE -- YOU KNOW, I'M TELLING
YOU HOW PEOPLE ARE -- EXACERBATE THESE PROBLEMS BACK THERE. THEY
ARE GOING TO HOOK UP THAT IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS PERSON
COMING IN HERE OR WHATEVER. IT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE WHATEVER
PROBLEMS WE ALREADY HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO WAIT AT LEAST A DAY
OR SO BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT STEPPING ON FEET
TODAY.
THE COURT: NO. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS FOR ONE DAY.
MR. DARDEN: ME TOO.
MS. CLARK: THE PRESS IS GOING TO BE THERE NO MATTER WHEN
WE DO THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? I KNOW YOU'VE MADE
YOUR DECISION. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
RIGHT ANSWER IS. I WAS GOING TO SAY --
THE COURT: WELL, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD HELP IF I DELAY IT
A DAY?
MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU TALK TO HER SOME MORE TOMORROW, MAYBE
-- YOU KNOW, I JUST --
MS. CLARK: DOESN'T MATTER.
MR. DARDEN: AT LEAST, WE SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE HER THE
OPTION OF BEING PUT UP SOMEWHERE FOR A FEW DAYS WHILE SHE GETS --
MS. CLARK: THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO HELP.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP, YOU KNOW, WITH THE
PRESS, JUDGE. THIS IS HOT. I MEAN IF WE PUT HER UP FOR A FEW
DAYS, AS SOON AS SHE LEAVES, TED KOPPLE IS GOING TO BE OUT THERE.
MS. CLARK: IF THEY GO OUT THERE AND CAN'T FIND HER THOUGH
AFTER THEY KNOW SHE'S BEEN EXCUSED, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE
UP.
MR. COCHRAN: MARCIA, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE
UP ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THE FACT THEY KNOW ABOUT THIS IS
OUTRAGEOUS. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THEY KNOW ABOUT THIS.
THE COURT: I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, SINCE THE TRIAL
HAS BECOME DULL AND BORING, I THINK THEY WILL WANT TO RUN WITH
THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU GUYS DON'T COME IN THE FRONT OF THE
BUILDING. THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING. "I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT." THAT'S THE ISSUE FOR TODAY.
IF WE DO IT TODAY, YOU KNOW, I'LL SUBMIT IT BACK TO
YOUR JUDGMENT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S NOT AN EASY
ANSWER.
MS. CLARK: I THINK WE NEED TO PUT HER UP SOMEWHERE.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S PUT UP NOW AS IT IS. BUT I DON'T KNOW
IF IT GOES DOWN -- WHY DON'T WE DO THIS, JUDGE. LET'S COME BACK
IN AT 3:30, SEE HOW THINGS GO TODAY. I JUST THINK -- I DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S BEST TO DO IT THIS MORNING. BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
THE COURT: ALTHOUGH THE ADVANTAGE IS, THEY GO BACK TO THE
HOTEL, PICK UP THEIR STUFF AND LEAVE BEFORE THE OTHER JURORS GO
BACK. SO THERE'S NO MORE CONTACT WITH THE JURY. THE MORE YOU
DRAG THIS OUT, THE MORE IT'S GOING TO BE AN ANTICIPATED THING.
I MEAN AT THIS POINT, NOW THAT THEY HAVE THIS BIG
STORY GOING, THEY'RE HOT ON IT AND THEY'RE WAITING FOR IT, AND
WAITING FOR IT TO HAPPEN AND ANTICIPATION ABOUT IT CAN MAKE IT
MUCH MORE OF A DEAL THAN JUST TO TAKE CARE OF IT. I THINK
PUTTING HER SOMEWHERE FOR A FEW DAYS IS PROBABLY THE ANSWER
BECAUSE IF THEY GO STAKE OUT HER HOUSE AND DON'T FIND HER THERE
AFTER BEING EXCUSED, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO AWAY. THEY
JUST CAN'T HANG OUT INDEFINITELY.
MR. COCHRAN: THE PROBLEM IS, SHE CAN'T STAY AT THE HOTEL.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
BE TOO NAIVE. I THINK SHE KNOWS THERE'S THIS INVESTIGATION. I'M
SURE THEY KNOW. IF THE MEDIA IS ALREADY AT HER HOUSE, EVERYBODY
PROBABLY KNOWS THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF THE MEDIA KNOWS,
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. SO I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO KID
OURSELVES ABOUT THIS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A SITUATION THAT GETS
EXACERBATED.
