Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:165
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: JUROR BRIEFS - PART 1
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 19:05:19 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 4274
Sender:
[email protected]
December 8, 1994:
FIRST, LET ME SAY, 228 IS ABOUT TO BE FAMOUS. HE IS
GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OF APPARENTLY A PORTION OF THE GERALDO
RIVERA SHOW TODAY SUPPOSEDLY AT 3:00 O'CLOCK. HE'S ALSO GOING TO
BE SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN THE STAR.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS OUR DISCOVERY?
MR. SHAPIRO: WHY DO WE GET THIS NOW?
MR. DARDEN: I JUST GOT IT NOW.
MR. SHAPIRO: WHY DO WE GET IT NOW IN CHAMBERS? WHY DON'T
WE GET IT OUTSIDE.
MS. CLARK: BECAUSE WE WERE SELECTING A JURY.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE ENOUGH LAWYERS, JUDGE. WE CAN REVIEW
DOCUMENTS AND SELECT A JURY AT THE SAME TIME.
THE COURT: DO I GET TO SEE A COPY OF THIS?
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
IS THIS -- DOES THE PROSECUTION SUBSCRIBE TO THIS?
IS THIS HOW YOU GOT THIS?
MR. DARDEN: NO, MR. COCHRAN.
I HAD RECEIVED THE DOCUMENT FROM DEPUTY D.A. CRAIG
RICHMAN, WHO TOLD ME THAT HE HAD BEEN TELEPHONED BY A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WHO SAID SHE HAD A CLIENT OR IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING SHE
HAD A CLIENT WHO WAS IN ****** AT THE TIME WHO HAD INFORMATION
REGARDING JUROR NO. 228.
AND SO I WENT TO ****** AND I INTERVIEWED A WITNESS,
"H" I BELIEVE IS HER NAME. THIS IS THE SAME PERSON WHO GAVE THE
CLERK A COPY OF THE HERTZ NEWSLETTER.
NOW, I HAD NO IDEA WHO THE PERSON WAS THAT I WAS
GOING TO SEE IN ******. SO OF COURSE, WHEN I ARRIVED AND FOUND
OUT THAT IT WAS WHO SHE WAS, I WAS SURPRISED.
SHE INDICATED TO ME THAT -- A NUMBER OF THINGS. SHE
INDICATED THAT MANY OF THE POINTS CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE
TRUE, AND I BELIEVE SHE IS THE SOURCE OF MUCH OF THE INFORMATION
IN THE DRAFT OF THIS ARTICLE.
SHE GAVE ME THE NAMES OF OTHER PERSONS WHOM SHE SAID
CAN ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT JUROR 228 MET MR. SIMPSON ON MORE
THAN ONE OCCASION AND THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT HE, THAT MR. SIMPSON
MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE RECOGNIZED 228 BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF
CONTACTS THAT THEY'VE HAD TOGETHER.
APPARENTLY, JUROR 228, WHILE WORKING AT HERTZ WORKED
IN THE VIP SECTION, AND THAT SECTION OF HERTZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING CARS TO VIP'S AND CELEBRITIES LIKE MR. SIMPSON.
APPARENTLY, MR. SIMPSON WAS A FREQUENT VISITOR TO
HERTZ BECAUSE OF HIS RELATION TO HERTZ. HE RENTED CARS, WAS GIVEN
CARS, FILMED COMMERCIALS THERE ON THE SAME LOT WHERE JUROR NO.
228 WORKED.
AND THERE ARE PERSONS WHO BELIEVE THAT IF HE HAS NOT
EXPOSED TO THE COURT HE IS ACQUAINTED WITH MR. SIMPSON, THAT HE
HAS MISLED THE COURT AND COUNSEL.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MR. SIMPSON DOES NOT KNOW THIS
MAN, HAS NEVER MET THIS MAN. HE MAY JUST, LIKE YOU MAY OR MISS
CLARK MAY OR MR. DARDEN IF HE'S NOT RECUSED FROM THIS CASE, MAY
BE INTRODUCED TO PEOPLE, HAVE THEIR PICTURE TAKEN WITH PEOPLE
THAT ARE ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL STRANGERS.
IN FACT, THE GENTLEMAN WHO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS
ARTICLE, MR. TONY FROST, WALKED UP TO ME IN A RESTAURANT, SAT
DOWN -- I HAD NO IDEA WHO THE GUY WAS -- AND JUST STARTED TALKING
AND THEN LEFT AND SENT OVER A BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE.
THE OTHER THING IS, MR. SIMPSON HAS TOLD ME THAT HE
HAS MANY CARS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA, THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS
RECOLLECTION, HE HAS NEVER RENTED A CAR OR BEEN GIVEN A CAR FROM
HERTZ IN LOS ANGELES NOR WOULD HE HAVE ANY NEED TO GO IN AND GET
A RENTAL CAR AT LAX SINCE HE GOES TO OR FROM THE AIRPORT BY
LIMOUSINE, HAS FRIENDS PICK HIM UP OR HAS HIS OWN TRANSPORTATION.
MR. DARDEN: MY CONCERN ISN'T SO MUCH WITH MR. SIMPSON OF
WHETHER HE RECOGNIZED JUROR 228, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT 228 MAY
HAVE MISLED THE COURT IF HE HAS INDICATED THAT HE IS NOT
ACQUAINTED WITH MR. SIMPSON.
AND THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY JUROR
228 TO OTHER EMPLOYEES AT HERTZ; THAT HE, 228, HAS HIT THE
LOTTERY, THAT HE IS GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF THIS CASE AND THAT HE
DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT MR. SIMPSON COMMITTED THE OFFENSE.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MR. DARDEN WASN'T HERE DURING
VOIR DIRE, BUT THAT COMMENT WAS MADE BY MANY LAWYERS, INCLUDING
THE PROSECUTION'S OFFICE, TO THE JURORS SAYING THAT, "DO YOU FEEL
GETTING ON THIS JURY WOULD BE LIKE HITTING THE LOTTERY?"
SO THAT HAS NO MOMENT WHATSOEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO
INQUIRE ANY FURTHER. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER ATTEMPT
BY THE PROSECUTORS TO CONDUCT A WITCH-HUNT AGAINST JURORS TO
INVESTIGATE PEOPLE.
THIS MAN DISCLOSED HE WORKED FOR HERTZ. MISS CLARK
QUESTIONED HIM AT GREAT LENGTH. THERE IS NO SHOWING BY ANYBODY
THAT THIS MAN HAS LIED OR MISLED ANYONE.
NOW, WITHOUT AN AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OR A STATEMENT
>FROM SOMEBODY ELSE COMING IN SAYING, "THIS MAN SAID THESE THINGS
TO ME," UNDER OATH, TO REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO COME IN HERE AND
SUBJECT THEM TO WHAT *** HAD TO GO THROUGH I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY
ABOMINABLE.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR?
MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT IT WAS NOT DOUBLE-TIMING, ONE LAWYER
PER SIDE.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, THE COURT WILL
PROBABLY WANT TO HEAR --
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE RULE
PROPOUNDED BY THE COURT.
THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE IN CHAMBERS NOW. THIS IS A TOUCHY
ISSUE. I DON'T MIND HEARING THE COMMENT OF MR. COCHRAN. AND
I'LL HEAR FROM YOU AS WELL, MISS CLARK.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE
COURT JUST A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE DISTURBING.
NUMBER ONE, THE COURT JUST WENT THROUGH THIS
SITUATION ON ***, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THESE THINGS GET BLOWN OUT
OF PROPORTION TOTALLY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE COURT SHOULDN'T
DO THIS. THE COURT IS DOING THE RIGHT THING I'M SURE.
I DO WANT TO POINT THIS OUT.
AT ONE POINT, THE PROSECUTION ASKED IF THEY COULD
INVESTIGATE THIS JUROR MISCONDUCT, AND THE COURT'S RESPONSE WAS
NOT TO INVESTIGATE. YET WE KEEP GETTING THESE DECLARATIONS FROM
THE D.A., WHICH IS FINE. I UNDERSTAND THE JOB THEY HAVE TO DO.
BUT MR. DARDEN GOING OUT DOING THIS INVESTIGATION
LAST NIGHT -- HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE TO HEAR THAT YOU SAID
THEY WERE NOT TO INVESTIGATE. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
INVESTIGATING JURORS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, I THINK --
THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
INVESTIGATING SOMETHING AND STUFF FALLING IN YOUR LAP AND PEOPLE
CALLING AND CONTACTING YOU. THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON, IT'S
PRETTY APPARENT TO ME.
MR. COCHRAN: IN REFERENCE TO YOUR HONOR'S ORDER, HE'S ONE
OF THE PRINCIPLES.
FOLLOWING YOUR ORDER, LET ME TELL YOU, WE WOULD
HANDLE IT A LOT DIFFERENTLY.
IF SOMEONE CALLED AND SAID, "WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION
ON JUROR NO. 228," WE WOULD HAVE, UNDERSTANDING YOUR ORDER,
BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, LET YOU GET THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT TO DO IT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. AND
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO INVESTIGATE THIS.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME -- AND I
APPLAUD YOUR HONOR'S COMPLEMENTARIES WHEN TALKING TO THE JURORS.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOWN HERE FROM SEPTEMBER 27TH, 28TH, AND
THEN WE ACCUSE THEM OF ALL THESE THINGS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, AS MR. SHAPIRO SAID, O.J. SIMPSON
WILL INDICATE FOR THE RECORD HE DOESN'T KNOW THIS MAN, NEVER MET
HIM.
WE ALL KNEW THIS MAN WORKED AT HERTZ. WE STILL
QUESTIONED HIM. "Q" NEVER MET HIM. HE MAKES ALL THESE
ALLEGATIONS WHEN WE KNOW THAT PART OF IT IS FALSE RIGHT FROM THE
BEGINNING.
SO I THINK RATHER THAN ASSUMING -- IT SEEMS AS THOUGH
-- AND THIS IS MY POINT. I DON'T THINK THE PROSECUTION SHOULD
ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY WHO IS NOT ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, WHO IS
NOT IN THEIR OFFICE IS A LIAR OR JUST GOING TO MAKE UP SOMETHING
TO GET ON THE CASE.
AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO SOME KIND OF
A BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND TO SOME DIGNITY. AND I THINK THAT
RATHER THAN BEING SO ACCUSATORY, MAYBE LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION
FALLING IN YOUR LAP AS YOU SAY, YOUR HONOR, LOOK AT IT, BUT
CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT WITH AN EYE TO TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE
THE TRUE FACTS RATHER THAN BEING SO ACCUSATORY, THEN MAKING UP
YOUR MIND AFTER HEARING ALL THE FACTS.
NEVER IN MY CAREER HAVE I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD HEAR
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CITE THE STAR AS A BASIS FOR US
DOING SOMETHING.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF I --
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: -- COULD, I AM NOT CITING THE STAR AS A BASIS
OF ANYTHING.
I MET THE WITNESS. THE WITNESS THROUGH OTHER PERSONS
TELEPHONED ME AT 9:30 IN MY OFFICE LAST NIGHT. I WAS NOT OUT
CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION, I WAS NOT ON A WITCH-HUNT AND I
WASN'T OUT AFTER 0228.
LET ME EXPLAIN TO THE COURT, IF I MAY, WHY THIS IS
GOING TO BE ON GERALDO AND WHY THIS INCIDENT IS GOING TO BE
DESCRIBED IN THIS MAGAZINE IN THE NEXT DAY OR SO.
IT'S BECAUSE THIS WITNESS CAME TO THE CLERK, PROVIDED
HER THIS INFORMATION, THEN WATCHED WHAT THE COURT DID OR DID NOT
DO WITH THE INFORMATION AND BECAME CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS THE
COURT HAD NOT ACTUALLY MADE COUNSEL AWARE OF THE ISSUES. THE
WITNESS APPARENTLY BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE COURT HAD COMMITTED
SOME ACTIVE MISCONDUCT ON ITS OWN.
AND SO THIS WITNESS CLAIMS THAT SHE BECAME SO
CONCERNED THAT SHE FELT THAT SHE HAD TO TELL SOMEONE, THAT SHE
HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION GOT OUT AND ENDED UP
SPEAKING TO THE STAR.
THIS IS A DRAFT OF AN ARTICLE THAT HASN'T BEEN
PUBLISHED YET AS I UNDERSTAND IT. BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS
A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THAT PARTICULAR JUROR.
AND AS FOR PROOF OR EVIDENCE OR PROVIDING SOME
TESTIMONY OR INDICATION OF SOME PROOF UNDER OATH, WE'RE WAITING A
DECLARATION FROM SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THEY WERE PRESENT WHEN
228 MET MR. SIMPSON.
DUE TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN ME LAST NIGHT,
I FELT DUTY BOUND TO LOOK INTO THIS JUST A LITTLE FURTHER.
I HAVE A LIST OF APPROXIMATELY 10 PERSONS WHO
ALLEGEDLY CAN CORROBORATE THIS; THAT IS THAT 228 KNOWS AND/OR 228
HAS MADE THE COMMENT THAT HE HIT THE LOTTERY, HE'S GOING TO MAKE
SOME MONEY OUT OF BEING ON THIS JURY AND THAT HE HAS ALREADY MADE
UP HIS MIND REGARDING THIS DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE.
MS. CLARK: AND THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE FACT -- I AM
SORRY.
MR. DARDEN: AND IF I'M IN A POSITION TO HAVE THE RESOURCES
TO PURSUE THAT, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION.
MS. CLARK: NOT ONLY THAT, BUT MR. COCHRAN INDICATING WHAT
THEY WOULD HAVE DONE, WHAT MR. COCHRAN INDICATED HE WOULD HAVE
DONE IS WHAT WE DID.
WHEN WE GOT OUR FIRST CONTACT FROM THIS MAN, "EE", WE
CAME OVER TO THE COURT IN CHAMBERS -- AND MR. COCHRAN REMEMBERS
-- AND I ASKED THE COURT TO ALLOW THE SHERIFF'S TO INVESTIGATE,
AND THE COURT REFUSED.
SO I DID THAT VERY THING. SINCE THAT TIME, PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN COMING FORWARD TO US. WE HAVE NOT BEEN ACTIVELY
INVESTIGATING.
NUMBER TWO, I FIND IT APPALLING THAT COUNSEL WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THIS IS NOT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND THAT WE ARE
SOMEHOW ON A WITCH-HUNT BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUND A JUROR WHO HAS
MADE SUCH MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN HIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND
VOIR DIRE.
HE WAS QUESTIONED BY THE COURT, BY MYSELF, BY COUNSEL
AND IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD
EVER MET OR KNEW O.J. SIMPSON. BECAUSE HE'S AN EMPLOYEE OF
HERTZ, WE WERE ALL CONCERNED, BECAUSE THERE WAS THE APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT JUST BY VIRTUE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.
HE ASSURED US THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THAT COULD
NOT BE THE CASE AND THAT HE HAD ONLY WORKED IN QUALITY CONTROL
AND THAT HIS JOB ENTAILED OTHER THINGS ENTIRELY AND THAT THE ONLY
CONTACT HE HAD WITH O.J. SIMPSON WAS SEEING HIM FILMING A
COMMERCIAL IN AN AIRPORT.
HE ALSO INDICATED THAT HE HAD NO INTEREST IN FOOTBALL
AND THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, VERY, VERY RECENTLY, HE
STARTED GETTING INVOLVED IN FOOTBALL COLLECTIBLES.
WE FIND A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT COMPLETELY
CONTRADICTS EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID, PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRSTHAND
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT HE HAS MET THE DEFENDANT, THAT HE WORKED ON
THE VIP COMMITTEE.
AND THE PAMPHLET ITSELF THAT WAS SENT TO THIS COURT
BY "H" REFLECTS THE FACT THAT HE HAS LIED TO THIS COURT
POINT-BLANK IN SAYING THAT HE HAD WORKED ONLY AS QUALITY CONTROL.
IT SHOWS IN THAT PAMPHLET, HE'S IDENTIFIED AS A MEMBER OF THE VIP
PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT IS INVOLVED WITH THE CELEBRITIES WHO ARE
PART OF HERTZ CORPORATION, AND THAT IS A MATTER OF RECORD.
SO WE HAVE THIS JUROR ALREADY IMPEACHED WITHOUT
CALLING ONE WITNESS. YET WE HAVE A LIST OF 10 WITNESSES WHO HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED WHO WILL COME FORWARD TO GIVE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT THAT WILL IMPEACH THIS JUROR IN A VERY
MATERIAL WAY.
AND FOR -- EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT.
(DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, HELD OFF THE
RECORD.)
MS. CLARK: FOR THE DEFENSE TO INSIST THAT WE GLOSS OVER
THIS OR -- AND PUSH IT UNDER THE RUG INDICATES CLEARLY THAT THEY
ARE INTERESTED IN STACKING THIS JURY TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
PEOPLE AND NOT IN A FAIR TRIAL.
AND THE PEOPLE WILL NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL IF THIS
JUROR IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN BASED ON ALL THAT WE KNOW. AND AT
THIS POINT, IT IS ALREADY APPARENT THAT WHAT THESE JURORS -- WHAT
THESE WITNESSES ARE ATTEMPTING TO TELL US AND TO BRING TO THIS
COURT IS TRUE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR?
FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE INTERESTED IN A FAIR TRIAL AS
THEY ARE.
JUDGE, WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS SINCE
SEPTEMBER 26TH, THE LONGEST VOIR DIRE THAT ANY OF US HAVE BEEN
IN, MAYBE ONE TIME LONGER FOR ME ON THE BLACK PANTHER CONSPIRACY
TRIAL IN '71, BUT NEVER LONGER. SO WE'RE PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT
THIS.
THE POINT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF APPROACH. WE TRY TO
ABIDE BY YOUR ORDER, BY WHAT YOU TOLD US.
WHAT MISS CLARK SAYS IS RIGHT. SHE BROUGHT IT IN TO
THE COURT. THE COURT SAID YOU WOULD DEAL WITH IT AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. WE WERE PICKING A JURY. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU
SLOUGHED IF OFF. YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE DEAL WAS ON THIS.
THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS, YOU'RE DOING THE
RIGHT THING BY QUESTIONING THESE PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU
CAN JUMP TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
FOR INSTANCE, I HAPPENED TO BE ON THE AIRPORT
COMMISSION IN 1981 OR '82. I RECALL WE HAD A JUROR WHO SAID THEY
HAD CONTACT WITH ME. I WAS THERE 13 YEARS.
AND WHEN WE OPENED THAT NEW FACILITY, PEOPLE FROM ALL
AROUND THE WORLD CAME TO THE FACILITY. THIS MAN WAS ON THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE OPENING OF THAT. THAT THEY THINK O.J.
SIMPSON SAW THIS MAN THROUGH THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS.
THEY'RE ACCUSING THIS MAN OF ALL THESE LIES BASED
UPON SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE SENDING IN DECLARATIONS. THE POINT I
WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE ON IS THIS.
LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE, IT REFERS TO
SOME COMMENT FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE SENDING THEIR INVESTIGATOR
"TONIGHT." CHRIS DARDEN OR WHOEVER WAS COMING OUT.
AND IF YOU WANTED TO REALLY BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THIS,
DO SOMETHING, WOULD YOU GO TO THE L.A. TIMES, NEW YORK TIMES OR
WOULD YOU TELL THIS TO THE STAR?
I MEAN, ALL I AM SAYING, JUDGE, YOU ARE WISE AND YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. SO LET'S GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
IT. I'M NOT SAYING NOT GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, BUT I'M SAYING I
DON'T GO AROUND ACCUSING PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE COMES FORWARD
WITH INFORMATION. I THINK WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED, AND
I THINK THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, LET ME TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER.
I'M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED BECAUSE -- WE HAVE BEEN
COMING UP WITH NEWS LEAK AFTER NEWS LEAK AFTER NEWS LEAK. WE'VE
HAD HEARINGS, WE'VE HAD INVESTIGATIONS, AND ALL WE HEAR FROM THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IS, "WE DON'T DO ANYTHING. WE'RE NOT INVOLVED
IN THIS. WE HAVE NO INFORMATION."
WELL, WE HAVE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE. THEY ARE
COMMUNICATING WITH THE STAR BEFORE AN ARTICLE IS WRITTEN.
THEY'RE WRITING -- THE STAR IS WRITING TO THEM APPARENTLY. AND
DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, IT'S REAL CLEAR WHERE THESE LEAKS ARE COMING
FROM.
IT SAYS RIGHT HERE UNDER COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, "THEY'RE SEEING THEIR INVESTIGATOR TONIGHT."
AND I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN RIGHT NOW -- IF THEY KNOW THIS PERSON
IS GOING TO BECOME FAMOUS ON GERALDO, THEY KNOW HE IS GOING TO BE
ON TODAY, I WOULD LIKE YOUR HONOR TO REFER THIS IMMEDIATELY TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS WHO ARE OUTSIDE TO INVESTIGATE THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS TO SEE IF THEY ARE LEAKING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
STAR AND TO GERALDO TO DEPRIVE O.J. SIMPSON OF A FAIR TRIAL AND
GET PEOPLE OFF THIS JURY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO DECLINE THAT INVITATION AT THIS
POINT BECAUSE THE WAY THIS INFORMATION CAME TO THE COURT IS, THIS
PERSON WAS FIRST ANONYMOUS AND THEN THIS PERSON, "H" CONVERSING
WITH MRS. ROBERTSON AGAIN AND SENDING US THIS PLANNING COMMITTEE
-- THIS PAMPHLET WHICH INCLUDES JUROR'S 228'S PARTICIPATION IN
THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE INFORMATION, SIMILAR
INFORMATION COMES FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE ON A LATER DATE.
AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE
COURT TO MAKE INQUIRY. THE REASON THAT I FEEL THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION -- I FEEL AT THIS POINT, THERE'S
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE COURT TO MAKE
INQUIRY AT THIS POINT.
AND I THINK THAT JUROR NO. *** -- EXCUSE ME -- 228 IS
A PRIME EXAMPLE. IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO COME
TO ME FIRST SO I CAN TALK TO THE PERSON WHO WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE
DONE THIS FIRST AND ASK THEM IS THIS A PROBLEM RATHER THAN CREATE
PROBLEMS FOR THEM BY SENDING INVESTIGATORS OUT AND STIRRING UP
THE POT AND CREATING INNUENDO WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARY BY SENDING
AN INVESTIGATOR OUT TO TALK TO PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU CREATE THE
IMPRESSION THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG OR THERE'S SOMETHING
TRUE.
I THINK THE FIRST THING WE SHOULD DO NOW THAT THIS
INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT IS INQUIRE DIRECTLY
OF THE JUROR HIMSELF TO SEE IF PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN TO TELL
US ABOUT SOMETHING. AND THAT'S THE WAY I'M GOING TO PHRASE IT.
MR. SHAPIRO: WHETHER OR NOT -- THAT CAUSES A DIFFERENT
ISSUE. BUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS INFORMATION IS TRUE, I WOULD LIKE
TO KNOW AS A PRIMARY INQUIRY.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I BE HEARD FOR A MOMENT?
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK SO, MR. DARDEN. I THINK I'VE
HEARD ENOUGH AT THIS POINT.
IT'S MY INTENTION TO INQUIRE OF 228 WHETHER OR NOT --
ASK HIM ABOUT -- TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT IT IS HE
TOLD US ABOUT HIS ACQUAINTANCESHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON AND TELL HIM
THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM MANY SOURCES THAT ARE
CONTRARY TO THAT AND ASK HIM IF HE CAN EXPLAIN THAT. AND IF HE
HAS A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THAT, THEN THAT'S THE END OF THE
SITUATION.
OKAY.
MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK 228 TO JOIN US, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ASK ONE OTHER THING?
THIS MATTER -- BECAUSE THIS WILL RELATE TO OUR
CLIENT, I MIGHT AT THE END OF IT, BEFORE WE ARGUE, IF THERE'S ANY
ARGUMENT, ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO OUR CLIENT ABOUT
THIS ASPECT, BECAUSE THIS RELATES TO --
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE LOOK INTO
THIS JUST A BIT MORE, THAT WE WILL PRODUCE WITNESSES WHO WILL
COME FORWARD TO TESTIFY.
THE COURT: IT MAY BE NECESSARY, BUT IT MAY NOT.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO LET MR. SHAPIRO'S AND
MR. COCHRAN'S ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS OUR OFFICE --
THE COURT: NO, NO. MR. DARDEN, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THESE PEOPLE ARE CONTACTING OTHER PERSONS.
IF A FREELANCE WRITER CONTACTS ME WITH REGARD TO THIS
--
(JUROR NO. 228
ENTERS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NO. 228, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. HOW ARE YOU?
JUROR NO. 228: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE.
FIRST OF ALL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST TURN YOUR CHAIR A
LITTLE SO YOU'RE NOT BLINDED BY THE LIGHT THERE OR SCOOCH OVER A
LITTLE. THERE YOU GO. I DON'T WANT YOU BLINDED.
WE'RE NOT DOING GOOD HERE.
MR. HODGMAN, CAN YOU PULL THOSE SHADES OVER JUST A
LITTLE? SEE IF THAT'S --
YOU ARE IN A GOOD SPOT THERE?
JUROR NO. 228: YES. PRETTY --
THE COURT: STAND RIGHT THERE, MR. HODGMAN.
NO. 228, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN TO
SPEAK TO US. I HAVE A PROBLEM THAT I NEED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
MR. HODGMAN, WHY DON'T YOU STAND IN ONE SPOT.
THANK YOU.
I HAVE A PROBLEM THAT I NEED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
AND FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT THE REASON I
HAVE TO DO THIS IS, CERTAIN INFORMATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY
ATTENTION RELATING TO YOU THAT I NEED TO ASK YOU ABOUT. AND I
WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANY
MISCONDUCT OR ANY WRONGDOING, BUT THE INFORMATION IS SUCH THAT
I'M REQUIRED TO AT LEAST MAKE AN INQUIRY OF YOU.
JUROR NO. 228: YES.
THE COURT: AND MY FEELING IS THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING
THAT I'VE DONE WRONG OR THERE'S SOMETHING PEOPLE THINK THAT I MAY
HAVE DONE WRONG, I LIKE FOR THEM TO TELL ME ABOUT IT SO I CAN AT
LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THEM IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF
MISUNDERSTANDING.
JUROR NO. 228: YES.
THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE FIRST ISSUE THAT I
HAVE IS.
WHEN WE TALKED TO YOU -- FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU
FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE YOU
WORK FOR HERTZ, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION. AND IN YOUR
QUESTIONNAIRE AND WHEN THE LAWYERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO
YOU DIRECTLY, YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU WERE -- YOU KNEW WHO
O.J. SIMPSON WAS.
JUROR NO. 228: YES.
THE COURT: YOU WERE AWARE HE WAS A SPOKESPERSON FOR YOUR
COMPANY, BUT THAT YOU HAD NOT MET MR. SIMPSON.
JUROR NO. 228: THAT'S RIGHT.
THE COURT: THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE
COURT INDICATES THAT YOUR JOB WAS AS A -- AT SOME POINT IN TIME
AT HERTZ, WAS TO HANDLE VIP CUSTOMERS AND THAT YOU HAD DIRECT
CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON WHILE YOU WERE DOING THAT; THAT WHEN THE
FACILITY OPENED AT THE LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, THE NEW HERTZ
FACILITY, THAT YOU WERE ON THE VIP PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT DEALT
DIRECTLY WITH MR. SIMPSON DURING THAT EVENT AND THAT AT A POINT
IN TIME IN APPROXIMATELY 1990, "Q" WORKED AT THE LAX FACILITY FOR
HERTZ AND THAT YOU WERE ACQUAINTED WITH HER THROUGH THAT CONTACT.
IS THERE ANY TRUTH TO ANY OF THESE --
JUROR NO. 228: WELL, THE FACT IS THAT I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE VIP, BUT I DISTRIBUTE CARS TO THAT AREA.
AND I BELIEVE SHE DID WORK THERE AT ONE TIME, BUT I NEVER MET HER
AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO SHE WERE BECAUSE I'M SO BUSY DOING MY
JOB, YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO AROUND AND REALLY MEET
PEOPLE. BUT SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS HIS DAUGHTER, BUT I
HAD NEVER LITERALLY MET HER.
THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY, "LITERALLY NEVER MET HER," WHAT
DO YOU MEAN?
JUROR NO. 228: HADN'T FORMALLY MET HER. WE WASN'T
INTRODUCED. SO I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO SHE WAS UNTIL AFTER SHE
HAD GONE.
THE COURT: DID YOU EVER SPEAK TO HER?
JUROR NO. 228: NO, I NEVER SPOKE TO HER, SIR.
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?
JUROR NO. 228: NEVER MET HIM. NEVER MET HIM, NEVER SPOKE
TO HIM.
THE COURT: ANY CONTACT WITH HIM OTHER THAN SEEING HIM FILM
A COMMERCIAL?
JUROR NO. 228: NO. NO, SIR.
LET ME JUST SAY, THE AREA WHERE I WORK IS ABOUT
APPROXIMATELY 1- TO 200 YARDS AWAY FROM THE VIP AREA WHERE THEY
WERE SHOOTING THE COMMERCIAL, AND I NEVER EVEN WENT DOWN THERE.
BUT I DO HAVE TO AS -- PART OF MY JOB IS TO SEND CARS TO CERTAIN
AREAS THROUGHOUT OUR LOT, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I DO
SEND CARS TO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BEING ON A PLANNING
COMMITTEE FOR THE OPENING OF THE FACILITY, THE NEW FACILITY?
JUROR NO. 228: YES.
THE COURT: AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTACTS WITH MR. SIMPSON
DURING THE COURSE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES?
JUROR NO. 228: I'M PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONLY ONES THAT
DIDN'T. AND I WAS ON A COMMITTEE TO ACTUALLY HELP OPEN THAT.
BUT HE WAS INVITED THERE, BUT I HAD NEVER MET HIM.
THE COURT: AND YOU HAD NO CONTACT WITH HIM?
JUROR NO. 228: NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH HIM.
THE COURT: THERE IS ALSO A REPORT THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY MADE
A STATEMENT TO SOMEBODY, THAT BY BEING ACCEPTED AS A JUROR ON
THIS CASE, THAT YOU HAD HIT THE LOTTERY AND YOU EXPECTED TO MAKE
MONEY FROM THIS EXPERIENCE.
JUROR NO. 288: NO, I DIDN'T MAKE THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NO. 228, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
CHAT WITH US.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU NOT TO DISCUSS THIS
MATTER WITH ANY OTHER PERSON UNTIL I ORDER YOU TO DO SO OR THE
CASE IS OVER.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: THAT'S FOR YOUR BENEFIT AS WELL AS MINE.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NO. 228, WOULD YOU TAKE YOUR PLACE, PLEASE, BACK IN
THE JURY ROOM.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
(JUROR NO. 228
EXITS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN, I THINK AT THIS POINT, THE STATE OF THE
RECORD IS THAT THE BALL IS IN THE PEOPLE'S COURT.
YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD WITNESSES WHO WERE ABLE TO
TESTIFY TO THE CONTRARY.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I'M HANDING COUNSEL AND THE COURT
A FAX OF A DECLARATION JUST HANDED ME. IT'S DATED TODAY, DECEMBER
8, 1994, SIGNED BY "B".
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I MAKE A COMMENT?
THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK, MR. DARDEN, MR. DARDEN, DO YOU
KNOW HOW THIS DECLARATION CAME TO BE FAXED TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE?
MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
I ASKED LIEUTENANT GARY SCHRAM OF THE D.A.'S BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION TO CONTACT THIS WITNESS, THIS INDIVIDUAL. THIS
WAS A NAME GIVEN TO ME LAST NIGHT. HE DID SO. SHE FAXED THIS
DECLARATION TO US THROUGH THE ******* POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I COMMENT ON THAT?
I'M GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE HE
WASN'T HERE. BUT HE'S PART OF THEIR TEAM. SO HE SHOULD BE AWARE
OF THIS, AND THAT'S A VIOLATION OF YOUR ORDER. THAT'S THE
PROBLEM.
SEE, THE POINT IS, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THEM. THEY CAN'T RUN THE WORLD. THEY CAN
PROSECUTE THIS CASE, BUT THEY CAN'T RUN THE WORLD.
WE HAVE BEEN REALLY CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT SPEAKING OUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS. JUST BECAUSE THEY
ARE D.A.'S DOESN'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE RIGHTS. THEY'RE LAWYERS
JUST LIKE WE ARE, AND IT'S WRONG FOR THEM TO DO THIS, ESPECIALLY
VIOLATE YOUR ORDER.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WRONG. AND THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN
DO. AND BELIEVE ME, WE CAN DO THESE THINGS. AND I WANT TO SAY
THEY SHOULD STOP THIS STUFF. THEY'RE NOT ABOVE ANYBODY ELSE.
THEY CAN'T GO AROUND AND DO SOMETHING THIS OUTRAGEOUS.
AND THIS DECLARATION FROM SOMEBODY WHO 14 YEARS AGO
REMEMBERS THIS -- O.J. SIMPSON SAYS HE NEVER REMEMBERS THIS GUY.
I BET MARCUS ALLEN WILL SAY THAT. "Q" IS OUT THERE. SHE SAW
THIS MAN IN THE HALLWAY. CARL HAD HER LOOKING. SHE DOESN'T KNOW
THIS MAN, YOUR HONOR.
IN THE FACE OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY ARE LIVE WITNESSES,
IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS. THEY HEARD HIS
STATEMENT.
NOW, I KNOW THE COURT IS GOING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT.
BUT IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A HEARING, SO BE IT, BUT THAT IT SHOULD
NOT BE INVESTIGATED BY THIS OFFICE. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID; YOU
HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO DO IT AND YOU WILL DO THAT.
THEY'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THEY CAN INVESTIGATE THIS
CASE, AND THAT'S THEIR ABSOLUTE RIGHT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE
RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. I MEAN THAT'S
WRONG.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
WE'RE NOT INVESTIGATING EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. THIS
INFORMATION CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT --
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I DID DIRECT BOTH SIDES NOT TO GO OUT AND START
INTERVIEWING PEOPLE, CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. THAT'S WHAT I
DID DO.
MS. CLARK: BUT THIS WAS A PERSON THAT CAME FORWARD TO US.
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS A PERSON I WAS TOLD THAT -- I WAS TOLD
WANTED ME TO CONTACT THEM. THIS PERSON TOLD THE WITNESS, "H",
THAT I SHOULD CONTACT HER LAST NIGHT.
THIS PERSON HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED BY PRIVATE
INVESTIGATORS. THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS WHEN YOU KICK HIM OFF.
OTHER PEOPLE ARE COMING FORWARD. I HEARD RUMORS THAT
OTHER HERTZ EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO COME FORWARD AND SAY -- OTHER
EMPLOYEES THAT WORK AT HERTZ NOW WITH THIS JUROR ARE GOING TO
COME FORWARD IN THE MEDIA AND IN THE PRESS AND SAY THAT HE'S MADE
ALL THESE COMMENTS.
AND SO I CAN'T JUST STAND BY AND ALLOW THIS JUROR TO
SIT ON THIS CASE WITHOUT LOOKING FURTHER INTO THIS ISSUE.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THE INVESTIGATION ON THIS CONDUCT
BY JURORS IS THE COURT'S OBLIGATION AND DELEGATED TO THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY
ASSIGNED INVESTIGATORS TO THIS.
MR. DARDEN: THEY HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANY OF THESE
WITNESSES.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO TURN OVER EVERYTHING WE HAVE, BUT
THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. HODGMAN, HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
I DIRECTED YOU NOT TO DO THIS. ANY INFORMATION YOU
HAD WAS TO BE TURNED OVER TO ME AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR
WHATEVER AGENCY I DETERMINED TO DO THIS, BECAUSE I THINK A
NEUTRAL PARTY, SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT INVOLVED WITH THE
INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE SHOULD CONDUCT THIS
INQUIRY CONCERNING JUROR MISCONDUCT.
MS. CLARK: BUT THIS WAS A WITNESS THAT CAME FORWARD AND
REQUESTED TO SPEAK WITH US. SHE REQUESTED TO SPEAK WITH US.
AND RATHER THAN HAVE ONE OF US BECOME A WITNESS, WE
WANTED HER TO RENDER HER STATEMENT IN A FORM THAT COULD BE
PRESENTED TO THE COURT.
YOUR HONOR, THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE --
THE COURT: IS THERE A REASON YOU DID NOT COME TO ME AND
ASK ME OR TELL ME ABOUT THIS?
MR. DARDEN: IT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT AT 9:30, 10:00 O'CLOCK.
AND EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE STAR ARTICLE, THE
INVESTIGATOR HAD MET WITH TONY FROST. WE JUST HEARD A RUMOR OF
JURY MISCONDUCT. I DON'T KNOW EVEN IF HE KNEW IT RELATED TO 228.
WE JUST HEARD A RUMOR AND FOLLOWED IT UP.
MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT IS THE URGENCY FOR CONTACTING THEM 9:30
AT NIGHT, NOT TO REPORT IT TO YOUR HONOR? OR IF IT'S AN
EMERGENCY -- I DON'T HAVE YOUR HOME PHONE NUMBER, BUT I GUARANTEE
YOU, IN 30 MINUTES, I COULD GET IT AND GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU IN
AN EMERGENCY.
AND THEY ALL HAVE MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY HAVE MY
CAR NUMBER. THEY COULD CALL US, SAY, "WE'VE GOT AN EMERGENCY.
CAN WE GET THE JUDGE ON THE PHONE?"
THIS IS ABSOLUTE SHEER NONSENSE. IT IS JUST -- YOU
KNOW WHAT IT IS, JUDGE? IT IS SHEER ARROGANCE ON THE PART OF THE
PROSECUTORS WHO CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW YOUR ORDERS IN THE
COURTROOM AND CONTINUE TO FOLLOW YOUR MANDATES, AND IT'S TIME FOR
YOU TO REALLY LET THEM KNOW WHO IS THE JUDGE IN THIS COURTROOM.
AND IT'S NOT THEM. THEY DON'T SET THEIR OWN RULES.
THEY DON'T SET THEIR OWN STANDARDS AND THEY DON'T MAKE THEIR OWN
DECISIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN USED TO DOING AND THAT'S
WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO TO YOU. AND WE SEE IT VERY CLEARLY AND
EVERYBODY ELSE IS STARTING TO SEE IT TOO, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW SOMETHING? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY A LIE
BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING BUT COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC
ABOUT HOW THE DEFENSE IS LEADING EVERYBODY AROUND IN THIS CASE,
AND IT'S BECOME VERY APPARENT TO ME THAT MR. SHAPIRO BARKS AND
EXPECTS EVERYBODY ELSE TO SIT.
I'M REAL TIRED OF HEARING HIM MAKE THESE OBVIOUSLY
SPURIOUS ALLEGATIONS. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, YOUR HONOR.
WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ABIDE BY THIS COURT'S ORDER AS
BEST WE CAN. BUT WE HAVE WITNESSES WHO ARE OUT THERE AND HAVE
BEEN GETTING IRRITATED WITH THE FACT THAT THEY SEE NO ACTION.
AND SO THEY ARE TAKING IT IN TO THEIR OWN HANDS TO COME FORWARD.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROBING OR DOING ANY KIND OF
INVESTIGATION. WE ARE RECEIVING INFORMATION. AND THE WITNESSES
ARE CONTACTING US AND SAYING, "WE WANT TO GIVE THIS INFORMATION."
AND AS OF LAST NIGHT, THIS CONTACT CAME FORWARD
SAYING, "I HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. I SAW THIS HAPPEN."
AND DON'T TELL ME THAT THIS JUROR DOESN'T REMEMBER
SHAKING O.J. SIMPSON'S HAND. THAT WAS A VERY NOTABLE EVENT I'M
SURE IN THIS JUROR'S LIFE, AS IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TO THIS WOMAN WHO
WITNESSED IT.
PEOPLE REMEMBER MEETING CELEBRITIES. IT IS A VERY
IMPORTANT FACT IN THEIR LIVES.
AND THE FACT THAT THIS JUROR DID IN FACT SHAKE HANDS
AND HE IS NOW CLAIMING NOT TO HAVE -- IT'S NOT THAT HE'S SAYING,
"I MAY HAVE. I DON'T REMEMBER." THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. HE IS
SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. "I NEVER GOT NEAR HIM. I NEVER WENT TO
THAT AREA." HE'S ISSUED A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DENIAL, NOT A LACK
OF MEMORY.
THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, THE THING THAT I'M MORE
CONCERNED ABOUT -- WE ARE GOING TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE. THE CASE
LAW IS CLEAR, WHEN THIS KIND OF INFORMATION COMES TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION, I HAVE TO INQUIRE.
BUT THE OBLIGATION FOR INQUIRY IS THE COURT'S
OBLIGATION, NOT YOURS. AND THE REASON I DIRECTED YOU NOT TO DO
ANYTHING IS BECAUSE A NEUTRAL PARTY SHOULD BE THE ONES DOING THIS
INVESTIGATION. A NEUTRAL PARTY SHOULD BE THE INVESTIGATOR
CALLING THESE PEOPLE.
NOW, IF YOU -- I RECALL THAT WE WERE BUSY AT THE TIME
WHEN THIS INFORMATION CAME TO ME, AND THESE JURORS WERE NOT DUE
BACK IN THE COURTROOM UNTIL DECEMBER THE 5TH. SO THE COURT MADE
A DETERMINATION THAT SINCE WE HAD SCHEDULED ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE
COMING IN IN ORDER AND THAT WE HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH WORK TO DO
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, THAT THE COURT WOULD PUT THIS ISSUE OFF
UNTIL WE HAD THE JURORS BACK HERE IN COURT SO WE COULD TALK TO
THEM FACE-TO-FACE.
NOW, WHAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED IS THAT INFORMATION --
NOW, I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T ORDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
TURN A BLIND EYE OR A DEAF EAR TO INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT
TO THEM.
THIS INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION
AS WELL, AND MRS. ROBERTSON'S MEMORANDUM OF THE 27TH INDICATES
THE DATE AND TIME. THE COURT IS AWARE OF THIS ISSUE.
BUT THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO DROP EVERYTHING
IT'S DOING AND PURSUE ALL OF THESE ISSUES WHEN THEY ARISE, AND
THE COURT MADE A DETERMINATION THAT NOW, DECEMBER THE 8TH, WAS
THE TIME THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP, WHICH IS -- ACTUALLY
WE GOT STARTED ON IT A DAY EARLIER.
BUT --
MS. CLARK: ALL I'M SAYING, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE WITNESSES
OUT THERE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND. I MEAN THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE.
THEY'VE COME FORWARD, THEY'VE HIRED THEIR OWN INVESTIGATOR.
THEY'RE GOING CRAZY OUT THERE, AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH US.
THE COURT: OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHO HAS HIRED THEIR OWN
INVESTIGATOR?
MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS.
MR. DARDEN: I BELIEVE IT IS "H".
AND SHE IS ACQUAINTED -- IN FACT, I SPOKE TO A PERSON
WHO CLAIMED TO BE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LAST NIGHT OVER THE
TELEPHONE WHILE I WAS --
MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT A SITUATION BEYOND OUR CONTROL.
ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE HAS GENERATED VERY
UNUSUAL SITUATIONS FOR ALL OF US, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY
INSISTENT AT GETTING THEIR INFORMATION TO US.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
WITHOUT BEING ACCUSATORY ANY MORE THAN WE ALREADY
SAID -- WE'VE SAID ENOUGH ABOUT THAT -- THE POINT IS, YOUR ORDER
WAS VERY CLEAR. AND THE REASONS FOR THAT ORDER ARE VERY CLEAR,
AND THE REASONS GIVEN ARE NOT ANY GOOD IF YOU LOOK AT THEM.
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN IS A VERY EXPERIENCED LAWYER.
THIS HAPPENED AT 10:00 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT, AND WE ARE TAKING THIS
MOTION UP, INVOLVED WITH THIS MOTION YESTERDAY.
THE THING TO DO -- HE'S OBVIOUSLY IN TOUCH WITH MISS
CLARK AND MR. HODGMAN -- IS COME IN AND TELLING YOU THIS MORNING.
THE QUESTION IS JUST THAT SIMPLE. NOT WHEN DO WE GOVERN
OURSELVES AS LAWYERS GOVERNED BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE A WITNESS IS ANXIOUS --
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, LET'S ASSUME THAT I AGREE IT'S A
VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER. WHAT SANCTION DO YOU THINK IS
APPROPRIATE, IF ANY?
MR. COCHRAN: YOU KNOW --
MR. SHAPIRO: MAYBE PERHAPS DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR
TAMPERING WITH THE JURY.
MS. CLARK: WE HAVEN'T TAMPERED WITH THE JURY.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS THE SANCTION THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST.
MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T LIKE TO MAKE SNAP DECISIONS.
CAN I HAVE A MOMENT? CAN I HAVE A LITTLE TIME TO
THINK ABOUT THAT?
WHAT I REALLY WANT -- YOU KNOW WHAT I REALLY WANT?
I'M NOT REALLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. I WANT THE D.A.'S TO ACT
LIKE D.A.'S LIKE THEY DO OTHERWISE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS ATTITUDE WHERE JURORS ARE
RUNNING CHECKS ON JURORS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF
POWER.
THAT BOTHERS ME, JUDGE. I WANT PEOPLE TO BE TREATED
WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESPECT AND TO BE DEEMED TO BE TELLING
THE TRUTH AND NOT EVERYBODY BEING ASSUMED TO BE A LIAR.
AND THEY MAY SAY -- WHEN MISS CLARK JUST GOT THROUGH
TALKING, YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT "H" SAW THIS PERSON SHAKE HANDS
WITH O.J. SIMPSON HIMSELF. UNLESS I'M SO FAR OFF, I DIDN'T GET
THAT IMPRESSION AT ALL.
IF THEY'VE GOT SOME WITNESSES, LET THEM BRING THEM
FORWARD. THEY MAKE THESE STATEMENTS AS THOUGH THEY'RE THE ONLY
ONES THAT SPEAK THE TRUTH.
MS. CLARK: WELL, SOMETIMES THAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR.
MR. COCHRAN: SEE THEN, IF SHE THINKS THAT, JUDGE, THEN WE
DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE, IF THEY THINK THEY'RE THE ONLY
ONES THAT SPEAK THE TRUTH.
MS. CLARK: LET ME INDICATE THIS.
THE COURT: WAIT. LET ME MAKE IT REAL CLEAR TO YOU, I'M
GOING TO ORDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TURN OVER THEIR
REPORTS TO THE COURT.
THEY ARE TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION. THEY CAN TAKE
PHONE MESSAGES. THEY CAN REFER THE MATTER TO THE COURT.
ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CONTACT THE COURT SHOULD CONTACT
MRS. ROBERTSON. MRS. ROBERTSON WILL REPORT THAT TO ME. I WILL
RELAY THAT TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER INVESTIGATIVE
AGENCY I DEEM APPROPRIATE TO FOLLOW THIS UP.
ALL RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO FROM THIS POINT ON.
IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: UNDERSTOOD?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: UNDERSTOOD, MR. DARDEN?
MR. DARDEN: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
THE COURT: IS THAT A YES FOR THE RECORD?
MR. DARDEN: YES. SURE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE JURY IS PRIMARILY THE COURT'S
RESPONSIBILITY, NOT THAT OF THE PARTIES, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I RAISED BEFORE THE SPECTRUM OF
AN INVESTIGATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND I'M NOT SAYING
THAT IN ANY FACETIOUS WAY, IN ANY OFF-HANDED WAY.
THIS IS THE SECOND REPORTED EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BEING INVOLVED WITH TABLOIDS. AND
WE KNOW THE TABLOIDS ARE SOURCES OF THAT INFORMATION.
THE FIRST ONE CAME UNDER OATH WHEN I EXAMINED A
WITNESS NAMED "FF" WHO TESTIFIED THAT PATTI JO FAIRBANKS GAVE HIM
PERMISSION TO TALK TO THE TABLOIDS AND SELL HIS STORY. THAT WAS
AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT IT WAS "GG" WHO SAID THAT.
MS. CLARK: NO. "FF".
MR. SHAPIRO: "FF" REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON. MISS
CLARK OBJECTED. FINALLY WE GOT THE IDENTIFICATION, AND HE
IDENTIFIED A WOMAN NAMED "PATTI" IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE.
AND THEN THE D.A.'S CAME DOWN AND SAID IT WAS PATTI
JO FAIRBANKS WHO GAVE THIS WITNESS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE PERMISSION TO GO SELL HIS STORY TO THE TABLOID. THAT'S
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, NOW WE'RE INVOLVED WITH A JURY TRIAL WITH
12 SEATED JURORS, AND WE HAVE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE STAR MAGAZINE.
MS. CLARK: NOT TRUE.