MR. DARDEN: I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH THE SITUATION SHE'S
GOING BACK TO, YOU KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: IT'S A BAD SITUATION.
MS. CLARK: NOT JUST THE NEIGHBORS.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE CAN'T STAY THERE.
MR. DARDEN: BUT SHE MAY NEED A COUPLE DAYS --
MR. COCHRAN: SHE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORRIED ABOUT HER
HUSBAND. YOU CAN TALK TO HER ABOUT THAT. IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A
PROBLEM.
MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST SAYING
--
MR. COCHRAN: SHE HAD CONJUGAL VISITS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THE ISSUE I SEE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY
NEED -- WHETHER THERE'S ANY POINT IN DELAYING THIS. BUT I REALLY
DON'T THINK THERE IS.
MR. DARDEN: PLUS, YOU KNOW, THE PRESS KNOWS WE'RE IN HERE
DEALING WITH JURY ISSUES RIGHT NOW.
MS. CLARK: I THINK DELAYING IT IS GOING TO MAKE IT A
BIGGER EVENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE 462.
(JUROR NO. 462 ENTERS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, 462.
JUROR NO. 462: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT.
NO. 462, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THE CONCERNS THAT
I'VE HAD ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT INVOLVE YOU SERVING ON THE JURY
HAS CAUSED ME A LOT OF CONCERN AND I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
THINKING ABOUT THIS SINCE WE LAST TALKED AND I'VE BEEN WRESTLING
WITH THIS. THE LAWYERS CAN TELL YOU, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON
THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS SINCE WE LAST TALKED TO YOU, AND I'VE
COME TO THE DECISION THAT I'M GOING TO DISCHARGE YOU NOW FROM THE
JURY BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COURT FILE AND YOUR
ANSWERS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT -- HAS NOT
BEEN AN EASY DECISION FOR ME. IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE HARDEST
DECISIONS IN THIS CASE TO MAKE AND I'VE BEEN WRESTLING WITH IT
FOR OVER A WEEK NOW AS YOU KNOW, BUT I HAVE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE AND PERHAPS YOU
WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN.
I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THE DECISION AND THE ISSUE
SOMEHOW HAS BEEN LEAKED TO THE NEWS MEDIA. AND THE LAST TWO
JURORS THAT WE HAVE EXCUSED WENT HOME TO FIND NEWS MEDIA,
NUMEROUS NEWS MEDIA PEOPLE CAMPED ON THEIR FRONT DOOR WAITING TO
INTERVIEW THEM, AND I'VE INSTRUCTED THE SHERIFFS TO GIVE YOU
UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE PHONE AFTER WE LEAVE THIS MORNING IF YOU
WANT TO CALL ANY RELATIVES OR IF THERE'S ANYBODY YOU CAN STAY
WITH FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO AVOID THAT SORT
OF THING.
BUT APPARENTLY -- I THINK MR. COCHRAN WAS TELLING ME
THIS MORNING THAT APPARENTLY THE NEWS MEDIA, AS HE WAS COMING IN
THE COURTHOUSE TODAY, WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF
THE JURORS WAS GOING TO BE EXCUSED AND THE REASONS AND THEY ASKED
QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO YOUR JUROR NUMBER. SO I
HAVE CONCERN THAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED YOU FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU NOT TO
REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF ANY OF THE OTHER ANONYMOUS JURORS, THAT
YOU'RE NOT TO DISCLOSE TO ANYBODY THE LOCATION OF THE HOTEL WHERE
THE JURY IS SEQUESTERED. AND THERE IS A NEW LAW IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE, THAT YOU CAN NOT AGREE OR
ACCEPT TO -- YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT OR AGREE TO ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT OR
BENEFIT OR CONSIDERATION FOR SUPPLYING ANY INFORMATION IN
RELATION TO THIS CASE UNTIL 90 DAYS AFTER THE DISCHARGE OF THIS
JURY.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE ORDER RIGHT
NOW.
JUROR NO. 462: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: AND 462, YOU'VE MADE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE TO
BE WITH US ALL THIS TIME AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT.
JUROR NO. 462: CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING FOR CLARIFICATION?
THE COURT: SURE.
JUROR NO. 462: WHAT IS YOUR -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU
FEEL THAT I'M A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
THE COURT: I FEEL THAT -- I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVEN
THE TWO DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE HERE.
JUROR NO. 462: OKAY.
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE
DIFFICULT. MY FEELING IS THAT --
THE COURT: YOU ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO HAVE AN
EXPLANATION FOR IT. THE EXPLANATION IS THIS.