MR. SHAPIRO: HOW DID THEY GET THIS?
HERE IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE, JUDGE.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONDUCT INQUIRY HOW DID THEY GET
THIS MEMORANDUM. DID THEY STEAL IT? WAS IT SENT TO THEM? HOW
DID THEY GET THIS MEMORANDUM FROM MR. FROST, NUMBER ONE?
AND, NUMBER TWO, TO CALL IN ALL MEMBERS WHO ARE
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE PRESS RELATIONS FROM THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ALL INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE INVOLVED AND SEE
WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS
MEETING WITH STAR MAGAZINE.
MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, HOW DARE HE. HOW DARE HE WITH
JOHNNIE COCHRAN --
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, PLEASE. PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: HE DOES NOT COME IN WITH CLEAN HANDS, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
I'M GOING TO DECLINE THAT INVITATION AT THIS POINT
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET SIDETRACKED INTO THAT ISSUE. BUT I
AM VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED, THAT MY ORDER WAS CLEAR FOR THE
D.A.'S OFFICE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.
ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: WE ABIDED BY THAT ORDER.
THE COURT: WELL --
MS. CLARK: AND THIS WITNESS -- UNTIL THIS WITNESS CAME
FORWARD WHO WANTED TO GET HER INFORMATION TO THE COURT. THIS IS
AN UNUSUAL SITUATION.
THE COURT: WHAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED WAS, THAT PERSON
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE COURT. THIS PERSON --
MR. DARDEN: SHE ALREADY HAD.
THE COURT: THIS PERSON HAS NOT CONTACTED THIS COURT. WE
HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY "H", AND THE COURT SCHEDULED TO TAKE
ACTION ON THAT, TO MAKE INQUIRY.
I THINK FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO 228 IS WARRANTED AT
THIS POINT IN TIME. I WOULD LIKE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S FILE
TURNED OVER TO THE COURT BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD ALSO LIKE A COPY OF THAT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AND I WILL EXAMINE THE FILE AND SEE WHAT, IN MY
OPINION, FURTHER INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I AGREE, FURTHER INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH
REGARD TO 228. BUT IT LOOKS TO ME -- LET'S SEE.
AS I RECALL, TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00, WE HAVE THE
DARDEN MOTION. 9:30, WE HAVE THE STATEMENTS MOTION.
AND WAS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THE AFTERNOON TOMORROW
OR WAS IT MONDAY?
MS. CLARK: AFTERNOON TOMORROW AND --
MR. COCHRAN: MID AFTERNOON.
MR. HODGMAN: MONDAY MORNING, MID AFTERNOON TOMORROW. AT
LEAST THESE ARE PERSONALLY -- PERSONAL COMMITMENTS THAT I MADE.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: NO PROBLEM WITH SCHEDULING.
MR. HODGMAN: WE HAVE THAT MATTER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF A LETTER THAT WENT TO THE COURT AS WELL.
THE COURT: SCHEDULING --
MR. HODGMAN: AND THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP TOMORROW.
THE COURT: I AGREE.
WE HAVE OUR PLATE FULL FOR TOMORROW MORNING. BUT I
WANT TO -- AFTER I EXAMINE THAT FILE, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO FURTHER ABOUT THIS.
SINCE WE ARE NOT GETTING TO THE ACTUAL OPENING
STATEMENTS UNTIL PROBABLY MID JANUARY, THERE IS TIME FOR THE
COURT TO CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS,
WE WOULD LIKE -- AND WE ARE ABIDING BY YOUR ORDER, BUT WE WOULD
LIKE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO PRESENT SOME WITNESSES WE --
THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. COCHRAN: SO WE'RE GOING TO EXCUSE HER I ASSUME TODAY,
BUT WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES ALSO THAT THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO,
PRESUMING YOU WILL LET US DO THAT.
THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. DARDEN: I OBJECT. WHY DON'T I GET TO CALL MY
WITNESSES ON THE ISSUE --
MR. COCHRAN: WE SAID WE WANT TO PRESENT WITNESSES.
THE COURT: THEIR WITNESS IS "Q".
MR. DARDEN: HE SAID WITNESSES.
MR. COCHRAN: I WAS TALKING ABOUT "Q", WHO HAPPENS TO BE
HERE. WE ASKED HER TO COME DOWN.
WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY TOO, WE WILL HAVE OTHER
WITNESSES BASED UPON WHAT HAPPENS. CLEARLY, I DON'T THINK THAT
-- I KNOW HERTZ, MY FIRM KNOWS HERTZ.
AND SO I DON'T WANT THEM TO THINK THEY ARE THE ONLY
ONES THAT CAN GO OUT AND ASK WITNESSES AND STUFF. I'LL HAVE
WITNESSES MORE RECENT THAN 14 YEARS AGO I BET WITHOUT DOING ANY
INVESTIGATION.
THE POINT IS, WE UNDERSTOOD AND HAVE ABIDED BY THE
COURT'S RULING. WE DON'T MAKE EXCUSES FOR SOMETHING WHEN WE'VE
DONE WRONG.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I'VE ALREADY EXPRESSED IN MY LOW
KEY MANNER MY DISPLEASURE.
MR. COCHRAN: YES. YOU'RE RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: LET ME INDICATE ALSO THOUGH IN CASE THE COURT
HAS ANY DESIRE TO BELIEVE MR. SHAPIRO'S REPRESENTATIONS
CONCERNING PATTI JO FAIRBANKS, SHE NEVER DIRECTED ANYONE TO SPEAK
TO THE TABLOIDS.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT WAS DEALT WITH
DOWN AT MUNICIPAL COURT THAT I CARE LITTLE ABOUT AT THIS POINT
UNLESS AND UNTIL WE EVER SEE "FF" AGAIN. IF WE SEE "FF" AGAIN,
THEN I'LL WORRY ABOUT IT. BUT I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT TODAY.
THE SCHEDULE FOR TOMORROW WILL BE AS WE DETAILED. WE
NEED TO TALK TO -- WHO IS IT? 320?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. 320.
THE COURT: I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY ON 320.
TOMORROW, FIRST THE DARDEN MOTION, THEN JAIL VISIT
MOTION, THEN SCHEDULING FOR THE DNA HEARING, AND THEN I WILL TELL
YOU WHAT IT IS WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH REGARD TO 228 FROM THAT
POINT ON.
MR. COCHRAN: GREAT, JUDGE. WE HAVE 320.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION ANYWAY?
THE COURT: AND, CHRIS, WOULD YOU CALL RICK AND ASK HIM
WHERE THE FILE IS ON OUR FIRST INQUIRY TO THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE I HAD FORGOTTEN THE NAME OF THE DETECTIVE WHO
IS ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE.
(DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEYS AND THE COURT WAS
HELD, NOT REPORTED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD.
COUNSEL, WITH REGARDS TO THIS MATTER, THE MEMO IS
DATED DECEMBER THE 2ND FROM "A", WHO APPEARS TO BE A RECEPTIONIST
WITH THE LAW OFFICES OF MR. COCHRAN FROM THE MEMORANDUM. AND I'M
GOING TO ASK MRS. ROBERTSON TO FILE THIS IN THE COURT FILE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME.
THE PERSON IS DESCRIBED AS A COWORKER WHO WAS
HISPANIC AND FEMALE, AND THE CALL IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE
NOVEMBER THE 16TH, 1994, WHICH WAS AFTER WE SELECTED THE ORIGINAL
12 JURORS IN THIS CASE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE?
MR. COCHRAN: ONLY THAT --
THE COURT: WE SEEM TO HAVE A HAPPY GROUP OF JURORS.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT'S THEIR FRIENDS, NOT -- MAYBE NOT SO
MUCH THE JURORS.
I JUST THOUGHT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WE NEEDED
TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.
WHEN WE CAME BACK FROM COURT THAT DAY, "A" TOLD US
ABOUT THIS. I ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO HAVE THIS PUT IN SOME KIND OF
MEMO FORM, AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD PRESENT IT TO
YOUR HONOR.
THAT'S ALL THAT WE'VE DONE. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY
INVESTIGATION. WE HAVEN'T GONE ANY FURTHER. I JUST THINK WE
SHOULD MAKE INQUIRY --
MS. CLARK: COUNSEL COULDN'T INVESTIGATE IT BECAUSE SHE WAS
ANONYMOUS, LEFT NO PHONE NUMBER.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT I WOULDN'T EVEN IF I COULD HAVE. I
UNDERSTAND THE JURY IS THE COURT'S PROVINCE.
MS. CLARK: WE WILL SEE IF COUNSEL FACES TEMPTATION.
THE COURT: IS "A" AVAILABLE? BECAUSE THIS STATEMENT IS A
LITTLE OBLIQUE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY WAS SAID BECAUSE IT SAYS SHE
TALKED ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THE DEFENDANT AND BEATING HIS WIFE.
IS THERE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO WHAT EXACTLY WAS
SAID?
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOT TALKED TO "A" ABOUT THAT. PERHAPS
SHE CAN BE AVAILABLE BY PHONE IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO HER.
CARL, YOU WANT TO -- I DIDN'T ASK HER ANYTHING. I
STAYED AWAY FROM HER.
THE COURT: MY CONCERN, MR. DOUGLAS, IS BASICALLY THIS.
THIS IS AN ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL OBLIQUELY ACCUSING A
FEMALE HISPANIC, WHICH BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION IN A DEMOGRAPHIC
DESCRIPTION OF WHO WE HAVE IN OUR ORIGINAL 12, COULD ONLY BE ONE
OR TWO PERSONS. ONE, PERHAPS THE SECOND PERSON.
SO THE OTHER INQUIRY THAT I WOULD MAKE, COULD THERE
HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL?
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, I WAS ASKED TO CALL ASKING "A"
RECENTLY TO DRAFT THIS LETTER AND ASKING HER ABOUT THE CONTENT OF
THE TELEPHONE CALL.
SHE SAID THAT THE CALLER DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE
JUROR HAD HERSELF BEEN THE VICTIM OF SOME SORT OF NON-PHYSICAL
ABUSE BY THE JUROR'S HUSBAND AND WAS RELATING THE JUROR'S OWN
EXPERIENCE AND THIS EXPERIENCE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE. IT
HAD OCCURRED AFTER THE JURY HAD BEEN SELECTED.
BY COINCIDENCE, I LOOKED AT JUROR 320'S
QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE JUROR HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO
MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE, ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT SAY PHYSICAL
ABUSE, IN TERMS OF HAVING PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE.
AND I DO NOT RECALL MORE ABOUT THE EXACT SPECIFICS OF
THE NATURE OF THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT MR. SIMPSON AND HIS
WIFE. BUT I DO KNOW, BECAUSE "A" TOLD ME, THAT THE JUROR HERSELF
HAD IN FACT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ABUSE.
INTERESTINGLY, I WILL TELL YOU ALSO I RECALL THAT THE
JUROR'S HUSBAND HAS MORE RECENTLY CALLED "A" TO DENY THAT HE HAD
EVER COMMITTED ANY PHYSICAL ABUSE ON THE JUROR.
SO THAT'S WHAT CAUSED ME TO LOOK AT THE
QUESTIONNAIRE. I WOULD SAY THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE REFERRED TO
MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL, NOT PHYSICAL ABUSE.
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT POINT.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN: SHORTLY BEFORE THE LUNCH RECESS WHEN I WENT TO
THE TELEPHONE --
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, YOU SEEM TO BE A MAGNET FOR THIS
KIND OF STUFF.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT TOMORROW MORNING.
YOU'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
MR. DARDEN: AFTER THE DARDEN WRIT?
THE COURT: HE'LL BE DOWN AT THE COURT OF APPEAL SEEKING A
WRIT.
MR. DARDEN: I GOT A CALL FROM A GUY NAMED "R", WHOSE
TELEPHONE NUMBER IS ***, THOUGH HE THINKS IT'S ************, AND
HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT 320 WHO WAS ON THE JURY AND SAID
THAT SHE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD BEATEN HER WHEN HE HAD NOT AND --
MR. COCHRAN: MUST BE THE SAME GUY.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS YOUR GUY. HE HAS CALLED US -- HE'S
BEEN CALLING US FOR A WEEK.
MR. COCHRAN: THERE WAS ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD.
I NOTICED YESTERDAY WHEN NO. 320 CAME IN, HER MOUTH
SEEM TO BE BRUISED OR -- DID YOU --
MS. CLARK: COLD SORE, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE CLOSER THAN WE WERE.
I SAW A BRUISE ON HER MOUTH. IT CONCERNED ME. I
MENTIONED IT TO BOB. I WONDERED IF SOMEONE STRUCK HER. THERE
SEEMED TO BE A MARK OR SOMETHING ON HER MOUTH.
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. COCHRAN.
IS "A" AVAILABLE TO COME IN AND CHAT WITH US
TOMORROW?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. IT WILL DISRUPT MY WHOLE ORGANIZATION,
BUT YES. SHE IS ONE OF MY RECEPTIONISTS. WE CAN BRING HER IN.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE BOTH HER AND MR. DARDEN PUT
UNDER OATH.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MUCH MORE
DETAIL FROM HER RECOLLECTION THAN IS CONVEYED IN THE MEMORANDUM.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
THE COURT: I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE HER TESTIMONY BEFORE WE
DRAG SOMEBODY IN HERE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVE HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: THE ONLY PROBLEM WE HAVE, JUDGE -- AND MAYBE
WE CAN WORK THIS OUT.
THE COURT: I'M RELUCTANT TO TAKE ANY ACTION JUST ON
ANONYMOUS INFORMATION.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME THROW THIS AT YOU, JUDGE.
THE COURT: WHY NOT?
MR. COCHRAN: NO. I DON'T WANT TO THROW ANYTHING AT YOU.
SHE MAY HAVE A PROBLEM COMING HERE BY HERSELF. BUT
IF IT'S OKAY, WE MAY WANT TO DO IT ON MONDAY.
THE COURT: I WANT TO HAVE -- WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME
TO DO ALL OF THIS TOMORROW. WE CAN HAVE HER COME BACK ON MONDAY
WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU'LL MAKE THIS PERSON
AVAILABLE TOMORROW?
MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL HAVE HER HERE. SHAUN WILL BRING HER
PERSONALLY TOMORROW.
THE COURT: SO WE'RE CLEAR, WE WILL DO THOSE MATTERS.
AND, MR. DARDEN, YOU'LL HAVE THE D.A.'S FILE FOR ME
BY 5:00 O'CLOCK, CORRECT?
MR. SHAPIRO: JUST MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WE GO BACK OUT ON THE RECORD AND THAT
PERHAPS YOU MAKE AT LEAST AN INDICATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN
INQUIRY AND THE JURY REMAINS INTACT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: I DISAGREE, BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
TO -- AT SOME POINT, IT'S GOING TO BECOME KNOWLEDGE THAT ONE OF
THEM MAY NOT -- AND UNLESS COUNSEL WANTS ATTENTION DRAWN TO THAT
-- WE HAVE NOT COMPLETED INQUIRY.
THE COURT: I'M JUST GOING TO GO OUT AND THANK THEM FOR
THEIR PATIENCE, EXCUSE THEM AND ORDER THEM BACK FOR MONDAY. AND
IT WAS 1:30 AS I RECALL MONDAY?
MS. CLARK: YEAH.
****
January 9, 1995:
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995
9:15 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(ALSO APPEARING: DEPUTY RUFUS S.
DOWNS, 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. WE ARE IN CHAMBERS ON THE RECORD
WITH MR. HODGMAN, MR. DARDEN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. BAILEY, MR.
COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS AND DEPUTY DOWNS.
WE JUST HAVE A FEW INFORMAL THINGS ON THE CALENDAR
FOR TODAY. WE HAVE "R" WHO IS A WITNESS REGARDING ALLEGED
MISCONDUCT OR MISREPRESENTATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY
JUROR NO. 320 AND WE WILL SPEAK WITH HIM SHORTLY.
THE COURT ALSO NEEDS TO ISSUE A RULING REGARDING
JUROR NO. 228, SINCE IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO SEQUESTER THIS
FELLOW IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO KEEP HIM AS A TRIAL JUROR.
ALSO, THE COURT NEEDS TO FORMALLY IMPOSE THE
SEQUESTRATION ORDER AND TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDERS TO THE JURORS
NOT TO DISCLOSE THE LOCATION OF WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BE
SEQUESTERED, THE MEETING PLACES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
I ALSO HAVE A HAIR AND FIBER EVIDENCE REPORT FROM THE
FBI.
AND MR. HODGMAN, HERE IS THE PROSECUTION COPY. MR.
SHAPIRO, THE DEFENSE COPY.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: AND YOU ALSO RECEIVED A COPY OF DEPUTY DOWN'S
REPORT THAT IS DATED DECEMBER 19, 1994, AND THEY HAVE "R" WAITING
OUTSIDE.
MR. COCHRAN: WE MAY WANT TO SWITCH AROUND BECAUSE I'M
GOING TO BE EXAMINING.
YOUR HONOR, ONE QUESTION ABOUT NO. 228. WE CAN'T DO
THE INVESTIGATION -- JUST A THOUGHT. AS I RECALL, WE HAVE HEARD
>FROM HIM AND BASICALLY HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE DID NOT SHAKE
HANDS OR RECALL SHAKING HANDS WITH MR. SIMPSON. HE WAS PART OF
THIS THING AND SAID I KNEW HIM AND DID NOTHING WRONG, ET CETERA,
ET CETERA.
WE THEN HAVE THESE LADIES WHO HAVE KIND OF A MIXED
BAG OF TESTIMONY. YOU RECALL THAT?
THE COURT: UH-HUH.
MR. COCHRAN: IT SEEMS TO ME, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PROLONG
ANYTHING, BUT SHOULD DEPUTY DOWNS INTERVIEW NO. 228, HE MAY HAVE
PEOPLE WHO BACK UP WHAT HE SAYS, AND IN THE COURSE OF AN
INVESTIGATION, I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE FAIRER TO HIM.
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF
AN ISSUE. WE, IN THE COURSE OF -- OF INTERROGATING HIM, NEVER
ASKED HIM, GEE NO. 228, WHO ELSE DO YOU HAVE THAT MAYBE WAS THERE
TO BACK YOU UP?
SINCE WE CAN'T DO THE INVESTIGATION OURSELVES --
THE COURT: UH-HUH.
MR. COCHRAN: -- I WANT TO JUST BE FAIR TO HIM FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE FAIR, SO I WANT TO
THROW THAT OUT FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION, SINCE HE IS GOING
TO BE HERE TODAY, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR RULING, IF DEPUTY DOWNS
MIGHT TALK TO HIM. HE MAY BE ABLE TO SHED SOME ADDITIONAL LIGHT
BECAUSE, SEE, WE NEVER TALKED BACK TO HIM ABOUT WHAT THESE
LADIES, WHATEVER THEIR MOTIVATION WAS, WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT THE
FACT THAT HE MUST HAVE SEEN HIM IN LINE OR SHOOK HIS HAND.
HE WAS PART OF THAT COMMITTEE AND I JUST THINK OUT OF
FAIRNESS THE COURT MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT.
MR. HODGMAN: WHAT IS THE COURT'S INTENTION ON THAT?
THE COURT: WELL, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR DEPUTY DOWNS TO
MERELY ASK HIM IF THERE IS ANYBODY WHO CAN CORROBORATE --
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT HE SAYS.
THE COURT: -- 228'S VERSION THAT HE DID NOT IN FACT --
MR. HODGMAN: AND JUDGE, I THINK AT THIS POINT THIS TIME IT
SEEMS THE SITUATION SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR WITH REGARD TO 228, AND IT
IS SIMPLY INCUMBENT UPON THE COURT TO MAKE A CALL.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I --
THE COURT: THE THING, MR. HODGMAN -- I JUST FEEL A
NECESSITY, SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT JURORS HERE, CITIZEN
JURORS, TO BE AS CAUTIOUS AS POSSIBLE.
I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN HAVING DEPUTY DOWNS -- DEPUTY
DOWNS MAY NOT ENJOY THIS, BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM ASKING DEPUTY
DOWNS TO SPEAK TO 228 TO SEE IF HE CAN TELL US IF THERE IS
ANYBODY WHO WAS PRESENT THAT HE CAN RECALL WHO MIGHT RECALL THE
EVENTS DIFFERENTLY, AND I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN HIM ASKING THAT
QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK -- ACTUALLY MY POINT -- IT IS NOT
CLEAR, EVEN AMONG FRIENDS HERE OR ADVOCATES -- HE MAY THINK IT IS
CLEAR. IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME, SO I THINK THAT FROM THAT
STANDPOINT CERTAINLY THE PERCEPTION A GUY WHO VOLUNTEERS HIS
TIME DESERVES THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AND IN ANY OTHER CASE YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR REBUTTAL OR WHATEVER, SO THE WAY THE INVESTIGATION IS SET UP,
UNTIL DEPUTY DOWNS TALKS TO HIM, WE WILL NEVER FIND THAT OUT
THEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
DO YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR MISS CLARK BEFORE WE START
INTERVIEWING THIS WITNESS REGARDING 320?
MR. HODGMAN: YES. IT IS FAIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN IN LIGHT OF THAT, THEN 228 MAY
FIND HIMSELF SEQUESTERED BEFORE A FINAL RULING.
MR. COCHRAN: IF HE HAS SOMEBODY, AND THAT IS BETTER THAN
TO HAVE HIM OUT WRITING A BOOK AND SAYING HOW UNFAIR EVERYBODY
WAS TO HIM, ET CETERA, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I CAN PROVE IT.
THE COURT: I THINK ANYTIME WE ARE DEALING WITH A JUROR --
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK SO.
THE COURT: -- WE HAVE TO ACCORD THEM SOME SIGNIFICANT DUE
PROCESS SIMPLY BECAUSE -- I MEAN, THEY ARE HERE VOLUNTARILY, SO
TO SPEAK.
MR. COCHRAN: AND HE DID TELL US THAT HE WORKED FOR HERTZ.
I MEAN, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
THE COURT: I AGREE. I AGREE.
DEPUTY DOWNS, ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT?
DEPUTY DOWNS: I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH IT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. HE WILL BE HERE AT TEN O'CLOCK TODAY, SO
YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, WHICH SHOULD BE SHORTLY.
SO PROBABLY WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO -- WHAT I
ENVISION IS THAT AFTER WE TALK TO "R", THEN I WILL WANT TO TALK
TO 320 TO SEE WHAT HER RESPONSE IS TO HIS COMMENTS, AND WHEN WE
INVITE HER IN, AND AFTER WE TALK TO HER, WE CAN BRING 228 OUT
ALSO AND THEN POSE THE QUESTION TO HIM, AND IF HE HAS NOTHING TO
OFFER AT THAT POINT, THEN THE RECORD WILL BE CLEAR. IF HE HAS
SOMETHING TO ADD, THEN DEPUTY -- FOR DEPUTY DOWNS TO CHECK OUT,
THEN WE MAY HAVE TO POSTPONE ANY RULING PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
DEPUTY DOWN'S FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, ARGUMENT ON THE JURORS, DO YOU WANT TO
HEAR ARGUMENT FROM COUNSEL REGARDING WHAT ROLE -- WHAT SHOULD
HAPPEN TO THESE PEOPLE, SAY, 320 AND 228?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ARGUMENT AT SOME POINT
>FROM US ABOUT THE VARIOUS SIDES OR DO YOU WANT US TO SUBMIT IT?
THE COURT: SURE, SURE. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT.
I INVITE YOUR COMMENT, OBVIOUSLY. I THINK YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO COMMENT, BUT LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THE COMPLETE
RECORD.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. HODGMAN: WE WILL BE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
THE COURT: OKAY.
WE NOW HAVE ALL OF OUR PARTIES AVAILABLE AND WE WILL
NOW PROCEED TO THE INTERVIEW OF "R", WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO
JUROR NO. 320.
ANY COMMENT BEFORE WE INVITE "R" TO JOIN US?
ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY DOWNS, IF YOU WOULD ASK DEPUTY
BROWN TO BRING IN "R", PLEASE.
DEPUTY DOWNS: SURE.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU WILL ALLOW US TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
DEPUTY DOWNS: YOUR HONOR, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, "R".
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
"R".
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: COME ON IN AND HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
"R", WE ARE HERE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS, BASICALLY
TO INTERVIEW YOU, REGARDING KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE REGARDING
JUROR NO. 320, WHOSE ACTUAL NAME IS 320.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME TELL YOU HOW WE ARE GOING TO
PROCEED. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE CLERK PLACE YOU UNDER OATH. WE
HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE WHO WILL TAKE DOWN EVERYTHING THAT
GOES ON HERE IN CHAMBERS TODAY.
AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS ISSUE,
THIS COURT FILE IS GOING TO BE -- THIS PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE SEALED AND WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC AND WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE UPON COURT'S ORDER OR UPON
DIRECTION BY ANY COURT OF APPEAL, FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
BEFORE WE START, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SIR?
"R": NO, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU
ADMINISTER THE OATH, PLEASE.
"R",
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE COURT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: THE CLERK: SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR
RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED.
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE
RECORD.
THE WITNESS: "R".
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, "R".
"R", CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP IS WITH
320?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. WE HAVE, UMM -- UMM, LIVED
TOGETHER FOR THE PAST FOURTEEN YEARS. WE GREW UP TOGETHER AND
KNEW EACH OTHER THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AND STUFF. WE HAVE A
DAUGHTER TOGETHER AND A STEPDAUGHTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF
YOUR RELATIONSHIP?
THE WITNESS: WE HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FOR SEVERAL YEARS,
UMM, ON OR OFF AGAIN RELATIONSHIP, AND AT THE MOMENT WE ARE -- I
HAVE HAD A RESTRAINING ORDER PLACED AGAINST ME RECENTLY IN THE
LAST TWO WEEKS, AS A MATTER OF FACT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU
ACTUALLY LIVED WITH 320, SHARED THE SAME RESIDENCE?
THE WITNESS: ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SINCE YOU SEPARATED FROM HER CAN
YOU TELL ME WHAT THE -- HOW YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE YOUR
RELATIONSHIP?
THE WITNESS: WELL, SIR, UNTIL -- UNTIL A WEEK AND A HALF
AGO OUR RELATIONSHIP WAS -- THE REASON FOR THE SEPARATION TO
BEGIN WITH WAS SO THAT OUR DAUGHTERS COULD ATTEND A SCHOOL OVER
IN ..... AREA INSTEAD OF IN THE ..... AREA. THAT WAS THE REASON
FOR THE SEPARATION TO BEGIN WITH.
TWO WEEKS AGO IS WHEN I FOUND OUT I WAS NO LONGER
WANTED IN 320'S LIFE, OKAY?
UP -- THE DAY JUST -- THE DAY BEFORE I FOUND THAT
OUT, WE WERE TOGETHER AND WE WERE TALKING WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT
DIFFERENT ASPECTS, AND ABOUT GETTING BACK TOGETHER AGAIN, AND I
WENT OVER THERE TO PICK MY DAUGHTER UP SO COULD I HAVE HER FOR
THAT WEEKEND.
I WAS -- SHE STATED TO ME THEN THAT SHE WAS GOING OUT
OF TOWN FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS WITH SOME GIRLFRIENDS FROM WORK.
WELL, SHE WENT OUT OF TOWN THAT WEEKEND WITH HER BOYFRIEND AND
THAT WAS THE FIRST -- THE FOLLOWING MONDAY IS WHEN I FOUND OUT I
WAS NO LONGER WANTED IN HER LIFE.
THE COURT: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: WHEN I CONFRONTED HER WITH THAT FACT --
THE COURT: OKAY.
NOW, YOU HAVE CONTACTED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE REGARDING
320. FIRST OF ALL, APPARENTLY YOU CONTACTED THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL'S OFFICE?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND ALSO THE
COURT, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT BRINGS YOU HERE TODAY.
AND YOU HAVE EXPRESSED SOME OPINION REGARDING THE
FITNESS OF 320 TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR IN THIS CASE.
CAN YOU TELL ME, FIRST OF ALL, HOW IT IS THAT YOU
BECAME AWARE THAT 320 WAS A JUROR ON THIS CASE?
THE WITNESS: I FOUND OUT -- I WANTED -- I WANTED TO TAKE
MY DAUGHTER SOMEWHERE FOR A WEEKEND A WHILE BACK AND 320 HAD
STATED TO ME THAT -- SHE GOES, "WELL, INSTEAD OF YOU TAKING HER
FOR THE WEEKEND, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE HER DURING THE WEEK" BECAUSE
SHE HAD TO REPORT DOWN HERE FOR JURY DUTY.
THE COURT: HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT SHE WAS A JUROR
ON THIS CASE?
THE WITNESS: ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
THE COURT: YES.
THE WITNESS: WELL, WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT. WHEN -- THE DAY
SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, SHE CALLED AND LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE SHE
WAS -- SHE STARTED MAKING ARRANGEMENTS TO MOVE OUT OF HER
APARTMENT.
THE COURT: AS SOON AS SHE BECAME A JUROR ON THIS CASE?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: WHY WAS THAT NECESSARY?
THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.
THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU FEEL MAKES 320
UNSUITABLE TO BE A JUROR ON THIS CASE? WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL THAT
SHE HAS MISREPRESENTED OR SOMEHOW NOT BEEN TRUTHFUL WITH THE
COURT AND WITH THE LAWYERS CONCERNING HER BACKGROUND?
THE WITNESS: UMM, YOU KNOW THAT 320 IS PREJUDICED, OKAY?
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SHE DOESN'T LIVE WITH ME AND NEVER
DID PARTICULARLY WANT TO STAY WITH ME IN THE CITY OF ....., EVEN
THOUGH THAT IS WHERE WE WERE RAISED AT, OKAY?
JUST, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT -- SHE HAS STATED THAT TO
ME PERSONALLY. THAT IS THE NO. 1.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT SHE SAID.
THE WITNESS: WELL, OVER THE COURSE OF OUR -- OF OUR --
THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME SPECIFIC --
THE WITNESS: KNOWING EACH OTHER -- 320 HAD PROBLEMS WHEN
WE FIRST -- WHEN 320 AND I FIRST MET EACH OTHER, SHE HAD A LOT OF
DIFFERENT PROBLEMS GOING ON, AND THROUGH THE COURSE OF OUR
RELATIONSHIP GROWING IN THAT PERIOD, YOU KNOW, I STARTED ASKING
HER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY SHE ACTED CERTAIN WAYS, YOU KNOW, IN
CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND WHY -- BEING -- MY PROFESSION WAS A
FIREFIGHTER WITH THE CITY OF ....., OKAY?
THERE ARE -- I WORKED SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH A LOT OF
BLACK FIREMEN, OKAY?
SOME OF THEM WERE VERY CLOSE FRIENDS OF MINE. THEY
WERE NEVER REALLY ACCEPTED, YOU KNOW, BY 320 AS FRIENDS OF MINE,
OKAY?
AND SO WHEN I STARTED ASKING HER ABOUT -- ABOUT WHY
-- IF WE WENT TO A PARTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, "WHY DON'T YOU
RELAX A LITTLE BIT, 320, EVERYBODY HERE IS FRIENDS," SHE WOULD
SAY -- SHE TOLD ME THAT GROWING UP AS A CHILD SHE HAD BEEN, I'M
NOT GOING TO SAY MOLESTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT ACCOSTED,
YOU KNOW, BY SOME -- SOME BLACK GENTLEMEN, AND I MEAN YOU KNOW
LIKE JUST CERTAIN OTHER THINGS, YOU KNOW, JUST CERTAIN OTHER
ASPECTS OF IT, DEALING WITH NEIGHBORS -- NEIGHBORS AND/OR TENANTS
AROUND OUR -- THE -- MY APARTMENTS IN ..... AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SHE JUST CAN'T -- CAN'T DO IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT IMPACTS HER
ABILITY TO BE A JUROR ON THIS CASE?
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
O.J. SIMPSON IS A BLACK MAN. WE -- I HAVE BEEN
ACCUSED RECENTLY OF -- THIS WHOLE THING CAME ABOUT, YOUR HONOR,
ONE EVENING I'M SITTING AT HOME, MY SISTER CALLS ME AND SHE SAYS
-- ME ASKED ME IF -- SHE GOES, "R," ARE YOU WATCHING TELEVISION?"
I SAID, "NO."
SHE GOES, "IS 320 ON THIS O.J. SIMPSON JURY?"
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 320 TAKE MY DAUGHTER OVER TO MY MOM'S HOUSE
AND SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT SHE HAD JURY DUTY AND SHE WAS ON JURY
DUTY.
SO THEY HAD A DRAWING OF THE JURY. SOMEBODY HAD DRAWN
AN ARTIST SKETCH AND THEY SHOWED IT ON TELEVISION, AND ONE -- ONE
AFTERNOON AT DISNEYLAND SHE HAD ONE OF THESE ARTIST SKETCHES DONE
OF HERSELF AND IT WAS IDENTICAL.
ALL OF OUR FRIENDS KNEW WHO IT WAS, EVERYBODY AT THAT
-- ON THAT SAME SHOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS WATCHING, BUT ON
THAT SAME SHOW THEY MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE JURORS, A 38-YEAR
OLD POSTAL SERVICE HISPANIC WOMAN, HAS JUST ENDED A 14-YEAR
RELATIONSHIP THAT HAD PHYSICAL ABUSE, MENTAL ABUSE AND WHATEVER
ELSE THAT THEY ADDED TO IT.
SHE ASKED ME IF I HAD SEEN THAT AND I SAID, "NO." I
STARTED LAUGHING. I SAID, "NO, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT."
ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES LATER, A FRIEND OF MINE I
HAVEN'T SEEN IN SIX YEARS CALLS ME ON THE TELEPHONE AND ASKS ME
ABOUT THE SAME THING.
WITHIN THIRTY MINUTES, MAYBE TWELVE PEOPLE HAVE
CALLED ME. SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE I HAVEN'T SEEN IN FIVE, SIX
YEARS, AND THEY ARE ASKING ME ABOUT THIS -- THEY KNOW 320 AND I
PERSONALLY, AND THEY HAD SEEN THIS -- TWO DAYS LATER IS WHEN I
SEEN IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THAT IS WHEN I MADE MY FIRST CALL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
TELL ME ABOUT -- YOU INDICATED IN YOUR COMMENTS TO
DEPUTY DOWNS THAT YOU FEEL SHE IS EXTREMELY PREJUDICED AGAINST
AFRICAN AMERICANS OR BLACK AMERICANS. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THAT
MANIFESTS ITSELF? HOW DOES SHE EXHIBIT THAT?
THE WITNESS: SHE JUST DOESN'T DEAL WITH THEM. SHE AVOIDS
IT. SHE AVOIDS BLACK PEOPLE.
THE COURT: AREN'T SEVERAL OF HER CO-WORKERS AT THE
.......... ALSO AFRICAN AMERICANS?
THE WITNESS: YES. YES, SIR, I WOULD IMAGINE SO. I CAN
TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS EVER BEEN TO HER HOME.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME --
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, YOUR HONOR. I'M
JUST SAYING I BELIEVE NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN TO HER HOME.
THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ARE
AWARE OF ONE OTHER PERSON BY THE NAME OF "S" WHO WAS A FELLOW
EMPLOYEE AT THE POSTAL SERVICE WHO MIGHT ALSO HAVE INFORMATION
FOR US.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO
IDENTIFY THIS PERSON?
THE WITNESS: "S" IS THE ONLY -- OUT OF ALL 320 BRAND NEW
FRIENDS, OKAY, "S" IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE EVER MET AND HAD
A CONVERSATION WITH.
THE COURT: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THIS PERSON FOR US?
THE WITNESS: YES. SHE IS MEXICAN AMERICAN. SHE HAS
LIGHT-COLORED REDDISH TYPE -- REDDISH HAIR, I BELIEVE, ABOUT 5-6.
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHERE SHE WORKS, WHAT POSTAL
FACILITY?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. ........ --
.......................... IN ........
THE COURT: AND WHAT INFORMATION WOULD "S" HAVE? YOU DON'T
HAVE ANY INCLINATION AS TO WHAT HER LAST NAME IS?
THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, I DON'T.
THE COURT: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION SHE
WOULD HAVE, BUT I DO KNOW THAT 320 SPEAKS WITH "S" A LOT. SHE
MENTIONS HER NAME A LOT.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND THIS IS OUT THE ........ .......
AND THEY ARE AT THE SAME WORK STATION THERE?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: WHAT DOES 320 DO FOR THE .... ......?
THE WITNESS: SHE ...........
THE COURT: SHE IS A .... .......?
THE WITNESS: ......
THE COURT: SO "S" IS PROBABLY ANOTHER .... .......?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME A -- YOU INDICATED TO DEPUTY
DOWNS THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE 320 HAS MADE RACIST OR DEROGATORY
COMMENTS REGARDING AFRICAN AMERICANS.
CAN YOU TELL ME -- GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THOSE
MIGHT BE?
THE WITNESS: YES. SHE -- UMM, THE TERM "NIGGER"" IS --
SHE CAN USE THAT WORD ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME, OKAY? I MEAN,
CALLING PEOPLE THIS, YOU KNOW, CALLING STRAIGHT OUT -- TELLING
PEOPLE THIS.
MY -- PERSONALLY MYSELF, I DON'T LIKE THAT WORD
MYSELF. IT WAS NEVER USED IN MY FAMILY. I TEACH MY KIDS NOT TO
USE THAT WORD, AND IT IS KIND OF HARD TO DO WHEN THEIR MOTHER IS
USING THE WORD ALL THE TIME.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS, TOO, YOUR HONOR, 320 IS NOT JUST
PREJUDICED AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE; SHE IS ALSO PREJUDICED AGAINST
MEXICAN PEOPLE.
THE COURT: HOW DOES THAT MANIFEST ITSELF? HOW DOES SHE
DISPLAY THAT?
THE WITNESS: IN HER TONE OF VOICE AND ALSO DEALING WITH
PEOPLE. SHE -- SHE SPEAKS FLUENT SPANISH AND SHE DOESN'T LIKE TO
USE IT, EVEN IF WE WERE GOING FOR A WEEK OR SO DOWN IN MEXICO OR
SOMETHING FOR VACATION OR ANYTHING. SHE DOESN'T LIKE TO SPEAK
SPANISH.
AND SPANISH IS ALL THAT IS SPOKEN IN HER MOTHER AND
FATHER'S HOME WHO IS IN CHARGE OF TAKING CARE OF MY DAUGHTER IN
THE EVENING UNTIL SHE IS PICKED UP AFTER SCHOOL.
WHEN -- WHEN "T" -- WHEN "T", THE OLDEST GIRL, WAS
BORN, AND SHE WAS AT HER GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE, ALL THE TIME, I
MADE IT -- I MADE IT KNOWN THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE
TO SPEAK SPANISH, AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS -- THAT I FELT THAT
AS THOUGH IT WAS, UMM, MANDATORY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK
SPANISH, GIVEN THE AREA IN WHICH WE LIVE IN.
AT THAT POINT, UP UNTIL THAT POINT, THE GRANDMOTHER
AND GRANDFATHER WOULD USE SPANISH WITH THE GIRLS. ONCE I -- ONCE
I MADE IT KNOWN THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO USE THE SPANISH
EVEN MORE SO WITH THEM, THAT IS WHEN THEY STOPPED USING SPANISH
ALTOGETHER.
AND NEITHER ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS, WHO IS WITH THEIR
SPANISH-SPEAKING GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER ALL THE TIME, MOST
OF THE TIME, NEITHER ONE OF THEM SPEAK SPANISH.
THE COURT: HOW LONG AGO DID THIS PROBLEM REGARDING THE
LANGUAGE OCCUR?
THE WITNESS: OH, THIS IS -- I MADE THAT KNOWN WHEN "U" WAS
BORN AND THAT WAS IN '83.
THE COURT: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: I TOLD THEM THE NIGHT SHE WAS BORN. I SAID,
"THIS CHILD HAS GOT TO LEARN HOW TO SPEAK SPANISH TO MAKE IT IN
THE FUTURE AMERICA AND IN OUR -- IN OUR AREA OF THE FUTURE
AMERICA."
AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, SHE DOES NOT SPEAK
SPANISH TODAY. SHE IS TWELVE YEARS OLD. EVERY DAY OF HER LIFE
AFTER SCHOOL SHE GOES TO HER GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER'S FOR AT
LEAST FOUR TO FIVE HOURS AND SHE DOESN'T SPEAK A WORD OF SPANISH.
THE COURT: "R", WHAT IS YOUR OWN ETHNIC BACKGROUND?
THE WITNESS: I'M FRENCH AND SPANISH.
THE COURT: "R", SOMEBODY LOOKING AT THIS SITUATION FROM
THE OUTSIDE MIGHT SAY THAT YOU ARE MOTIVATED TO CAUSE PROBLEMS
FOR 320 BECAUSE OF THE DISRUPTION OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
THE WITNESS: I RESPOND TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, BY SAYING THAT
-- IN THE LAST THREE YEARS I HAVE LIVED BY MYSELF. 320 HAS COME
OVER AND SPENT EVENINGS WITH ME. WE HAVE GONE OUT OF TOWN AND
SPEND WEEKENDS AND WEEKS TOGETHER ON VACATION.
BEING TOLD THAT THROUGHOUT THIS RELATIONSHIP, BEING
TOLD THAT -- AND LIED TO ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP SHE
WANTS. I'M NOT ENTERING 320 -- I'M NOT ENTERING INTO 320'S LIFE
RIGHT NOW. 320 KEEPS ENTERING INTO MY LIFE AND DISRUPTING MY
LIFE ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I JUST FOUND OUT THAT I WAS
NO LONGER WANTED IN HER LIFE JUST WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS.
THE COURT: UH-HUH. WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU DECIDED
TO CONTACT ANYBODY REGARDING THIS CASE?
THE WITNESS: NO. THAT WAS AFTER I CONTACTED BOTH THE
DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION BEFORE -- BEFORE I WAS SERVED WITH A
RESTRAINING ORDER.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU INFORMED 320 THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS?
THE WITNESS: NO, SIR.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HODGMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. HODGMAN: MISS CLARK DOES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M SORRY.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME. DO YOU HAVE A CALENDAR BOOK WITH
YOU THERE, SIR?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MS. CLARK: AND WHY DID YOU BRING THAT?
THE WITNESS: I BROUGHT THIS FOR MY OWN NOTE TAKING. I
BROUGHT THIS BECAUSE THIS GOES WITH ME EVERYWHERE I GO AND I
BROUGHT THIS BASICALLY BECAUSE I'VE GOT -- I HAVE, UMM, NAMES AND
NUMBERS AND A FEW DATES WRITTEN DOWN IN HERE.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT IS IT YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOWN IN THAT
BOOK?
THE WITNESS: JUST A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT STUFF. I HAVE
-- A FEW MONTHS BACK I WAS TRYING TO GET -- REFINANCE MY
APARTMENTS. I HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN HERE. I HAVE --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE
SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE?
THE WITNESS: NOT REALLY, NO.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE ANY NOTATIONS IN THERE AS TO WHEN
YOU CONTACTED THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DOES IT SAY? CAN I SEE IT, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE ALL IT IS, IS -- WAS THE NAME AND
THE NUMBER -- THE MORNING I WENT LOOKING TO TRY TO FIND THE
NUMBER WHO TO CONTACT, YOU KNOW.
MS. CLARK: CAN I SEE IT?
THE WITNESS: CAN YOU SEE IT?
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.
THE WITNESS: SURE. LET ME FIND IT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: IF IT IS OKAY WITH THE COURT, CAN I PERUSE
THROUGH THE BOOK WHILE MISS CLARK ASKS QUESTIONS, PERHAPS SPEED
THINGS UP?
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S HAVE "R" FIND THE LOCATION. I
DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE INTERESTED IN ANY NOTES ABOUT REFINANCING
HIS APARTMENTS.
MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE ANY NOTES IN THAT BOOK CONCERNING
320?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MS. CLARK: COULD YOU SHOW US THOSE?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE NOTES IN THIS BOOK CONCERNING MY LIFE.
I HAVE THIS BOOK MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. ANYTHING THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOUR NOTES CONCERNING 320
AND CONCERNING YOUR CONTACT WITH THE COURT.
THE COURT: WELL, I TELL YOU WHAT, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS,
THEN: MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
WISH TO ASK AND THEN LATER "R" CAN SIT DOWN WITH DEPUTY DOWNS AND
GO THROUGH THE BOOK, FIND WHATEVER PAGES ARE RELEVANT, AND THEN
MAKE PHOTOCOPIES OF THAT.
MS. CLARK: WELL, IF "R" DOESN'T MIND, PERHAPS MR. DARDEN
CAN EXAMINE THE BOOK FOR THE RELEVANT PASSAGES WHILE I'M
QUESTIONING HIM AND THAT WOULD SAVE A LOT OF TIME.
THE COURT: WELL, IT MAY SAVE TIME SINCE "R" KNOWS WHAT HE
IS LOOKING FOR, AND LET ME HAND HIM A PAD OF POST-ITS SO HE CAN
PUT POST-ITS ON THE RELEVANT PAGES.
MS. CLARK: "R", WOULD YOU MIND IF MR. DARDEN LOOKED AT THE
BOOK TO FIND WHAT WAS RELEVANT FOR INQUIRY?
THE WITNESS: YES, I WOULD, UNLESS I CAN SIT DOWN WITH MR.
DARDEN AND GO THROUGH WITH HIM AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS
STUFF IN HERE THAT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO ANYTHING HERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD WITH ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AND WE WILL LEAVE THE JOURNAL FOR LATER.
MS. CLARK: "R", YOU CONTACTED THE PROSECUTION IN DECEMBER;
IS THAT CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: IN DECEMBER? I THINK IT WAS -- I THINK IT
WAS MORE TOWARD THE END OF NOVEMBER. I THINK IT WAS EARLIER THAN
DECEMBER.
MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU LEAVE A PHONE NUMBER AT WHICH YOU
COULD BE REACHED?
THE WITNESS: WELL --
MS. CLARK: AND THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO THEN CALLED YOU BACK?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU DID NOT SPEAK WITH THEM, DID YOU?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM, I DID.
MS. CLARK: WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?
THE WITNESS: I SPOKE -- I BELIEVE MR. DARDEN HAD CALLED
AND LEFT A MESSAGE AND I HAD CALLED BACK AND I HAD SPOKEN WITH
SOMEONE WHO -- I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS -- BUT THEY -- SOMETHING
HAD GONE ON AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULD GET RIGHT BACK WITH ME,
AND ABOUT TWO DAYS LATER THEY CALLED ME BACK, AN INVESTIGATOR.
MS. CLARK: AND WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU SPOKE TO SOMEONE?
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY? PARDON?
MS. CLARK: WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU SPOKE WITH SOMEONE
ULTIMATELY?
THE WITNESS: SOMEONE FROM YOUR OFFICE?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE WITNESS: I HAD LEFT A MESSAGE AT YOUR OFFICE.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT. AND IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER YOU LEFT THAT
MESSAGE THAT YOU ULTIMATELY SPOKE TO SOMEONE, CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: A FEW DAYS. WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I BELIEVE.
MS. CLARK: YOU THINK IT WAS WITHIN A FEW DAYS?
THE WITNESS: I THINK SO. I DON'T REALLY RECALL RIGHT NOW
AT THE MOMENT.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, SIR?
THE WITNESS: .........................., .....
MS. CLARK: YOU DO KEEP A PADLOCK ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT
DOOR, DON'T YOU?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF WHISKEY
BOTTLES ON YOUR PORCH; DON'T YOU?
THE WITNESS: THOSE AREN'T WHISKEY BOTTLES; THEY ARE
ACTUALLY TEQUILA BOTTLES.
MS. CLARK: YOU DO DRINK PRETTY HEAVILY, DO YOU, SIR?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM, I DON'T. I DON'T DRINK AT HOME.
MS. CLARK: BUT YOU HAVE A LOT OF TEQUILA BOTTLES ON YOUR
PORCH?
THE WITNESS: WELL --
MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THAT?
THE WITNESS: THE GENTLEMAN WHO DOES THE PAINTING OF THE
APARTMENTS, HE DOES A LOT OF DRINKING.
MS. CLARK: HE LEFT THEM ON YOUR PORCH?
THE WITNESS: THOSE BOTTLES AREN'T ON MY PORCH, MA'AM.
THOSE BOTTLES HAPPEN TO BE IN TWO 55-GALLON DRUMS IN WHICH I
COLLECT THE BOTTLES AND PLACE ALL THE GLASS IN FOR RECYCLING.
MS. CLARK: IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE?
THE WITNESS: RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE, YES, MA'AM,
RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOOR.
MS. CLARK: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THEY WERE PICKED UP FOR
RECYCLING?
THE WITNESS: IT HAS BEEN SOME TIME.