THE REASON FOR MY DECISION IS YOUR ANSWERS IN THE
QUESTIONNAIRE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR DECLARATION IN THE COURT
FILE.
JUROR NO. 462: HOW SO?
OKAY. THE PROBLEM THAT I'M HAVING IS, WHEN I FILED
THAT PAPER -- IT HADN'T CROSSED MY MIND SINCE I FILED IT. WHEN
YOU GAVE IT TO ME THE OTHER DAY WAS THE FIRST TIME I EVEN THOUGHT
ABOUT THAT PAPER, AND I'VE BEEN RACKING MY BRAIN TRYING TO
REMEMBER WHAT I WROTE IN THAT PAPER.
WHEN I CAME DOWN HERE OR WHEREVER I FILED -- BECAUSE
I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER PRECISELY WHERE I FILED IT -- I WAS
ASSISTED BECAUSE I -- WHAT I WANTED WAS MY HUSBAND OUT OF THE
HOUSE, AND THE CLERK WAS TELLING ME THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO APPEAR
BEFORE A JUDGE, BUT HE NEEDED GROUNDS TO HAVE MY HUSBAND -- A
RESTRAINING ORDER FILED AGAINST MY HUSBAND. AND SO I'M SURE,
KNOWING MYSELF, THAT I PUT WHATEVER NEEDED TO BE ON THAT PAPER TO
--
SO I'M ASKING YOU FOR SPECIFICS, WHAT IT IS THAT'S IN
CONFLICT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY.
THE COURT: THE FACT THAT YOU NEEDED A RESTRAINING ORDER
AGAINST YOUR HUSBAND AND THE STATEMENT HE HAD SHOVED YOU IN FRONT
OF THE CHILDREN, THAT HE ON TWO OCCASIONS FORCED YOU TO HAVE SEX
WITH HIM, WHICH IS A CRIME IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT IS IN
SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT FROM WHAT WAS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
JUROR NO. 462: I CAN'T DISPUTE IT. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T
REMEMBER WHAT I WROTE. SO WHEN I -- AS I LEAVE HERE -- AND
YOU'RE SAYING THE MEDIA IS INVOLVED.
AND WHAT MY CONCERN IS THAT MY HUSBAND HAS NOT BEEN
VIOLENT TOWARDS ME AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I COULD HAVE WRITTEN ON
THAT PAPER -- AT THE TIME, I WAS VERY ANGRY AND I NEEDED HIM OUT
OF THE HOUSE AND I PUT WHATEVER I NEEDED TO PUT ON THAT PAPER.
MY CONCERN IS THAT, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THE MEDIA IS SAYING
MY HUSBAND IS AN ABUSER AND THAT I'M A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. I HAVEN'T
READ ANYTHING. BUT I'M -- FROM THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD IN
RELEASING TWO OTHER JURORS, THEY WENT HOME TO FIND THE NEWS MEDIA
ESSENTIALLY CAMPED OUT AT THEIR HOUSE. SO I'M GIVING YOU A
WARNING THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN HERE AND --
JUROR NO. 462: WELL, YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT MY NEIGHBORS
SAID SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED IN OCTOBER.
THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.
JUROR NO. 462: WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY A CONFUSING
SITUATION FOR ME BECAUSE YOU SAID TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS. AND I
HAVE THREE SINGLE NEIGHBORS. IF YOU SAID TO ME A NEIGHBOR SAID
THIS, I WOULD SAY, OH, SOMEBODY LIED. SO IS THAT ANYTHING --
THE COURT: NO. THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WHO WERE DOING THE INVESTIGATION, AFTER
READING THE COURT FILE, WENT DOWN TO INTERVIEW ANY NEIGHBORS AND
CAME BACK WITH THAT REPORT.
AND I ASKED YOU FOR AN EXPLANATION, AND YOU TOLD ME
THAT THAT DID NOT OCCUR. AND THAT IS NOT THE BASIS OF MY
DECISION TO DISCHARGE YOU FROM THE JURY. SO THAT REALLY HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
JUROR NO. 462: OKAY.
THE COURT: 462, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUROR NO. 462: THANK YOU.
(JUROR NO. 462 EXITS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AND
TALK TO MR. FUNG.
AND, MRS. ROBERTSON, YOU'LL GET OUR LOTTO TOGETHER?
THE CLERK: YES.
(AT 9:50 A.M., IN CAMERA
PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)