MS. CLARK: AND WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU STARTED HAVING
VISITATION PROBLEMS WITH 320?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE NEVER HAD A VISITATION WITH 320 UNTIL
-- UNTIL THE MONDAY -- THE MONDAY THAT I WENT TO HER HOUSE, UMM,
TO ASK 320 -- TO LET 320 KNOW THAT NOW THAT -- NOW THAT I HAVE --
YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME I HAVE EVER ASKED 320 WHAT IS GOING ON WITH
OUR RELATIONSHIP, SHE HAS STRAIGHT OUT LIED TO ME AND JUST SAID
THAT, WELL, SHE NEEDS A LITTLE MORE TIME AND SHE NEED THIS, SHE
NEEDS THIS AND SHE NEEDS THIS.
SHE HAS NEVER CAME OUT TO ME AND SAID THAT SHE NO
LONGER WANTED ME -- OUR RELATIONSHIP, OKAY? THAT -- SHE HAS
NEVER EVER SAID THAT, OKAY?
SATURDAY NIGHT -- SATURDAY NIGHT BEFORE SHE WENT OUT
OF TOWN SHE TOLD ME WHERE SHE WAS GOING AND ASKED ME IF I COULD
WATCH MY DAUGHTER.
AND I HAVE ALWAYS TOLD 320 -- I SAID, "LISTEN, 320,
ANYTIME I CAN HAVE "U", I WILL TAKE "U." THERE ARE A LOT OF
TIMES WHEN I ASK HER IF I COULD HAVE MY DAUGHTER FOR THE WEEKEND
AND I'M TOLD NO AND GIVEN NO REASON AT ALL.
EVERY TIME 320'S GOING OUT OF TOWN WITH HER SO-CALLED
NEW FRIEND, IT IS NO PROBLEM FOR 320 TO CALL ME AND ASK ME IF I
CAN WATCH MY DAUGHTER. THERE IS NO PROBLEM IF SHE HAS MY
DAUGHTER CALL MY MOTHER TO FIND OUT IF SHE CAN GO VISIT GRANDMA
FOR THAT WEEKEND, AND IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE -- IT WAS -- IT WAS
A MANIPULATIVE -- THE MANIPULATION OF THE SITUATION THAT FINALLY
I WAS FRUSTRATED WITH THE SITUATION.
IF I COME OUT AND ASK HER IF I COULD -- THE WEEKEND
BEFORE THIS HAPPENED I WANTED TO TAKE MY DAUGHTER FISHING WITH
ME, OKAY?
I MADE PLANS. I WENT OVER THERE AND I FOUND OUT AND
SHE SAID, "YES, YOU COULD TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER FISHING." THAT
START MORNING SHE DID NOT DROP MY DAUGHTER OFF FOR ME TO TAKE HER
FISHING.
MS. CLARK: WHEN WAS THIS?
THE WITNESS: THIS WAS THE WEEKEND BEFORE THE 8TH OF --
DECEMBER 8TH.
MS. CLARK: SO AROUND THE END OF NOVEMBER?
THE WITNESS: UH-HUH. OKAY.
NOW, THE WEEKEND OF -- THE WEEKEND OF THE 8TH OR ON
THE 8TH I WENT OVER TO HER HOUSE TO ASK MY DAUGHTER IF -- TO TALK
TO MY DAUGHTER ABOUT A FEW THINGS AND SOMETHING ELSE.
ANYWAY, AT THAT -- THAT -- THAT NIGHT 320 ASKED ME IF
I COULD TAKE CARE OF HER THAT WEEKEND. I SAID, "SURE." SHE SAID
SHE WAS GOING OUT OF TOWN WITH TWO GIRLFRIENDS AND SHE GAVE ME
THE TWO GIRLFRIEND'S NAMES.
MY DAUGHTER MENTIONED IT -- LATER ON THAT EVENING MY
DAUGHTER MENTIONED TO ME TWO DIFFERENT GIRLFRIEND'S NAMES. THE
NEXT DAY 320 CALLED UP AND SAID, OKAY, SHE WAS LEAVING, THIS,
THAT AND EVERYTHING. SHE GAVE ME TWO DIFFERENT NAMES. SO THAT
WAS SIX DIFFERENT NAMES IN A 24-HOUR PERIOD.
SO SUNDAY MORNING, WHEN HER GIRLFRIENDS ARE SUPPOSED
TO PICK HER UP, I WENT OVER TO THE PARK ACROSS THE STREET FROM
HER HOUSE AND I SAT THERE AND I WAITED TO SEE WHO WAS GOING TO
PICK 320 UP. HER BOYFRIEND DROVE UP AND PICKED HER UP.
MS. CLARK: WHEN WAS THIS?
THE WITNESS: THAT WAS SUNDAY MORNING.
MS. CLARK: THE 9TH?
THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE 9TH OR THE 10TH,
OKAY, BUT IT WAS THAT WEEKEND.
OKAY. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME -- THE NIGHT BEFORE
THAT 320 AND I WERE TALKING AND I ASKED HER STRAIGHT OUT, "ARE
YOU SEEING SOMEONE?" SHE SAID, "NO," THIS, THAT AND EVERYTHING.
SHE GOES, "NO. I TOLD YOU BEFORE IF I'M SEEING SOMEONE I WILL
TELL YOU."
MS. CLARK: WHAT RACE IS HER BOYFRIEND?
THE WITNESS: PARDON ME?
MS. CLARK: WHAT RACE IS HER BOYFRIEND?
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.
MS. CLARK: YOU SAW HIM?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. I WASN'T PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO
HER BOYFRIEND, OKAY?
MS. CLARK: WELL, YOU SAW HIM. WHAT DID HE LOOK LIKE?
THE WITNESS: HE LOOKED -- HE LOOKED WHITE TO ME.
MS. CLARK: WHAT COLOR WAS HIS SKIN?
THE WITNESS: HE APPEARED TO BE A WHITE MAN.
MS. CLARK: WHAT COLOR WAS HIS HAIR?
THE WITNESS: GRAY.
MS. CLARK: WHAT COLOR WERE HIS EYES?
THE WITNESS: I'M -- IF I HAD GOTTEN THAT CLOSE -- I DID
NOT WANT TO GET THAT CLOSE TO THIS MAN, OKAY? IF I HAD GOTTEN
THAT CLOSE TO THAT MAN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, OR TO HER AT THAT
PARTICULAR TIME --
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.
THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T GO THERE FOR ALL OF THAT.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME --
THE WITNESS: I WENT THERE TO SAY MYSELF, LISTEN, SOMETHING
IS GOING ON. SHE IS -- HER ACTIONS OR HER WORDS TO ME DO NOT FIT
HER ACTIONS TO ME.
MS. CLARK: IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU FOUND HER GOING OUT
WITH SOMEONE ELSE AFTER YOU SEPARATED?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. I MEAN YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER SEEING HER WITH THAT MAN DID YOU
TALK TO SOMEONE IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE?
THE WITNESS: AFTER HER SEEING HER WITH THAT MAN?
MS. CLARK: YES. HOW LONG AFTER THAT?
THE WITNESS: IT WASN'T AFTER THAT. I HAD TALKED TO BOTH
THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION BEFORE THAT THAT HAPPENED.
MS. CLARK: WHEN DID THAT -- SIR, LET ME ASK YOU A
QUESTION.
AND AFTER SEEING HER WITH THAT MAN DID YOU
RE-INITIATE CONTACT WITH THE COURT, THE PROSECUTION OR THE
DEFENSE?
THE WITNESS: NO.
MS. CLARK: YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CONTACT AFTER
THAT?
THE WITNESS: FURTHER CONTACT WAS MADE, BUT IT WASN'T
BECAUSE OF THAT MAN.
MS. CLARK: BUT YOU MADE FURTHER CONTACT AFTER THAT MAN?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU FIRST -- DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, YOU LIVED TOGETHER FOR HOW LONG?
THE WITNESS: FOURTEEN YEARS.
MS. CLARK: AND WERE THE POLICE EVER CALLED TO YOUR HOUSE
AS A RESULT OF VIOLENCE?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: NEVER?
THE WITNESS: NEVER.
MS. CLARK: DID SHE EVER MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU TO
THE POLICE OR TO ANY --
THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION. IF SHE
HAS -- THE POLICE HAVE BEEN TO HER HOUSE TO ASK ME TO LEAVE HER
HOUSE. IT WAS -- THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE.
MS. CLARK: WHEN WAS THAT?
THE WITNESS: THERE ARE SEVERAL -- THAT HAS HAPPENED
SEVERAL TIMES.
MS. CLARK: THAT THEY HAVE COME TO HER HOUSE TO ASK YOU TO
LEAVE?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND IS THAT BECAUSE SHE ASKED YOU TO LEAVE AND
YOU REFUSED TO DO SO?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. THAT -- TO BE HONEST -- TO BE
TRUTHFUL WITH YOU ALL THE WAY ON THIS, ONE TIME DID I CAUSE A
COMMOTION AT HER HOME AND REFUSED TO LEAVE. SHE CALLED MY FATHER
AND MY FATHER -- AND SHE CALLED THE POLICE. MY FATHER GOT THERE
BEFORE THE POLICE DID.
WHILE MY FATHER AND I WERE SPEAKING, THE POLICE
SHOWED UP, AND I WAS BOUND AND DETERMINED THAT IF I HAD TO GO TO
JAIL THAT DAY, I WAS GOING TO GO TO JAIL THAT DAY, OKAY, TO LET
IT -- TO GET MY SIDE -- MY POINT OF VIEW MADE -- MADE, OKAY?
MS. CLARK: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
THE WITNESS: OH, THAT HAS BEEN SOME TIME. THAT HAS BEEN
SIX, SEVEN YEARS BACK.
MS. CLARK: WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME SHE CALLED THE POLICE
ON YOU?
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT WAS.
MS. CLARK: AND HOW MANY TIMES DID SHE CALL THE POLICE ON
YOU SINCE THEN?
THE WITNESS: UMM, THAT I KNOW OF, MAYBE FOUR, FIVE.
MS. CLARK: AND WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
CONTACTED WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILDREN?
THE WITNESS: I -- UMM, IF -- THAT IS WHERE YOU REPORT --
GET A RESTRAINING ORDER FROM?
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY AGENCY THAT WAS CALLED TO
PROTECT OR TAKE CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE CONTACTED AGENCIES MYSELF.
MS. CLARK: FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE AT ONE -- TRUTHFULLY A FEW YEARS BACK
I FELT AS THOUGH 320 WAS NOT FIT TO BE A MOTHER.
MS. CLARK: WHY IS THAT?
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE SHE WAS -- SHE COULD NOT ANSWER A
QUESTION TO ME HAVING TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING. ONE AFTERNOON I WAS
ASKED TO GO PICK MY DAUGHTER UP FROM SCHOOL. I WENT TO THE
SCHOOL TO PICK MY DAUGHTER UP AT 2:30, WHICH IS THE TIME THAT I
WAS TOLD TO PICK HER UP.
AT 3:30, WHICH I FIGURED THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE LAST
CHILD LEAVING THIS SCHOOL RIGHT NOW, AND I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN MY
DAUGHTER, AT THAT TIME I MADE CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WERE
IN THE OFFICE AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I HAD JUST FOUND OUT THAT
FOUR MONTHS PREVIOUSLY SHE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER
SCHOOL, FOUR MONTHS.
MS. CLARK: HAS 320 EVER COMPLAINED TO YOU OF YOUR ABUSING
HER CHILDREN?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: HAS SHE EVER CALLED THE POLICE BECAUSE OF YOUR
ABUSE OF THE CHILDREN?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EVER BEEN
CALLED TO INTERVENE BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU HANDLE THE CHILDREN?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. I HAD MY DAUGHTER THE WEEKEND
THAT SHE HAD HER BOYFRIEND UP IN THE MOUNTAINS, OKAY? THE
FOLLOWING WEEKEND OR MONDAY MORNING SHE FILED FOR A RESTRAINING
ORDER AND I HAVEN'T SEEN MY DAUGHTER -- I WAS KEPT FROM SEEING MY
DAUGHTER FROM NEW YEAR'S AND CHRISTMAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN
FOURTEEN YEARS IN OUR RELATIONSHIP.
MS. CLARK: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SEPARATED?
THE WITNESS: WE HAVE -- WE HAVE LIVED APART FOR THE PAST
THREE YEARS.
MS. CLARK: AND DURING THAT TIME YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
RECONCILE WITH HER?
THE WITNESS: THERE IS NOTHING TO RECONCILE. I WAS NEVER
TOLD THAT I WASN'T WANTED IN HER LIFE UNTIL LAST WEEK.
MS. CLARK: SO AS FAR AS YOU WERE --
THE WITNESS: AND THEN I WAS TOLD BY HER SISTER.
MS. CLARK: SO AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED THINGS WERE
FINE BETWEEN YOU?
THE WITNESS: THINGS WERE NOT FINE. THINGS WERE BY NO
MEANS FINE. UMM, BUT -- UMM, I HAVE NOT DATED -- FOR THE PAST
THREE YEARS I HAVE NOT DATED. I HAVE NOT SOUGHT TO DATE ANYONE.
I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING I CAN TO BUILD OUR RELATIONSHIP.
AND AT EVERY TIME CAR -- AND I WILL SIT DOWN WITH 320
AND WE WILL LAY OUT PLANS, AND AS SOON AS -- AS SOON AS THE PLAN
IS JUST ABOUT READY TO -- AS SOON AS YOU ARE READY TO REAP YOUR
HARVEST FROM THOSE PLANS, THEY GOES WRONG.
MS. CLARK: SO YOU WOULD TRY TO RECONCILE WITH HER AND SHE
WOULD PULL AWAY?
THE WITNESS: I DON'T CALL IT A RECONCILIATION.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU TRY TO MOVE BACK IN WITH HER? IS WHAT
YOU WERE PLANNING TO DO?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. WHAT I WAS DOING WAS GIVING 320
SPACE THAT 320 WAS TELLING ME SHE NEEDED.
MS. CLARK: SHE NEEDED SPACE.
THE WITNESS: THAT IS ALL THAT I EVER GOT OUT OF HER.
MS. CLARK: AND WERE YOU PLANNING AT SOME POINT AND HOPING
TO MOVE BACK THERE WITH HER?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM. THAT IS WHY I HADN'T BEEN
DATING.
MS. CLARK: AND SHE KEPT PUTTING YOU OFF?
THE WITNESS: UMM, WELL, YEAH, I GUESS YOU COULD STATE
THAT.
MS. CLARK: WHEN DID YOU RETIRE FROM THE .... ........?
THE WITNESS: I RETIRED FROM ..... .... ........ IN ....
MS. CLARK: WHY?
THE WITNESS: I HAD A HIATAL HERNIA.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU SUFFERED THAT AS A RESULT OF
JOB-RELATED INJURY?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: WERE THERE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS THAT CAUSED YOU
TO RETIRE?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: IF I CONTACT THE .... ........, THEY WILL TELL
US THAT YOU RETIRED BECAUSE JUST OF A HIATAL HERNIA?
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE
REASON I RETIRED WAS BECAUSE I HAD -- I HAD THE PROPER PERCENTAGE
OF DISABILITY TO RETIRE IF I CHOSE TO DO SO.
AT -- DURING THAT PARTICULAR TIME MY FAMILY AND I
WERE TOGETHER, OKAY? WE SAT DOWN AND DISCUSSED THIS. I TOLD --
I LET IT BE KNOWN TO THEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, AFTER EIGHTEEN YEARS WITH THE ....
......., TO LEAVE THE .... ........ AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME AND
GO OVER TO .... ..... ....,
.... AND RELAX AND BUILD SOME HOMES.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU WERE SERVED WITH A RESTRAINING ORDER
WHEN?
THE WITNESS: I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A RESTRAINING ORDER.
I WAS TOLD THAT -- BY -- I WAS NOTIFIED BY 320 SHE WAS FILING FOR
A RESTRAINING ORDER, OKAY?
AND THEN THE NEXT THING I KNOW IS THAT THESE PEOPLE
ARE TELLING ME THAT SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT TOLD ME THAT I WAS
BEING SERVED WITH A RESTRAINING ORDER.
SO I SAID, OKAY, WHEN I GET IT, I WILL TAKE CARE OF
IT. NO PROBLEM.
APPARENTLY THEY CAME OUT TO MY HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES,
AND EITHER I WASN'T THERE OR I HAD GONE AROUND THE CORNER OR
SOMETHING, BUT I TRIED TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE TO BE THERE TO
RECEIVE THE RESTRAINING ORDER.
I KNOW I -- HE WAS SICK ONE DAY WHEN I SPENT THE
NIGHT ONE NIGHT OVER AT MY MOTHER'S HOME, AND APPARENTLY THAT
MORNING THE LADY IN THE FRONT HOUSE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD TWO
GUYS THERE THE NIGHT BEFORE KNOCKING ON MY DOOR.
MS. CLARK: SO YOU STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED A COPY OF IT?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE GOT IT -- I HAVE ONE NOW, YES, BUT I
RECEIVED THAT THROUGH THE COURT.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT COURT WAS THAT?
THE WITNESS: ...... COURT.
MS. CLARK: ...... SUPERIOR COURT?
THE WITNESS: SUPERIOR COURT, YES, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: AND IT ALLEGES WHAT? WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS
STATED IN THE TRO? WHAT DOES SHE ALLEGE? WHAT SHE DOES SAY IN
THERE? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
THE WITNESS: WHAT AM I DOING?
MS. CLARK: IN THE PAPERS WHAT DOES IT SAY YOU ARE DOING?
THE WITNESS: SHE STATED TO THE JUDGE -- IN THE PAPERS --
WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT WAS FOR ME TO STAY AWAY FROM -- FROM HER
HOUSE.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT, AND WHY?
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE -- BECAUSE THAT MONDAY MORNING THAT I
WENT OVER THERE TO SPEAK WITH 320, SHE OPENED THE -- SHE ALLEGED
THAT I ATTACKED HER.
MS. CLARK: PHYSICALLY ATTACKED HER?
THE WITNESS: PHYSICALLY ATTACKED HER, YES, AND STRUCK HER.
MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. I DIDN'T STRIKE OUT AT 320. 320
-- I KNOCK ON THE DOOR, 320 OPENED THE DOOR, AND THERE IS A
SECURITY DOOR THERE, OKAY? FROM BEHIND THE SECURITY DOOR SHE
SAYS, "WHAT DO YOU WANT?"
AND I SAID, "I CAME BY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT NOW THAT
I KNOW ABOUT YOUR SECRET, THAT MAYBE WE COULD SIT DOWN LIKE
ADULTS AND DO THIS THING PROPERLY, TAKE CARE OF -- TAKE CARE OF
FINANCES AND DO -- YOU KNOW, TAKE CARE OF THINGS PROPERLY."
320 WANTS TO GET ON WITH 320'S LIFE, BUT SHE IS NOT
ALLOWING "R" TO GET ON WITH "R'S" LIFE.
MS. CLARK: WHAT SECRET IS THAT?
THE WITNESS: THE SECRET THAT SHE HAS BEEN DATING. THIS IS
THE NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT SHE HAS DATED THAT PARTICULAR MAN. I
HAVE FOUND THAT OUT.
MISS CLARK, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT I AM AN ........
MY OWN SELF. I HAVE BEEN -- I WAS AN ............... WITH THE
CITY OF ....., OKAY? SO I DO KNOW THE PROCEDURES OF GOING ABOUT
FINDING OUT INFORMATION, OKAY?
I JUST WISH I HAD FOUND THIS OUT MAYBE THREE YEARS
AGO WHEN I BELIEVE THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WITH 320, OKAY, AND
THAT WAY I COULD HAVE THREE YEARS OF LOST TIME TO THREE YEARS OF
GOOD TIME INSTEAD OF ALL THIS.
MS. CLARK: SO THIS SECRET YOU ARE SPEAKING OF WAS THE
FIRST TIME YOU CONFRONTED HER WITH DATING SOMEONE ELSE?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM. IT WAS THE FIRST -- NO, IT IS
NOT THE FIRST TIME I CONFRONTED HER WITH DATING ANYONE.
IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAD PROOF, OKAY, THAT SHE
WAS DATING SOMEONE.
MS. CLARK: BUT YOU ACCUSE HER OF IT BEFORE?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM, I NEVER ACCUSED HER OF ANYTHING
BEFORE. I HAD ASKED HER BEFORE.
MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED --
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HOLD ON. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
AREA, BECAUSE I THINK -- I HAVE AN IMPRESSION AS TO WHAT THE
NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP IS AT THIS POINT.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. DID YOU STRIKE HER ON THAT OCCASION?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM. I WAS TOLD THAT SHE HAS -- I HAVE
-- SHE TOLD ME WHEN I ASKED HER -- I SAID, "CAN WE SIT DOWN AND
TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS THAT I NEED TO GET ON WITH MY LIFE
WITH, 320, LIKE ADULTS? CAN WE TAKE CARE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE
BEEN ASKING YOU FOR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, LIKE ADULTS, AND
DO THIS THING PROPERLY INSTEAD OF ME COMING OVER HERE AND ASKING
YOU A QUESTION OR YOU COMING OVER TO MY HOUSE?"
I MEAN JUST THE NIGHT BEFORE 320 WALKED UP TO ME AND
IS HUGGING ON ME THE NIGHT BEFORE SHE LEFT WITH THIS MAN. SHE IS
HUGGING ME AND TELLING ME HOW MUCH SHE LOVES ME, DO YOU
UNDERSTAND?
MS. CLARK: "R", WHEN YOU HEARD HER PROFILED ON T.V. AS
SOMEONE WHO HAD SUFFERED PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ABUSE OVER A 14-YEAR
RELATIONSHIP, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THAT?
THE WITNESS: FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT ON
TELEVISION. MY SISTER CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT IS WHAT SHE
HEARD AND THEN WITHIN THE NEXT HOUR OR TWO PEOPLE FROM MY PAST
WHO KNOW 320 AND I CALLED ME AND ASKED ME IF I HAD SEEN IT. I
BELIEVE IT WAS CNN. I'M NOT POSITIVE.
PERSONALLY A COUPLE DAYS LATER I SAW THAT PICTURE
WHICH EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED AS BEING 320.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO WHAT YOU HEARD
WAS SAID ABOUT YOU ON T.V.?
THE WITNESS: MY REACTION -- MY FIRST REACTION, I GOT MAD.
I GOT MAD, AND MY FIRST REACTION WAS ANGER.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU DON'T LIVE WITH 320, DO YOU?
THE WITNESS: NO. NOT AT THE MOMENT, NO.
MS. CLARK: THAT HASN'T BEEN THE CASE FOR SOME YEARS; IS
THAT CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T SEE HER ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: NO.
MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T GO TO HER HOUSE ON A DAILY BASIS; IS
THAT CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: THE ONLY FRIEND YOU KNOW THAT SHE HAS IS THIS
WOMAN "S"?
THE WITNESS: SHE HAS GOT OTHER FRIENDS. I HAVE NEVER BEEN
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ANY OF HER FRIENDS.
MS. CLARK: HOW DO YOU KNOW SHE HAS THEM?
THE WITNESS: WELL, MAYBE -- MAYBE THOSE ARE THE FRIENDS
THAT -- LIKE THE TWO GIRLS NAMES, YOU KNOW, TWO NAMES SHE HAD
GIVE ME AND TWO DIFFERENT NAMES SHE GAVE MY DAUGHTER, AND THEN
LATER ON SHE GAVE ME TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.
MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE?
THE WITNESS: THESE WERE ALL GIRLS, NO, MA'AM, BUT "V" IS
THE GUY THAT PICKED HER UP, SO MAYBE "V" IS THE ONLY FRIEND.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: COULD YOU CHECK ON THE STATUS AND FIND OUT
WHERE DEPUTY MAGNERA IS GOING TO PUT EVERYBODY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.
"R", I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, SIR.
DO YOU KNOW THE APPROXIMATE DATE THAT YOU FIRST
CONTACTED EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE? YOU SAID IT WAS
IN NOVEMBER. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHEN IN NOVEMBER?
THE WITNESS: I CONTACTED THE DEFENSE FIRST.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER YOU CALLED MY
OFFICE OR MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE?
THE WITNESS: I CALLED YOUR OFFICE FIRST.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. YOU TALKED TO A RECEPTIONIST; IS THAT
CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THEN SEQUENTIALLY AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH THE
RECEPTIONIST IN MY OFFICE AND YOU ADVISED HER AT THAT TIME OF THE
PROBLEMS REGARDING MISS 320 -- HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE HER LAST
NAME?
THE WITNESS: 320.
MR. COCHRAN: 320?
THE WITNESS: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU AT THAT TIME TOLD A YOUNG LADY IN MY
OFFICE THAT -- LET ME SEE IF THIS IS CORRECT -- THAT 320 WAS
HEARD ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION TALKING ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON AND
BEATING HIS WIFE, THAT THIS CO-WORKER WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE
THAT -- THAT HER DOING THAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE MR.
SIMPSON RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL.
DO YOU RECALL THAT 320 AT SOME POINT HAD TALKED ABOUT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR DOMESTIC DISCORD BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND HIS
WIFE?
THE WITNESS: YES, OVER THE TELEPHONE THE NIGHT THAT -- THE
NIGHT OF THE FREEWAY CHASE, I GUESS IT WAS.
MR. COCHRAN: 320 --
THE WITNESS: 320 AND I WERE TALKING TO EACH OTHER ON THE
PHONE, AND THAT IS WHEN THAT THING -- THEY STARTED SHOWING THIS
THING, SO WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT ON THE PHONE.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID SHE SAY?
THE WITNESS: SHE GOES -- SHE TOLD ME THAT -- SHE SAYS
THAT, "APPARENTLY HE IS GUILTY; HE IS RUNNING."
MR. COCHRAN: SHE -- THIS LADY SAID THAT "APPARENTLY HE IS
GUILTY, HE IS RUNNING"?
THE WITNESS: 320 SAID WHAT, "DO YOU THINK? IT LOOKS LIKE
HE IS GUILTY TO ME."
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: WE TALKED FOR HOURS THAT NIGHT ON THE PHONE
ABOUT IT.
MR. COCHRAN: AND THIS WAS BACK IN JUNE OF 1994, THE DATE
OF THE SO-CALLED --
THE WITNESS: FREEWAY CHASE.
MR. COCHRAN: -- FREEWAY FOLLOW; IS THAT CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BELIEVE 320 CALLED ME
AND SAID, "ARE YOU WATCHING THE NEWS?" AND AT THAT TIME I WAS
WORKING UPSTAIRS IN AN EMPTY APARTMENT.
MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. IT WAS AFTER THAT THAT SHE MADE THIS
STATEMENT ABOUT HE IS GUILTY OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT; IS THAT
RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DO YOU RECALL THAT AFTER THAT, AFTER THE
JUNE DATE, DO YOU RECALL HER SAYING ANYTHING ELSE, BEFORE SHE
EVEN BECAME A JUROR, ABOUT THIS?
THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE
FREQUENTLY BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS ABOUT IT,
YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAD -- THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.
MR. COCHRAN: TELL THE COURT, IF YOU CAN, SOME OF THOSE
ASPECTS.
THE WITNESS: UMM, IT IS LIKE -- LET ME SEE. THERE IS A LOT
OF SPECULATION, THERE IS A LOT OF SPECULATION AS TO MR. GOLDMAN.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE ENGAGED IN SPECULATION. TELL IS WHAT SHE
SAID ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN.
THE WITNESS: SHE SAID THAT -- IT SOUNDED -- SHE TOLD ME
THAT IT SOUNDED TO HER AS THOUGH -- IT LOOKED AS THOUGH O.J. WAS
TRYING TO PUT HIS MARRIAGE BACK TOGETHER AND THAT -- AND THAT HIS
WIFE IS GOING -- YOU KNOW, IS LIVING IN HIS HOUSE OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, AND -- AND BEING GIVEN MONEY BY HIM AND STUFF LIKE
THAT AND AT THE SAME TIME GOING OUT WITH -- YOU KNOW, GOT CAUGHT
WITH ANOTHER MAN.
MR. COCHRAN: MEANING MR. GOLDMAN; IS THAT RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: MR. GOLDMAN, YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. TELL US WHAT SHE --
THE WITNESS: THAT WAS BEFORE APPARENTLY WE FOUND OUT THAT
HER BOYFRIEND LOOKED LIKE GOLDMAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: HER BOYFRIEND LOOKED LIKE GOLDMAN?
THE WITNESS: WHAT APPARENTLY THAT IS -- YEAH. APPARENTLY
THAT IS WHAT SHE HAD SEEN ON T.V. OR READ THIS BOOK OR SOMETHING.
HER REAL BOYFRIEND -- MR. GOLDMAN HAD BEEN MISTAKEN AS HER
BOYFRIEND.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
THE WITNESS: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT?
THE WITNESS: WE WERE DISCUSSING IT ONE NIGHT WATCHING
TELEVISION, THAT THEY HAD A SHOW ON T.V. THAT HAD MENTIONED IT
AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE HARD COPY OR ONE OF THOSE TYPE OF
SHOWS.
MR. COCHRAN: ONE OF THOSE ACCURATE PROGRAMS.
SO LET'S SAY NOW WHEN SAY WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, THAT
WOULD BE YOU AND 320?
THE WITNESS: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: DID SHE COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT MR. RON
GOLDMAN MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN FOR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
BOYFRIEND?
THE WITNESS: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID SHE SAY ABOUT THAT, IF YOU RECALL?
THE WITNESS: WELL, SHE -- SHE SAID -- WELL, YOU KNOW, SHE
WAS SAYING -- WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE -- WHAT SO-CALLED
FACTS THESE PEOPLE WERE SHOWING, AND LIKE I TOLD HER, I SAID,
WELL, YES, IT APPEARS TO ME -- I SAID, BUT YOU GOT TO -- I SAID,
YEAH, BUT REMEMBER ABOUT ALL THESE -- AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME,
LIKE EVERYTHING DEALT WITH INSIDE SOURCES, OUR INSIDE SOURCES,
EVERYBODY HAD INSIDE SOURCES AND EVERYBODY'S INSIDE SOURCES WHO
WERE, YOU KNOW, NOTHING CONCRETE.
I MENTIONED -- "320," I SAID, "LISTEN, UNTIL ALL OF
THOSE INSIDE SOURCES ARE SORTED OUT, NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED OUT THERE."
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: I SAID, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU GOT THE POLICE --
THE POLICE KILLED HER, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ASPECT THAT THE POLICE
HAD KILLED HER, THERE IS ASPECTS OR -- OR LEADING ME TO THINK
THAT. THERE IS ASPECTS THAT -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE SO-CALLED
BOYFRIEND THAT MR. GOLDMAN HAD BEEN MISTAKEN FOR.
THE LAST THING I HEARD ABOUT THIS GUY -- I NEVER SEEN
A PICTURE OF THIS GUY. I DON'T KNOW HIS NAME OR ANYTHING, BUT I
DO REMEMBER HEARING SOMETHING ABOUT HE IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE
COUNTRY AND HAS BEEN GONE SINCE THEN.
THAT IS WHAT I HEARD, OKAY? NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT
IS TRUE. I DON'T PUT ANY CREDENCE IN ANY OF THAT TYPE OF STUFF,
YOU UNDERSTAND. ANY OTHER CONVERSATION WHERE YOU CALL WHEREIN
320 SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE SIMPSON CASE PRIOR TO HER BEING
CALLED DOWN HER FOR JURY DUTY?
ANY OPINIONS THAT SHE VENTURED?
THE WITNESS: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT FOR SOME REASON SHE
JUST FELT AS THOUGH -- SHE HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT SHE HAD FELT
AS THOUGH NICOLE HAD BEEN CHEATING ON O.J. AND THAT HE FINALLY
CAUGHT HER.
MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF KILLING HER? THAT
WAS HER OPINION. THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF KILLING HER?
THE WITNESS: SHE NEVER SAID THAT. WHAT -- SHE SAID IT
APPEARED AS THOUGH HE WAS GUILTY THE NIGHT WE WERE WATCHING THE
CHASE ON TELEVISION.
MR. COCHRAN: THE CHASE?
THE WITNESS: SHE NEVER CAME OUT AND TOLD ME THAT HE WAS
GUILTY OR NOTHING LIKE THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. NOW, THEN AT SOME POINT YOU BECAME
AWARE, THROUGH THE SOURCE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US, THAT SHE WAS
PROBABLY ON THIS PARTICULAR JURY, THIS JURY PANEL.
HAS SHE EVER TOLD YOU THAT SHE WAS ON THIS JURY, ON
THE SIMPSON JURY?
THE WITNESS: YES, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WHEN DID SHE TELL YOU THAT?
THE WITNESS: SHE CALLED ME IMMEDIATELY THE DAY SHE FOUND
OUT. I THINK THAT WAS LIKE THE FIRST PART OF NOVEMBER -- SHE
IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME BECAUSE SHE SAID WE HAVE TO MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR DAUGHTERS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I
MEAN IT IS NO SECRET THAT JUDGE ITO IS HAVING PROBLEMS -- DO WE
SEQUESTER THIS JURY OR DO WE NOT, OKAY?
I MIGHT ALSO MENTION THAT SINCE 320 AND I -- WHEN 320
AND I TURNED EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE
IN AMERICA AS 18-YEAR OLDS FOR THE FIRST TIME.
OKAY. WE HAVE ALWAYS USED THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WE
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR JURY DUTY AND 320 HAS COME DOWN
FOR JURY DUTY MANY, MANY TIMES. 320 HAS NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER
ONCE SAT THROUGH -- SAT THROUGH A TRIAL. SHE HAS ALWAYS GIVEN AN
EXCUSE TO GET OUT OF IT FOR SOME REASON. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE AND
SHE HAS GONE WAY OUT OF HER WAY, OKAY, TO BE ON THIS JURY.
THE COURT: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
THE WITNESS: YOUR HONOR --
MR. COCHRAN: HOOPLA?
THE WITNESS: I DO NOT KNOW. I CAN'T TELL YOU.
THE COURT: SHE HASN'T MADE ANY COMMENTS TO YOU?
THE WITNESS: I CAN TELL YOU WHAT MY THEORY IS.
THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR THEORY?
THE WITNESS: MY THEORY IS --
MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR, AS IRRELEVANT AND SPECULATION.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT IS RELEVANT. I BELIEVE IT IS
VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE I HAVE FACTS TO GO ALONG WITH IT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU CAN ANSWER IT.
THE COURT: GIVE ME YOUR ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: I'M OUT OF HAND HERE.
THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
THE WITNESS: AND I'M VERY -- EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK, BUT
EVERYBODY HAS BEEN TELLING ME THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT, BUT IT IS
VERY RELEVANT, OKAY.
THE COURT: TELL ME WHY.
THE WITNESS: BECAUSE -- BECAUSE, SIR, I HAVE WORKED VERY
HARD FROM A YOUNG MAN, OKAY? I STARTED OUT AS A ........ AT
EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, MONTHS RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. YOU
COULDN'T EVEN BE A ........ UNTIL YOU ARE 21 THEN, OKAY? YET I
WAS WORKING RIGHT ALONGSIDE ...... WHO WERE VIETNAM -- VIETNAM
VETS WHO WERE MAKING $1400 A MONTH, I'M MAKING $88.00 A MONTH
DOING THE EXACT SAME JOB, THE EXACT SAME TRAINING, OKAY?
I WORKED VERY HARD TO PROVIDE FOR -- FOR MY FAMILY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
"R", LET ME ASK YOU, THE QUESTION TO YOU WAS WHY DO
YOU THINK IT IS THAT 320 WANTS TO BE A JUROR ON THIS CASE WHEN
SHE HAS AVOIDED JURY SERVICE ON OTHER CASES?
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
MS. CLARK: OBJECT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, AS SPECULATION. HE
SAYS HE DIDN'T KNOW. HE HAS HIS OWN THEORY.
THE COURT: NOTED. THANK YOU.
THE WITNESS: THERE HAS BEEN STATEMENTS MADE THAT -- THE
STATEMENTS -- IN PARTICULAR, YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE
ABUSE THROUGHOUT FOURTEEN YEARS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP. THERE HAS
BEEN -- FOR THE FIRST TIME -- FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN FOURTEEN
YEARS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP JUST THIS PAST MONDAY THAT -- THAT THIS
RESTRAINING ORDER WAS OBTAINED DID I -- HAVE I STRUCK 320 WHERE
SHE HAS WITNESSES OF ME STRIKING 320. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER,
OKAY?
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR RELATIONSHIP, UMM, THESE
STATEMENTS ARE BEING MADE NOW. WHY ARE THEY BEING MADE NOW? I
BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING MADE NOW BECAUSE SHE HAS -- SHE HAS -- SHE
HAS A MEANS OF SAYING THESE STATEMENTS AND MY STATEMENTS BEING
IRRELEVANT.
LAST FRIDAY AT THE HEARING THERE WAS A JUDGE THAT WE
-- THAT WAS SPEAKING TO US. HE ASKED ME A QUESTION WHICH SHE
BLURTED OUT HER ANSWER TO. WHEN I WAS -- WHEN I ASKED FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE ME ANSWER, HE SAID YES, YOU CAN GIVE YOUR
ANSWER, BUT MAKE IT A YES OR A NO ANSWER, NO EXPLANATION.
IRRELEVANT AGAIN.
YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT IRRELEVANT, OKAY? I CAN SEE --
SEE, THE REASON I'M HERE IS IF THESE STATEMENTS JUST GO BY AND
THEY ARE CONTESTED, THEN IT IS AS THOUGH I'M GUILTY OF WHATEVER
IT IS SHE DECIDES, WHENEVER IT IS SHE DECIDES TO PUT -- PUT IT
OUT OR SAY IT OR DO IT AND I'M NOT GUILTY OF IT.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WHY IS IT THAT YOU THINK SHE WANTED TO SERVE
ON THIS JURY IN RELATION TO YOU?
THE WITNESS: WELL, ONCE AGAIN, O.J. SIMPSON IS BEING
ACCUSED OF ABUSING HIS WIFE THROUGHOUT A LONG-TIME RELATIONSHIP.
ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M BEING ACCUSED OF THE SAME THING.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON, WHEN SHE BLURTED OUT HER ANSWER TO
THE JUDGE'S QUESTION THAT WAS -- THAT WAS MEANT FOR ME, SHE --
SHE VERY QUICKLY AND POLITELY, AND I'M SURE IT IS IN THE COURT
ORDERS, SHE SAID THAT I AM STALKING HER.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. SO YOU THINK -- LET ME SEE IF I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
THE WITNESS: NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M STALKING THE WOMAN.
TWO NIGHTS BEFORE I WAS AT HER HOUSE SITTING DOWN PICKING UP MY
DAUGHTER, SHE WAS HUGGING AND KISSING ON ME. NOW I'M STALKING
HER.
THE COURT: "R", DO YOU KNOW WHAT COURT THIS WAS IN?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. IT WAS ...... SUPERIOR COURT.
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHAT DEPARTMENT?
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT WAS DEPARTMENT F.
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE JUDGE?
THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, I DON'T.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. COCHRAN: JUST A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR, IF I
MAY.
DOES THE COURT THINK YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH? THERE ARE
A FEW OTHER AREAS THAT I WANTED TO GO INTO, IF I MAY, JUST
BRIEFLY.
IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO US, THAT YOU
BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE HAS GIVEN HER A FORUM TO TALK ABOUT
DOMESTIC ABUSE AND STALKING.
THE WITNESS: TO CHARGE ME WITH THESE CRIMES AND ACTUALLY
AT THE SAME TIME TAKE ME TO COURT AND I HAVE TROUBLE WITH HER
SAYING ALL THIS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME AND BEING A JUROR ON THIS
MAN'S JURY.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU THINK THAT BECAUSE OF HER BELIEFS AND HER
EXPERIENCES, THAT MIGHT TEND TO MAKE HER AN UNFAIR JUROR TOWARD
O.J. SIMPSON? THAT IS ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS CONCERNING --
THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM -- SIR, I'M SORRY.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID WHEN YOU FIRST CALLED
MY OFFICE THE FIRST CALL BEFORE ANY PAPERS WERE SERVED; IS THAT
RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. NOW, LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OTHER
QUESTIONS. AFTER YOU CALLED --
THE WITNESS: AND IT TAKES ME A LONG TIME TO TALK YOU
PEOPLE -- CALL YOU PEOPLE.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T JUST CALL ME, YOU ALSO CALLED
SHAPIRO'S OFFICE?
THE WITNESS: I CALLED YOUR OFFICE AND THEN I CALLED -- I
THINK I CALLED SHAPIRO'S OFFICE AND THEN YOUR OFFICE.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU ALSO CALLED THE PROSECUTION?
THE WITNESS: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU
SHARED WITH DEPUTY DOWNS THE FACT THAT THIS LADY IS RACIALLY
PREJUDICED AND YOU TOLD HIS HONOR THAT SHE USES THE WORD "NIGGER"
QUITE FREQUENTLY, RIGHT?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ANECDOTAL INFORMATION
REGARDING HER RACIAL PREJUDICE AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS?
THE WITNESS: SURE. SHE COULD HAVE WORKED IN ..... AND
WALKED TWO BLOCKS TO WORK. I WAS LIVING IN ..... AND WALKING
HALF A MILE TO WORK.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT WHERE YOU WERE LIVING TOGETHER?
THE WITNESS: BUT SHE HAD TO GO TO ........, YOU KNOW WHAT
I MEAN.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE WANTED TO GO TO ........ BECAUSE IT WAS A
NON-BLACK AREA?
THE WITNESS: WELL. THERE IS BLACKS LIVING IN ........,
BUT THERE ARE -- THE PARTICULAR -- THE -- MOST -- THE MAJORITY
MAKE-UP IS OF HISPANIC, I WOULD IMAGINE.
MR. COCHRAN: ........?
THE WITNESS: YES. NOT ONLY THAT, SIR, BUT SHE -- WE LIVED
IN ........ FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER THINGS THAT YOU RECALL
THAT SHE SAID ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICANS OR ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE?
THE WITNESS: OVER THE YEARS?
MR. COCHRAN: JUST KIND OF A SUMMARY FOR US, IF YOU CAN,
THAT DEMONSTRATES HER RACIAL PREJUDICE?
THE WITNESS: UMM, FOR INSTANCE, 320 -- AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE SUMMER 320 WAS LIVING WHERE SHE IS LIVING AT THIS PARTICULAR
MOMENT, OKAY, IN THE CITY OF .... ..... WITH HER SISTER AND
BROTHER-IN-LAW.
ALL RIGHT.
I WAS HAVING -- I WAS HAVING A LOT OF DIFFICULTY
GOING OVER THERE TO VISIT, OKAY?
BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO -- I HAVE TO -- I
HAVE TO MAINTAIN AROUND HER FAMILY MEMBERS ALL THE TIME. I HAVE
TO MAINTAIN TOO MUCH. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE -- I'M TIRED OF THEM
TALKING ABOUT ME IN FRONT OF MY DAUGHTER, OKAY? MY DAUGHTER
CALLS ME ON THE PHONE AND SAYS HEY, DAD, THEY SAID THIS, THIS,
THIS, AND I SAID, "YOU KNOW, BABY, DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO THAT
STUFF, YOU KNOW."
IF YOU SEE THEM OR HER SISTERS OR MOTHER AND FATHER
OR WHOEVER TALKING TO ME, TO MY FACE AND YOU KNOW, HEY, THEY KNOW
MY TELEPHONE NUMBER, THEY KNOW WHERE I LIVE, THEY KNOW MY
MOTHER'S NUMBER, YOU UNDERSTAND, HEY, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING, TALK
TO ME, MAN-TO-MAN FACE-TO-FACE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, BECAUSE
THAT IS THE WAY I WANT TO COME TO YOU, OKAY?
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY -- I DON'T TALK ABOUT 320 IN
FRONT OF MY DAUGHTER. I DON'T ASK MY DAUGHTER ANYTHING ABOUT HER
MOTHER.
MR. COCHRAN: TELL US ABOUT THE INCIDENTS OF RACIAL
PREJUDICE. YOU WERE GOING TO TELL US ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
THE WITNESS: OKAY. THAT IS WHY I WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY
GOING OVER TO THAT HOUSE. SO AT THAT -- AND AGAIN, AT THAT
PARTICULAR TIME, WE WERE SUPPOSEDLY WORKING TO HEAL OUR
RELATIONSHIP, OKAY?
SO 320 MOVED OUT. SHE -- 320 FIRST DAUGHTER, "T",
WHO I ALWAYS CONSIDERED MY DAUGHTER, BECAUSE I RAISED HER -- I
GOT A CHANCE TO RAISE HER. I'M NOT GETTING A CHANCE TO RAISE MY
DAUGHTER, OKAY?
ALL RIGHT. HAS -- RAN AWAY FROM THE HOME, OKAY? SHE
HAS BEEN GONE ALL SUMMER, PART OF LAST YEAR OF THE SCHOOL YEAR.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW OLD IS SHE?
THE WITNESS: SHE IS 16. SHE WILL BE 17 IN A MONTH, TWO
MONTHS.
OKAY. SO THAT -- THAT WAS APPARENTLY ALL RIGHT WITH
320, SO 320 AND "U" MOVED INTO A HOME ON ..... AVENUE IN .......
IT WAS A TWO-BEDROOM -- A SMALL TWO-BEDROOM HOME AND, YOU KNOW,
320 HAD HER ROOM AND MY DAUGHTER HAD HER ROOM BY HERSELF FOR THE
FIRST TIME.
OKAY.
NOW, SHE LIVED THERE UP UNTIL THE TIME SHE FOUND OUT
THAT SHE -- WHEN SHE FOUND OUT THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE A JUROR
ON THIS TRIAL SHE STARTED MAKING ARRANGEMENTS TO MOVE.
THE COURT: "R", THE QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT INFORMATION,
WHAT OTHER INCIDENTS?
THE WITNESS: OF PREJUDICE?
THE COURT: OF RACIAL PREJUDICE CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT.
THAT WAS THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: OKAY. YES, SIR.
SEE, AT THAT TIME WHEN SHE STARTED SAYING THAT, I
SAID, WELL, INSTEAD OF GOING ON ON THIS BIG SEARCH FOR A HOME AND
FIRST AND LAST MONTH'S RENT AND SECURITY DEPOSIT, I SAID, HEY,
I'VE GOT AN EMPTY APARTMENT THAT IS EMPTY RIGHT NOW, JUST BEEN
PAINTED, NEW CARPETING, EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW.
AND THEY LIVED THERE BEFORE. INSTEAD OF GOING
THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF AGAIN, 320, WHY DON'T YOU LET THE GIRLS
COME HOME, YOU KNOW? WHY DON'T YOU LET HER STAY WITH ME INSTEAD
OF HER MOVING HER BACK INTO THE SITUATION THAT I KEEP TRYING TO
GET HER OUT OF AT HER SISTER'S HOME.
AT THAT TIME 320 SAYS -- SHE GOES, "LISTEN, I'M NOT
GOING TO ALLOW MY GIRLS TO LIVE IN ......"
I SAID, "320, WHAT IS THE MATTER? WHAT IS SO BAD
WITH ..... WITH YOU 320?"
SHE GOES -- SHE GOES -- YOU KNOW, SHE TOLD ME
STRAIGHT OUT -- SHE GOES, "YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, "R". YOU
ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT."
I SAID, "NO, I DON'T. WHAT IS IT?"
"BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE ....., I DON'T LIKE THE AREA, I
DON'T LIKE NIGGERS, I DON'T LIKE THE SCHOOLS, I DON'T LIKE ANY OF
THAT."
MR. COCHRAN: SHE SAID THAT TO YOU?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THE OTHER QUESTION I WASN'T CLEAR ON,
WHY -- DO YOU KNOW WHY SHE DECIDED TO MOVE FROM HER APARTMENT --
>FROM THIS HOUSE OR WHATEVER WHEN SHE GOT ON THIS CASE? WHY DID
SHE MOVE? DO YOU KNOW WHY?
THE WITNESS: SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO BE SEQUESTERED AND
THAT SHE CAN NOT PAY -- SHE CANNOT PAY THIS GUY RENT AND NOT
BEING THERE.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: AND NOT BE WORKING AND EVERYTHING.
MR. COCHRAN: SHE MADE ARRANGEMENTS? WHAT MONTH WAS THAT
THAT SHE STARTED?
THE WITNESS: SHE GAVE THE MAN -- SHE GAVE HER -- LET'S
SEE. UMM, IT HAD TO BE -- THIS STARTED AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: SHE HAD ONLY LIVED THERE -- WHEN SHE
MENTIONED TO IT ME, SHE HAD ONLY BEEN LIVING THERE A FEW MONTHS
ACTUALLY.
MR. COCHRAN: HAS SHE MOVED NOW?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. SHE MOVED AT THE -- YOU KNOW, I
THINK IT WAS THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER WHEN SHE MOVED.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.
THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO
BRING YOUR BOOK AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING THROUGH
YOUR BOOK.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD EITHER, BUT I DON'T
MIND IF YOU DO.
MR. COCHRAN: THE JUDGE HAS SO INDICATED. YOU MENTIONED
THE RESTRAINING ORDER. CAN WE SEE A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING
ORDER?
THE WITNESS: TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I FORGOT IT WITH
ANOTHER BOOK IN THE TRUCK.
MR. COCHRAN: IT IS HERE, THOUGH?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU WOULD?
THE WITNESS: IT IS NOT HERE, IT IS AT THE PARKING LOT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: ABOUT TWO MILES, THREE MILES AWAY?
THE WITNESS: IT COULD BE OBTAINED TODAY.
MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO US, YOUR HONOR, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHICH
COURT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY DOWNS, IF YOU CAN GET US A
COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
"R", I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. DO YOU HAVE
ANY OTHER COMMENT THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE, ANYTHING FOR THE RECORD
BEFORE WE CONCLUDE THIS MORNING?
THE WITNESS: UMM, NO, SIR. I JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU GUYS
FOR -- YOU KNOW, ALL OF YOU ARE VERY BUSY AND I -- TO ME I THINK
IT WAS WELL WORTH THE TIME. I THINK IT IS GOING TO SHOW TO BE
WELL WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT TO AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, KNOW WHAT I
HAD TO SAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. "R" --
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
THE COURT: WE APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE TIME TO COME IN.
THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY DOWNS, THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
("R" EXITED CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT
DEPUTY DOWNS AND "R" HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM CHAMBERS.
COUNSEL, WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO
CHECK AND SEE WHAT THE STATUS IS OF OUR JURY THAT IS ORDERED
BACK.
WHAT I INTEND ON DOING IS ADVISING THEM OF THE FORMAL
SEQUESTRATION ORDER -- DEPUTY DOWNS, WOULD YOU ASK DEPUTY MAGNERA
TO WANDER BACK HERE FOR ME, PLEASE.
DEPUTY DOWNS: SURE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO ASK 320 TO COME OUT OF THE JURY
ROOM RIGHT NOW RATHER THAN DO IT OUT IN PUBLIC RIGHT NOW, SO LET
ME SEE IF SHE IS IN THERE AND AVAILABLE.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, I HAD FORGOTTEN, CAN I HAVE JO-ELLAN
COME BACK? SHE WANTED TO SIT IN ON THIS POSSIBLE. IF POSSIBLE.
I THINK SHE WAS IN ON THE LAST JUROR.
MS. CLARK: WHERE?
MR. COCHRAN: WHERE WHAT? HER JOB IS THE JURY. I THINK
SHE WAS IN HERE BEFORE. SHE IS NOT GOING TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS,
JUDGE.
THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BIGGER CHAMBERS,
YOU KNOW THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD VOTE FOR THAT, JUDGE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF OUR JURY?
THE BAILIFF: THEY ARE ALL PRESENT IN THE JURY ROOM.
THE COURT: THEY ARE ALL PRESENT.
COUNSEL, LET'S TAKE A BRIEF FIVE-MINUTE COURT
REPORTER BREAK AND THEN WE WILL TALK TO 320 AND ASK HER ABOUT
THESE THINGS.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
(RECESS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU GET ME
DEPUTY MAGNERA, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO HAVE 228 TO COME OUT FIRST SO
DEPUTY DOWNS COULD BE HERE, BECAUSE HE HAS GOT TO TAKE "R" BACK.
THE CLERK: HE IS COMING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY DOWNS.
ALL RIGHT. I NEED 228, PLEASE.
DEPUTY MAGNERA: 228.
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ON THE RECORD?
THE COURT: YEAH, BACK ON THE RECORD.
MR. HODGMAN: BEFORE 228 COMES IN AGAIN, THE PEOPLE WANT TO
URGE THE COURT -- I THINK THE RECORD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH
REGARD TO 228. I KNOW WHAT THE COURT'S MIND SET IS, BUT JUST TO
ME IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO OPEN PANDORA'S BOX AND GO
FURTHER AND FURTHER AND FURTHER WITHOUT GETTING THIS RESOLVED.
THE COURT: MAYBE YES; MAYBE NO.
MS. CLARK: LET ME JUST POINT OUT ONE THING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ALREADY. I
SAID NO. THIS IS THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO DO IT.
ALL RIGHT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
DEPUTY MAGNERA: 228.
THE COURT: YES. ALL RIGHT. 228, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A
SEAT THERE, AND DEPUTY MAGNERA, WHY DON'T YOU CLOSE THE DOOR.
228, HAVE A SEAT THERE, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU AGAIN?
JUROR NO. 228: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, IF YOU RECALL, WE
HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION IN A PARTICULAR EVENT
AT HERTZ AT AN OPEN HOUSE FOR THE NEW FACILITY?
JUROR NO. 228: YES.
THE COURT: AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU TOLD US THAT
YOU WERE THERE BUT YOU DON'T RECALL BEING PERSONALLY INTRODUCED
TO MR. SIMPSON OR HAVING EVER BEEN FORMALLY INTRODUCED TO HIM?
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT?
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT WE COULD TALK TO WHO WAS
PRESENT AT THAT EVENT THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO CORROBORATE YOUR
VERSION OF HOW THINGS HAPPENED?
JUROR NO. 228: POSSIBLY, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
THE COURT: WHO MIGHT THAT BE?
JUROR NO. 228: UMM, IT COULD BE ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES BY
THE NAME OF -- LET ME SEE. WHO WAS THERE?
I THINK "W".
THE COURT: "W"?
JUROR NO. 228: "W".
THE COURT: IS "W" STILL EMPLOYED THERE AT HERTZ?
JUROR NO. 228: YES, HE IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT PART OF THE HERTZ SET-UP?
JUROR NO. 228: HE IS IN THE... .......... HE IS ONE OF
THE ..... ......
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WAS HE ON THIS PLANNING COMMITTEE
AS WELL?
JUROR NO. 228: NO, HE WAS NOT, BUT HE WAS AT THE EVENT.
THE COURT: OKAY. CAN YOU THINK OF ANYBODY ELSE?
JUROR NO. 228: LET'S SEE. THERE IS QUITE A FEW PEOPLE
THAT WAS THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY REALLY KNEW THE
SITUATION, WHETHER I MET MR. SIMPSON OR NOT, IN WHICH I NEVER
DID.
THE COURT: UH-HUH.
JUROR NO. 228: BUT I DO HAVE A LETTER THAT WAS FORWARDED
TO MY -- TO MY FILE THAT STATED -- CONGRATULATING ME FOR
PARTICIPATING, BUT HONESTLY, I JUST NEVER MET MR. SIMPSON AND
THAT IS THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS ON THE PLANNING
COMMITTEE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST WE TALK
TO?
JUROR NO. 228: UMM, MAYBE "X". I THINK SHE WAS ON THE
COMMITTEE WITH ME AS WELL.
THE COURT: "X"?
JUROR NO. 228: YES. SHE IS ONE OF THE ..... ... THERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS SHE STILL THERE?
THE WITNESS: YES SHE IS.
THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL "X"?
JUROR NO. 228: "X", SAME AS THE --
THE COURT: AS THE --
JUROR NO. 228: -- YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. NO. 228, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT
REGARDING THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE? ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO TELL
US ABOUT?
JUROR NO. 228: NO, NOT THAT I COULD THINK OF RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER THAT
LETTER IS STILL IN EXISTENCE IN THE FILE AND WHETHER IT WAS
SIGNED BY O.J. SIMPSON?
JUROR NO. 228: WELL, I HAVE A COPY OF IT MYSELF BECAUSE
THEY PUT ONE IN MY FILE AND THEY FORWARDED ONE TO ME AS WELL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHO SIGNED THE LETTER?
JUROR NO. 228: IT WAS SIGNED BY ONE OF THE CITY MANAGERS,
I BELIEVE. I'M NOT SURE, BUT I DO HAVE A COPY OF IT.
THE COURT: OKAY. WHEN WE SEE YOU BACK AGAIN, WHY DON'T
YOU BRING IN A COPY OF THAT WITH YOU.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NO. 228.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, ARE YOU GOING TO ADMONISH HIM?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. STILL THE SAME ADMONITION. DON'T
DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY, WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE IN
CHAMBERS, UNTIL I TELL YOU OTHERWISE.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY DOWNS, DO YOU HAVE THAT
INFORMATION?
DEPUTY DOWNS: YES, I DO, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(JUROR NO. 228 EXITED CHAMBERS.)
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
MR. SHAPIRO: THERE IS NO REASON WHY MR. DARDEN CAN'T
ARTICULATE HIS POSITION, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HIGHLY
INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOUR HONOR TO SPEAK TO ANY POTENTIAL WITNESS IN
THIS CASE.
MR. DARDEN: IN ANY EVENT, I JUST WANTED TO LEAVE THE COURT
TO LEAVE AND SPEAK TO MR. GOLDBERG AND RETURN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
DEPUTY MAGNERA: 320.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: NO. 320, GOOD MORNING. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A
SEAT THERE.
HOW ARE YOU TODAY?
JUROR NO. 320: FINE.
THE COURT: GOOD. NO. 320, A PROBLEM HAS COME UP THAT I
NEEDED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, AND LET ME START BY, FIRST OF ALL,
SAYING THAT IN NO WAY SHOULD YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING WE ARE GOING
TO TALK ABOUT TODAY TO BE AN ACCUSATION OF ANY MISCONDUCT OR
WRONGDOING ON YOUR PART.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT
TO OUR ATTENTION THAT ONCE I BEGIN TO DISCUSS WITH YOU YOU WILL
UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE AN OBLIGATION, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, TO AT LEAST LOOK INTO IT, SO THAT IS
WHAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN TODAY.
ALSO, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU NOT TO DISCUSS WHAT WE
ARE ABOUT TO DISCUSS HERE IN CHAMBERS WITH ANYBODY ELSE UNTIL I
TELL YOU OTHERWISE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED UNDER OATH WITH
REGARDS TO YOUR ANSWERING QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR SERVICE AS A
TRIAL JUROR, SO YOU ARE STILL UNDER THAT OATH IN ANSWERING THESE
QUESTIONS HERE TODAY.
AND LET ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME FOR SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU, BECAUSE THIS IS
GOING TO GO INTO YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS
SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU ABOUT, SO I'M SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND.
NO. 320, WE HAD SOMEBODY BY THE NAME OF "R" CONTACT
THE COURT AND JUST I CAN TELL FROM THE EXPRESSION ON YOUR FACE
THAT YOU ARE ACQUAINTED WITH "R"?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, I AM.
THE COURT: AND KNOW ABOUT HIM?
HE HAS CONTACTED DEFENSE COUNSEL, THE PROSECUTION AND
THE COURT AND ADVISED US OF CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT HE BELIEVES
MAKES IT INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR IN THIS
CASE.
AND LET ME TELL YOU THE TWO AREAS THAT HE HAS RAISED
WITH THE COURT THAT CAUSE ME TO HAVE SOME CONCERN AND MAKE IT
NECESSARY FOR ME TO ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, HE POSED THE ALLEGATION THAT YOU HAVE A
HIGH LEVEL OF ANIMOSITY TOWARDS BLACKS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS, AND
HE ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE BY HIS COMMENTS TO THE COURT REGARDING A
RATHER EXTENSIVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIENCE ON YOUR OWN PART
THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR ON
THIS CASE BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
SPECIFICALLY, HE HAS INDICATED TO US THAT YOU HAVE ON
OCCASIONS -- ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS REFERRED TO BLACKS AS
"NIGGERS."
THE WITNESS: SIR, CAN I SPEAK?
THE COURT: LET ME JUST TELL YOU WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
AND THEN I WILL ASK YOU TO RESPOND TO THIS.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
THE COURT: HE INDICATED THAT YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU DID NOT
WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO RESIDE IN THE CITY OF ..... BECAUSE OF THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BECAUSE OF BLACKS BEING A VERY LARGE PART OF
THE POPULATION IN .....
AND HE ALSO INDICATED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN
CONFLICTS THAT HAVE LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A RESTRAINING ORDER
AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN -- THERE HAVE BEEN INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SUCH THAT THE POLICE HAVE BEEN CALLED TO YOUR HOME ON
NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, THAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND GIVEN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MIGHT MAKE IT
INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR.
THESE ARE JUST ALLEGATIONS, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND
THAT, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, I
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ASK YOU ABOUT THESE.
JUROR NO. 320: SURE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE
RACIAL ANIMOSITY.
THE WITNESS: SIR, I HAVE NO RACIAL ANIMOSITY WHATSOEVER.
I AM NOT PREJUDICED. "R" IS MY EX-BOYFRIEND THAT I HAD TALKED
ABOUT AND HE TOLD ME IN MY FACE AND HE HAS HARASSED ME TO THE
POINT WHERE HE PUSHED MY LAST BUTTON.
HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME THE DAY BEFORE I CAME HERE
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAD NOTICED, MY FACE WAS PRETTY
BRUISED AND I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING TO YOU, BUT I JUST DIDN'T
WANT IT TO AFFECT MY POSITION, SO I JUST KEPT TO IT MYSELF.
I DID GET A RESTRAINING ORDER ON HIM. HE HAS
HARASSED ME. I HAVE NOT BEEN WITH HIM FOR THREE YEARS. I TOLD
HIM TO TOTALLY LEAVE ME ALONE AND HE JUST WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE.
I HAVE A VERY OPEN MIND AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN SITTING IN MY
SEAT WHERE I'M AT AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE HELL FOR ME AND THAT I WILL GO TO JAIL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TELL ME ABOUT THIS -- WE DID
NOTICE, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE LAST
TIME THAT WE WERE HERE, THAT YOU APPEARED TO HAVE A BRUISE.
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
THE COURT: ON YOUR RIGHT CHEEK.
JUROR NO. 320: HE TOTALLY JUST BEAT ME UP. AND IN THE PAST
THERE HAS BEEN PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, BUT THE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
HASN'T BEEN AS BAD AS THE VERBAL AND THE EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE THAT
HE HAS PUT ME THROUGH.
AND I'M A STRONG PERSON, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT DAY IT
JUST GOT TO THE POINT WHERE HE JUST PUSHED MY LAST BUTTON, AND
YOU KNOW, HE IS THE FATHER OF MY CHILD AND I NEVER WANTED TO DO
ANYTHING TO HURT HIM BECAUSE I FEEL SORRY FOR HIM.
BUT I JUST -- I HAD TO GO DOWN TO THE COURT BECAUSE I
WENT TO THE SCHOOL. HE TRIED TO TAKE MY DAUGHTER OUT OF SCHOOL
AND HE TOLD ME THAT I COULD NEVER SEE HER AGAIN, AND AT THE
MOMENT THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT CALLING THE SCHOOL, I CALLED AND HE
WAS THERE AND I TOLD HIM, "PLEASE DON'T RELEASE HER TO THE
SCHOOL, I'M ON MY WAY," AND AS SOON AS THE PRINCIPAL SAW MY FACE,
THEY CALLED THE COPS.
AND THE COPS TOLD ME IF I WANTED TO GET HIM ARRESTED
AND I SAID NO AND THEY TOLD ME TO GO DOWN AND FILE A RESTRAINER
ON HIM. I JUST WENT TO THE COURT ON THE 30TH OF DECEMBER AND I
TOOK -- AND HE IS MAD BECAUSE I TOOK -- THEY GAVE ME PHYSICAL
CUSTODY OF MY DAUGHTER.
IT IS NOT LIKE -- I USED TO LIVE IN ...... I DON'T
LIKE RAISING MY KIDS IN ...... THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ......
IT IS JUST THAT I WORK IN ......... I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT MY KIDS
IN SCHOOL IN ..... SO I WAS TAKING THEM TO ...... DISTRICT SO I
WAS DRIVING -- DOING A LOT OF DRIVING AND I WAS LEAVING MY HOUSE
AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND I CAN'T GET HOME UNTIL SEVEN,
EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
SO I DECIDED TO MOVE TO ...... AND I HAVE BEEN IN
..... FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. MY KIDS HAVE BEEN IN ......
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THAT LONG.
HE IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE -- HE IS JUST TRYING TO
MAKE THIS VERY MISERABLE FOR ME. HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO
TRY TO DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER --
THE COURT: OKAY. DO YOU WORK WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS AT
YOUR JOB?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, I DO.
THE COURT: IS THERE ANY OTHER EXPLANATION, OTHER THAN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, FOR MOVING OUT OF .....?
JUROR NO. 320: NO. I HAVE NO -- I WAS RAISED IN ...... I
HAVE NO PROBLEM IN ...... I JUST DIDN'T WANT MY KIDS TO GO TO A
.... SCHOOL, BASICALLY BECAUSE I'M A WORKING PARENT AND MY MOM
ALWAYS -- MY MOM WAS ALWAYS THERE TO TAKE CARE OF MY KIDS.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NEVER REALLY NOBODY OUT OF THE
FAMILY THAT I WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, JUST LEAVE MY KIDS WITH.
THE COURT: UH-HUH.
JUROR NO. 320: SO MY MOM WAS ALWAYS THERE SO I HAD TO TAKE
MY KIDS IN ORDER TO WHERE MY MOM, YOU KNOW, IN THE CITY THAT MY
MOM WAS IN SO THAT SHE CAN WATCH MY KIDS AFTER SCHOOL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PROBLEM. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT
THE -- THAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IS OBVIOUSLY NOW TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY
BEATEN BY A FORMER -- WERE YOU EVER MARRIED TO "R"?
JUROR NO. 320: NO. WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NO.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND THAT YOU'VE HAD TO GO TO THE POINT
OF GETTING A RESTRAINING ORDER, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A VERY
UNFORTUNATE AND VERY DISTRACTING THING IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, I
WOULD IMAGINE.
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY BOTHER ME, IT
DOESN'T, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I NEVER THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD TAKE IT
TO THIS POINT, AND LIKE HE HAS HARASSED ME -- EVEN AT THE COURT
HE SHOWED ME -- HE SHOWED ME THIS NOTEBOOK HE HAD AND HE HAD THE
NAMES OF THE LAWYERS, HE HAD PHONE NUMBERS AND HE HAD A CARD --
HE SAID THAT HE WAS BEING INVESTIGATED AND I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT
HE COULD GO TO THIS EXTENT TO DO THIS TO ME.
I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST PULLING MY LEG, YOU KNOW. I
JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WOULD GO TO THIS EXTENT. I HAVE A VERY
OPEN MIND. I'VE TIED TO AVOID HIM AND ANYTHING THAT HE WOULD SAY
TO ME I WOULD JUST TRY TO GO IN ONE EAR AND OUT ANOTHER.
THE COURT: HERE IS MY CONCERN, THOUGH. MY CONCERN IS
OBVIOUSLY HE IS MAKING -- HE IS DOING HIS BEST TO MAKE YOUR LIFE
MISERABLE AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND HOW THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND HOW
THEY ARE BEYOND OUR CONTROL, OUR INDIVIDUAL CONTROL, AND YOU HAD
TO GO TO THE COURT TO GET A RESTRAINING ORDER.
CAN YOU REALLY HONESTLY PUT ALL THAT ASIDE?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR, I COULD. I'M NOT GOING TO LET
"R" INTIMIDATE MY LIFE. HE IS JEALOUS. HE IS SO JEALOUS OF ME
BECAUSE I CAN BE A VERY INDEPENDENT WOMAN. HE IS JEALOUS TO THE
FACT THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK WITH HIM.
I JUST CAN'T GO BACK WITH HIM. I DON'T LOVE HIM ANY
MORE.
THE COURT: AND YOU HAVE BEEN LIVING SEPARATELY FOR THE
LAST APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS?
JUROR NO. 320: FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS I HAVE NOT LIVED
WITH HIM.
THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT COURT WERE YOU IN ON THE 30TH, DO
YOU RECALL?
JUROR NO. 320: ......
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHAT DEPARTMENT YOU WERE IN?
JUROR NO. 320: DEPARTMENT Z OR Y -- WELL, THE DOMESTIC --
THE DOMESTIC --
THE COURT: DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE JUDGE?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, I DON'T.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I TAKE IT YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF
THE RESTRAINING ORDER WITH YOU?
JUROR NO. 320: NOT ON ME. IT IS AT HOME.
THE COURT: OKAY. WHEN YOU COME BACK --
JUROR NO. 320: BUT I BELIEVE I HAD A LITTLE CARD THAT THE
COUNSELOR GAVE ME AND SHE TOLD ME IF I EVER NEEDED TO GET AHOLD
OF HER FOR ANYTHING THAT I CAN CALL HER.
THE COURT: OKAY. THEY WILL -- THE COUNSELOR WILL TALK TO
YOU, THEY WILL NOT TALK TO US, BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS AN ISSUES.
WHEN YOU COME BACK TO COURT LATER TODAY, I'M GOING TO
ORDER YOU TO COME BACK ON WEDNESDAY, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR
YOU TO DO IS GET A COPY OF THAT RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE PAPERS
THAT YOU FILED FOR IT.
DO YOU HAVE THESE AT HOME?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, I DO.
THE COURT: COULD YOU MAKE A PHOTOCOPY OF THOSE FOR ME?
JUROR NO. 320: SURE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU BRING THOSE BACK ON
WEDNESDAY, BECAUSE WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS -- FIRST OF ALL, DON'T
DISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OTHER JURORS.
JUROR NO. 320: I WON'T.
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO BE SEQUESTERED TODAY.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU UNTIL WEDNESDAY TO PACK YOUR BAGS AND THEN
COME BACK TO COURT ON WEDNESDAY, SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GO HOME
TONIGHT AND MAKE THE COPIES FOR US TODAY OR TOMORROW, AND WHEN
YOU COME BACK ON WEDNESDAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BRING THAT WITH
YOU.
JUROR NO. 320: I HAD HIM SERVED BUT HE EVADED, HE WAS
NEVER SERVED.
THE COURT: WELL, HE HAS BEEN SERVED -- HE HAS BEEN SERVED.
HE HAS A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER.
JUROR NO. 320: HE HAS GOT A COPY. I'M SURE HE DOES
BECAUSE I TALKED TO HIM. HE IS CONSTANTLY CALLING ME AND STUFF
AND HE CALLS HIS DAUGHTER. I LET HIM TALK TO HIS DAUGHTER. I
HAVE NO PROBLEM. I DON'T WANT TO KEEP HIM AWAY FROM HIS
DAUGHTER; I JUST WANT TO KEEP HIM AWAY ME. I JUST WANT TO LIVE
MY LIFE.
I AM TIRED OF HIM HARASSING ME. THE THINGS THAT HURT
ME IS THE NAMES THAT HE CALLS ME AND HE ACCUSES OF ME OF HAVING
BOYFRIENDS. I DON'T HAVE A BOYFRIEND. I HAVEN'T BEEN WITH
ANYBODY SINCE THE LAST FOURTEEN YEARS SINCE I HAVE BEEN WITH HIM,
AND I CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT THROUGH HIS HEAD. HE THINKS I HAVE A
BOYFRIEND RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT A BOYFRIEND. I DON'T HAVE A
BOYFRIEND.
THE COURT: WHAT KIND OF ARRANGEMENTS ARE YOU MAKING FOR
YOUR CHILDREN WHEN YOU ARE SEQUESTERED?
JUROR NO. 320: MY ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN WITH "R" AND I
WITH THE COUNSELOR AND MY ARRANGEMENTS ARE TO LEAVE -- I HAVE A
17-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER THAT IS GOING TO STAY WITH ONE OF MY SISTERS
AND MY ELEVEN-YEAR OLD IS GOING TO BE -- SHE IS GOING TO BE WITH
HER FATHER ONE WEEK AND WITH MY MOTHER ONE WEEK. WE ARE
ALTERNATING IT LIKE THIS AND THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS GOING TO BE
AND HE IS -- HE IS MAD BECAUSE HE WANTS TO KEEP HER THE WHOLE
TIME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU THINK THAT IF WE HAVE PROBLEMS REGARDING THAT
ARRANGEMENT THAT IT IS GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO HAVE PROBLEMS
SITTING AS A JUROR ON THIS CASE?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, I DON'T.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YES. YOU WROTE IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU
HAD SUFFERED VERBAL AND MENTAL ABUSE?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MS. CLARK: YOU WERE REFERRING TO THIS MAN, CORRECT?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND AS FAR AS THE PHYSICAL ABUSE GOES?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, PHYSICAL WAS ONLY LIKE MAYBE TWO --
TWO TIMES, BUT THIS LAST INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED, IT WAS JUST THE
LAST STRAW. I MEAN, IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE I JUST -- THAT WAS
IT. I JUST HAD TO MAKE -- MAKE HIM AWARE THAT I'M NOT PLAYING
HIS GAMES ANY MORE, AND YOU KNOW, YEAH, THERE WERE TIMES WHEN I
HAD CALLED THE COPS AND IT WAS JUST TO -- BECAUSE I WOULD ASK HIM
TO LEAVE AND HE WOULDN'T LEAVE.
MS. CLARK: YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE ALSO, DIDN'T
YOU?
JUROR NO. 320: I BELIEVE I DID, YES.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU FEEL THAT AS A RESULT OF WHAT HAS
RECENTLY HAPPENED BETWEEN YOU, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY
DIFFICULTY BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: IS IT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR
ABILITY TO BE A FAIR JUROR?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, MA'AM.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU FEEL ANY DIFFERENTLY NOW ABOUT YOUR
ABILITY TO BE A FAIR JUROR THAN YOU DID WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THE
QUESTIONNAIRE?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MS. CLARK: AND HAS YOUR FEELINGS CHANGED ABOUT YOUR
ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL SINCE WE LAST SPOKE TO YOU IN
COURT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO. EVERYTHING -- EVERYTHING IS THE SAME.
I DON'T -- LIKE I SAID, MY MIND IS VERY OPEN AND I -- I DON'T
FEEL THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
MS. CLARK: AND HAVE YOU DATED -- HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY
INTERRACIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH EITHER AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN OR MEN
OF ANY OTHER RACE?
JUROR NO. 320: YEAH, I'VE DATED WHITE.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU ARE NOT DATING ANYONE NOW?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MS. CLARK: IS THERE ANY -- THE REASON YOU MOVED OUT FROM
.... WAS BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR CHILDREN IN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE CLOSE TO YOUR MOTHER?
JUROR NO. 320: BASICALLY IT WAS TO ACCOMMODATE MYSELF
REALLY MORE AND MY CHILDREN, YES.
MS. CLARK: DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RACIAL OR
ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
JUROR NO. 320: I WAS RAISED IN ...... IT DID NOT, NONE
WHATSOEVER.
MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH AFRICAN
AMERICAN CO-WORKERS?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MS. CLARK: AND ARE YOU FRIENDLY WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN
CO-WORKERS?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, I AM, VERY FRIENDLY.
MS. CLARK: UMM --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: JUST AN FEW QUESTIONS. I NEED TO ASK YOU A
FEW QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE DID IN FACT CALL OUR OFFICE AND HE HAS
MADE SOME ALLEGATIONS AND THE COURT SAID THEY ARE JUST
ALLEGATIONS.
THERE HAS BEEN AN ALLEGATION THAT WHEN YOU WERE
LIVING IN ..... OR GROWING UP IN ..... THAT YOU WERE ACCOSTED BY
AN AFRICAN AMERICAN.
DID THAT HAPPEN?
JUROR NO. 320: THAT I WAS WHAT?
MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP YOU WERE IN SOME
WAY, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD MOLESTED, YOU WERE IN SOME WAY
ASSAULTED OR SOME CONFRONTATION OCCURRED WITH AN AFRICAN AMERICAN
WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP IN THE CITY OF .....?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT NEVER HAPPENED?
JUROR NO. 320: JUST IN SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE
FIGHTS, YOU KNOW, BUT NOTHING -- NOT NOTHING -- I DON'T KNOW IF
HE SAID SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE GOT HIS
INFORMATION. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS.
THE COURT: WHERE DID YOU TO GO SCHOOL?
JUROR NO. 320: I WENT TO ........... IN ..... AND I WENT
TO ...... ....
MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU DON'T RECALL ANY PARTICULAR INCIDENTS
WHERE YOU WERE IN A PARTICULAR FIGHT, OR THE POLICE WERE CALLED,
WITH SOMEBODY OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN --
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: HE SAYS THAT YOU USE THE WORD "NIGGER" VERY,
VERY FREQUENTLY. IS THAT TRUE?
JUROR NO. 320: HE IS LYING. HE IS A LIAR. YOU KNOW, HE'S
A LIAR.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND OUR CONCERN.
WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
JUROR NO. 320: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT
-- MAYBE YOU GUYS COULD SEE HE IS TRYING TO -- LIKE I TOLD YOU,
HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO MAKE MY LIFE MISERABLE FOR ME.
MR. COCHRAN: WE UNDERSTAND. BEAR WITH ME ON THOSE
QUESTIONS FOR A MOMENT.
HE INDICATES THAT ON THE DATE OF THE SO-CALLED
FREEWAY FOLLOW-BY THE POLICE THAT YOU WERE ON THE PHONE WITH HIM
AND YOU MADE A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS
PROBABLY GUILTY BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING AWAY OR SOMETHING?
JUROR NO. 320: HE IS A LIAR. NO, I DID NOT NEVER SAY
THAT, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: WAS THERE A TIME THAT YOU WERE ON THE PHONE
WITH HIM ON JUNE 17 WHERE YOU ALL DISCUSSED THE CHASE?
JUROR NO. 320: IT IS A POSSIBILITY. I DON'T RECALL. IT
IS A POSSIBILITY. LIKE I SAID, HE CALLS ME. HE CALLS ME UNTIL
THREE, FOUR O'CLOCK. THERE ARE TIMES I HAVE TO TAKE MY PHONE OFF
THE HOOK TO AVOID THE PHONE RINGING.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU DON'T RECALL EVER MAKING THAT STATEMENT?
WAS THAT YOUR THOUGHT REGARDING THE CHASE, THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS
PROBABLY GUILTY?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS ALSO AN ALLEGATION THAT YOU USED THE
WORDS IN YOUR PAPERS OF -- THAT YOU ARE BEING STALKED BY HIM.
YOUR LAWYER USED THOSE WORDS, THAT YOU WERE BEING FOLLOWED OR
STALKED BY HIM.
JUROR NO. 320: I BELIEVE -- I BELIEVE I DID. I WROTE IT
DOWN IN THE -- BECAUSE I'VE HAD -- IN THE INCIDENTS WHERE, YOU
KNOW, HE HIT ME, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS CAME OUT AND TOLD ME HE
CAME OUT AND TOLD ME THAT HE HAS SEEN THAT TRUCK BECAUSE HE WAS
ASKING WHO WAS THAT WAS AND I TOLD HIM IT WAS MY EX BOYFRIEND AND
HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAS SEEN THAT TRUCK OUT THERE MANY TIMES JUST
PARKED DOWN THE STREET SITTING THERE WATCHING AT ONE OR TWO
O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS A WORD THAT YOU DID USE IN FACT.
JUROR NO. 320: IF IT IS WRITTEN, IT IS WRITTEN IN MY
WRITING ON THE PAPERWORK.
MR. COCHRAN: ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTION 162, WHEN YOU
WERE ASKED ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN YOUR HOME GROWING UP BY
EITHER -- GROWING UP OR AS AN ADULT, YOU DESCRIBED THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AS FOLLOWS:
"VERBAL AND MENTAL ABUSE BY EX-BOYFRIEND. I DID
NOT LIKE TO BE CALLED NAMES." YOU DID NOT PUT DOWN AT THAT TIME
THAT HE HAD STRUCK YOU. WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT DOWN THAT HE HAD
STRUCK YOU AT THAT TIME?
JUROR NO. 320: BECAUSE IT WAS -- I DIDN'T REALLY THINK
THAT IT WAS -- IT WAS JUST KIND OF LIKE A PUSH.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOU SAID HE HAD PHYSICALLY TOUCHED YOU
BEFORE THIS LAST TIME?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, NO, NO, HE NEVER, NEVER PHYSICALLY
TOUCHED ME THE WAY HE BEAT ME ON THE FACE.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU SAID THAT HE HAD
PHYSICALLY TOUCHED YOU AT TIMES BEFORE.
HOW MANY TIMES HAD HE TOUCHED YOU?
JUROR NO. 320: PROBABLY TWO WHERE HE WOULD JUST LIKE PUSH
AND SHOVE ME.
MR. COCHRAN: SO IT BECAME PHYSICAL ON MAYBE TWO OCCASIONS?
JUROR NO. 320: TWO OCCASIONS.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT THOSE DOWN AT ALL?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, I DIDN'T.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS LAST INCIDENT, AND WE DID IN FACT NOTICE
YOUR FACE WAS SWOLLEN, HE WENT BEYOND PUSHING YOU AND YOU WERE
STRUCK IN THE FACE?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THE QUESTION -- I GUESS I'VE GOT TO ASK
THIS.
MR. SIMPSON ISN'T IN HERE SO I HAVE GOT TO ASK THIS
QUESTION FOR HIM.
IN A CASE WHERE THERE MAY BE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR.
SIMPSON HAD STRUCK HIS WIFE AT SOME POINT, DO YOU THINK THAT YOU
CAN BE FAIR IN THAT CASE LIKE -- JUST HEARING THAT EVIDENCE,
BASED UPON YOUR SITUATION?
EVEN SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN HERE YOUR FACE WAS SWOLLEN
THAT WE COULD NOTICE IT AND CALLED IT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AT
THAT TIME.
DO YOU THINK THAT GIVEN THAT SITUATION, I KNOW YOU
WANT TO BE FAIR, DON'T YOU THINK THAT IS GOING TO REALLY IMPEDE
YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL WHERE YOU ARE GOING THROUGH
OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH WHAT THE PROSECUTION MAY
ALLEGE MISS SIMPSON -- MISS BROWN SIMPSON WENT THROUGH BEFORE
SHE DIED?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW WILL YOU BE ABLE TO SEPARATE THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: I JUST -- I JUST -- LIKE I SAID, I HAVE AN
OPEN MIND. YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED TO ME -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED -- EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- IN MY
SITUATION MAYBE IT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS -- SHE COULD HAVE
BEEN THROUGH WORSE. I DON'T KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU -- HE ALSO IN THE FIRST CONVERSATION
THAT HE MADE, THE FIRST CALL THAT HE MADE BACK IN NOVEMBER, HE
ALLEGED THAT YOU HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT O.J. SIMPSON
HAD BEATEN HIS WIFE.
DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, I HAVE NOT.
MR. COCHRAN: NEVER TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU TELL HIM YOU WERE ON THIS JURY?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, HE WAS AWARE THAT I WAS ON THE JURY.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WHEN DID YOU TELL HIM THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS -- I GUESS WHEN
I WAS FIRST ON THE JURY.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM?
JUROR NO. 320: I TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW -- I THINK IT WAS
SEPTEMBER 26 WHEN WE WERE ALL CALLED INTO THE JURY.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU TALKED ABOUT BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE
O.J. SIMPSON JURY?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: AND AT THAT TIME DID YOU HAVE ANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM AFTER THAT TIME WHEREIN YOU DISCUSSED THE
FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION THAT MR. SIMPSON EITHER STALKED
HIS WIFE OR HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH HIS BEATING HIS WIFE?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR. HE WOULD CONSTANTLY CALL ME ON
THE PHONE AND ASKING ME HOW COURT WENT AND I WOULD KIND OF JUST
TRY TO GO OFF AND JUST TRY TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE
HE WOULD ALWAYS COME OUT AND TRY TO ASK ME QUESTIONS.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE YOUR TIME ON A JURY?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CALLED FOR JURY
DUTY EVER AT ANY TIME BEFORE THIS?
JUROR NO. 320: I HAVE ONLY BEEN ON JURY DUTY ONE TIME
BEFORE THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: HAD YOU EVER BEEN CALLED BEFORE THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER OR ANYTHING TO
COME DOWN IN ALL THE THIRTEEN OR FOURTEEN YEARS?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, ONE TIME BEFORE THIS, TWO YEARS AGO.
MR. COCHRAN: BEFORE THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER AT
ALL?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU VOTE REGULARLY?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU JUST NEVER GOT CALLED?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: TWO YEARS AGO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU WERE
CALLED?
JUROR NO. 320: I JUST CAME AND SERVED MY TEN DAYS AND THEY
LET ME GO. I WAS NEVER PUT ON A PANEL.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU NEVER SAT ON A PANEL?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST PANEL?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AFRICAN AMERICANS ON
THIS JURY PANEL.
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: AND MR. SIMPSON IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN.
DOES THAT CAUSE YOU ANY CONCERN WITH REGARD TO
AFRICAN AMERICANS?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS A PROBLEM AT ALL?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO MOVE AND YOU DIDN'T
WANT YOUR KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL IN ...... WHY WAS THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: BASICALLY BECAUSE OF MY BABYSITTING
PROBLEMS.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: MY MOM ALWAYS TOOK CARE OF MY DAUGHTERS.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WHERE DOES YOUR MOM LIVE?
JUROR NO. 320: SHE LIVES IN ......
MR. COCHRAN: AND WHERE DID "R" LIVE?
JUROR NO. 320: IN .....
MR. COCHRAN: WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN YOU -- WHEN HE WAS
A ........ THAT YOU WOULD GO TO PARTIES WITH HIM AND THAT YOU
WERE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE A LOT OF HIS FRIENDS WERE AFRICAN
AMERICANS?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, I NEVER WENT TO PARTIES WITH HIM.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU NEVER WENT TO ANY SOCIAL GATHERINGS AT
ALL?
JUROR NO. 320: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW LONG WERE YOU WITH HIM BEFORE YOU
SEPARATED?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, WE WERE TOGETHER, UMM, LET ME SEE,
LIKE GOT TOGETHER IN 1980 AND WE LIVED IN ........ AND WE MOVED
-- IN '86 WE MOVED TO ...... '83 HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND IN
'86 WE MOVED OVER THERE AND IN '89, THREE YEARS LATER, I MOVED
OUT.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. SO YOU LIVED TOGETHER ABOUT NINE YEARS
BEFORE BUT -- BEFORE YOU LEFT TOWN?
JUROR NO. 320: NO. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY ABOUT -- LIVING
TOGETHER TOGETHER PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AND ALL THE OTHER
TIMES I WAS BACK AND FORTH. YOU KNOW, I WILL HAVE MY OWN PLACE
AND THEN WE WILL GET TOGETHER AND I WILL LEAVE MY PLACE AND GO
BACK AND BE THERE FOR A MONTH AND THEN I WILL LEAVE AGAIN.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE STILL FIANCES?
JUROR NO. 320: WE WERE BOYFRIEND AND GIRLFRIEND.
MR. COCHRAN: THERE CAME A TIME, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THREE
YEARS AGO WHEN YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER YOU WERE GIRLFRIEND AND
BOYFRIEND ANY MORE?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, WE WERE STILL DATING, BUT IT WAS --
IT WAS MORE OR LESS I WANTED TO END THE RELATIONSHIP AND I TOLD
HIM ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT YOU JUST COULDN'T -- I DON'T
KNOW. HE JUST COULDN'T GET IT THROUGH HIM AND SO I JUST MOVED
AWAY AND I'VE STAYED AWAY FOR THREE YEARS.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. AT THE TIME THAT YOU FILLED OUT THE
QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASPECT
AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE VERBAL AND MENTAL ABUSE, WERE YOU AWARE
AT THAT POINT THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING YOU AROUND OR THAT HE WAS
CALLING YOU ALL THE TIME?
JUROR NO. 320: OH, YES. THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING THING
FOR THREE YEARS WHERE HE CALLS ME AND VERBALLY ABUSES ME.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOU DIDN'T GO INTO DETAIL ON THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD AFFECT ME. IT
DIDN'T AFFECT ME REALLY AS FAR AS -- YOU KNOW, IT WILL GO IN ONE
EAR AND OUT THE OTHER.
MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU THINK THAT -- WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US
IS THAT YOU THINK THAT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS RATHER PERSONAL, WON'T AFFECT YOUR ABILITY IN THIS CASE EVEN
THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME SIMILARITIES OR AT LEAST THE ALLEGATIONS
MAY BE SIMILAR; IS THAT CORRECT?
JUROR NO. 320: CORRECT.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAD TO CALL
THE POLICE TO ASK HIM TO LEAVE?
JUROR NO. 320: MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME THIS LAST TIME WHEN
YOU WERE STRUCK?
JUROR NO. 320: OH, YEAH, UH-HUH.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU AND "R" HAVE A CHILD TOGETHER; IS THAT
RIGHT?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: HOW OLD IS THAT CHILD?
JUROR NO. 320: SHE IS ELEVEN YEARS OLD.
MR. COCHRAN: DID THE COURT GIVE YOU BOTH JOINT CUSTODY?
JUROR NO. 320: THE COURT GAVE ME PHYSICAL CUSTODY AND GAVE
US JOINT CUSTODY OF HER -- I ASSUME IT IS HER NEEDS AS FAR AS HER
EDUCATION AND HEALTH.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THAT ON YOUR OWN YOU HAVE MADE AN
ARRANGEMENT WITH HIM SO THAT WHILE YOU ARE SEQUESTERED, THE JUDGE
IS NOW GOING TO SEQUESTER YOU, HE WILL HAVE THE CHILD ONE WEEK
DURING THE MONTH?
JUROR NO. 320: HIS MOTHER WILL HAVE THE CHILD ONE WEEK.
MR. COCHRAN: AND?
JUROR NO. 320: AND MY MOTHER WILL HAVE THE CHILD ONE WEEK.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SPEAK SPANISH?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THERE IS ALSO AN ALLEGATION THAT
YOU -- THAT YOU HAVE SOME RACIAL PREJUDICE AGAINST HISPANICS,
THAT YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO LEARN SPANISH AND YOU SAID
DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT HISPANICS.
JUROR NO. 320: NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE. I WOULD LOVE MY
CHILDREN TO LEARN SPANISH. MY 17-YEAR OLD, I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHY BEING RAISED BY MY MOM SHE NEVER PICKED IT UP.
MR. COCHRAN: "U" YOUR YOUNGER CHILD?
JUROR NO. 320: SHE HAS LEARNED IT PRETTY GOOD. SHE
UNDERSTANDS IT AND SHE TALKS, BUT NOT AS GOOD AS I WOULD LIKE FOR
HER TO.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
HAPPEN?
JUROR NO. 320: MY OLDEST DAUGHTER RIGHT NOW IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS SHE IS TAKING IT IN SCHOOL, BUT SHE IS DOING
PRETTY GOOD BUT THE KIND OF LANGUAGE THEY ARE LEARNING IN SCHOOLS
IS KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU WOULD LEARN WHEN YOU ARE
GROWING UP.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT YOUR MOM MIGHT SPEAK?
JUROR NO. 320: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: "R" INSIST EARLY ON THAT AT LEAST "U" LEARN
SPANISH?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, HE HAS INSISTED, AND I HAVE NO
PROBLEM. SHE UNDERSTANDS IT FAIRLY WELL AND SHE SPEAKS IT.
MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HER SPEAKING
SPANISH?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR. NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN FRIENDS?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE. I HAVE AN A LOT OF THEM.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: WHERE DO YOU KNOW THEM FROM?
JUROR NO. 320: WHEN I USED TO LIVE IN ..... AND A LOT OF
THE PLACES THAT I WORK AND MY WORK RIGHT NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE LAST THREE YEARS OR SO,
ANY AFRICAN AMERICANS IN YOUR HOME IN ......? HAVE YOUR HAD ANY
AFRICAN AMERICANS GUESTS IN YOUR HOME?
JUROR NO. 320: OH, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN --
JUROR NO. 320: UMM, IN .....
MR. COCHRAN: WAS I MEANT, THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS
BEFORE YOU MOVED TO ......?
JUROR NO. 320: I'M SORRY. WELL, NOT -- NOT PARTICULARLY
IN MY HOME, BUT IN GATHERINGS THAT I GO TO WE GET TOGETHER A LOT.
MR. COCHRAN: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GO TO GATHERINGS, LIKE
PARTIES OR SOMETHING FROM WORK?
JUROR NO. 320: YES. THERE IS FILIPINOS, KOREANS, AFRICAN
AMERICANS.
MR. COCHRAN: BUT NEVER IN YOUR HOME SINCE YOU HAVE MOVED
TO ......? HAVE YOU HAD ANY AFRICAN AMERICANS IN YOUR HOME IN
THE ...... SETTING, THAT YOU RECALL?
JUROR NO. 320: NOT THAT I CAN SAY, NO.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU USED THE WORD "STALK." WHERE DID YOU
PICK THAT WORD UP, IF YOU RECALL?
JUROR NO. 320: JUST -- JUST FROM PREVIOUS -- STALKING IS
JUST LIKE PROBABLY JUST FROM HEARING IT FROM OTHER SOURCES.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU FELT THAT IT FITS YOUR SITUATION BUT YOU
NEVER -- YOU NEVER TOLD US ABOUT THAT IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE,
RIGHT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, BECAUSE IT JUST HAPPENED OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT BEFORE THAT WHEN HE WAS
CALLING LATE AND NIGHT AND DOING THOSE THINGS, YOU DIDN'T
CONSIDER THAT TO BE STALKING?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, NO.
MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU HAD TO CALL THE POLICE AND MAKE HIM
LEAVE?
JUROR NO. 320: I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE WORD. THE WORD
JUST KIND OF CAME UP WHEN IT CAME UP -- BECAUSE OF MY NEIGHBOR,
THAT HE CAME AND TOLD ME -- HE MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT KIND
OF PUT THAT WORD IN MY HEAD, "STALKING," AND I WROTE IT DOWN.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU THINK THAT CAME FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE
OF BEING IN THIS CASE, WHERE YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OR MAY NOT HAVE
HEARD?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR. I HAVE HEARD THAT WORD MANY
TIMES.
MR. COCHRAN: EVEN BEFORE THIS CASE?
JUROR NO. 320: YES. I HAVE HEARD IT WHEN -- WHEN THE
YOUNG LADY GOT KILLED. WHICH ONE WAS THAT? A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO. I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SHE WAS. SHE IS FAMOUS.
MR. COCHRAN: HE ALSO --
THE COURT: THAT IS THE ACTRESS WHO GOT KILLED?
JUROR NO. 320: THE ACTRESS THAT WAS BEING STALKED.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU HEARD IT AT THAT TIME?
JUROR NO. 320: UH-HUH.
MR. COCHRAN: HE ALSO HAS CONTENDED THAT FOR WHATEVER
REASON YOU WANTED VERY MUCH TO BE ON THIS JURY, THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN CALLED BEFORE AND YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SERVE, BUT FOR THIS
CASE THAT THE ALLEGATION IS THAT THERE IS SOME ULTERIOR MOTIVE
FOR YOU WANTING TO SERVE ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
JUROR NO. 320: LIKE I SAID, THIS IS MY SECOND TIME BEING
CALLED AND MY FIRST TIME I DID MY TEN YEARS IN JURY SERVICE AND I
NEVER GOT CALLED.
MR. COCHRAN: TEN DAYS?
JUROR NO. 320: TEN DAYS. I DID TEN DAYS.
MR. COCHRAN: AND THIS ONE?
JUROR NO. 320: OR WAS IT -- MAYBE IT WAS FIVE -- I THINK
TWO YEARS AGO THEY HAD CHANGED TO IT FIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: SO THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT YOU WANTED VERY
MUCH TO SERVE ON THIS CASE FOR WHATEVER REASON AND THAT YOU WENT
OUT OF YOUR WAY TO GET ON THIS JURY.
IS THAT SO?
JUROR NO. 320: EXCUSE ME.
MR. COCHRAN: HE ALLEGED THAT YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO
GET ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
JUROR NO. 320: I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN GO OUT OF MY
WAY. I WAS CALLED.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT YOU -- THE ALLEGATION WAS AGAIN THAT YOU
HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MOVE OR SOMETHING SHORTLY AFTER
SEPTEMBER TO GET READY FOR SEQUESTRATION.
DID YOU MOVE AT SOME POINT?
JUROR NO. 320: I MOVED AT THE END OF NOVEMBER, YES.
MR. COCHRAN: WAS THAT SO YOU COULD GET READY FOR
SEQUESTRATION?
JUROR NO. 320: WELL, MORE OR LESS, YES, BECAUSE I DIDN'T
KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW LONG OF A TIME WE
WERE GOING TO BE GIVEN AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION, IF YOU GUYS
RECALL, HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE GOING TO BE GIVEN, AND I DON'T KNOW
AND I CANNOT -- I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE A BURDEN TO MY FAMILY TO
HAVE TO PUT BECAUSE OF ALL MY PERSONAL STUFF AND EVERYTHING.
SO I THOUGHT AT THE END OF NOVEMBER I HAD FIVE DAYS
OFF OF WORK TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF MY -- BECAUSE OF
MY TIME OFF OF WORK BECAUSE WE ALTERNATE DAYS AND IT JUST
HAPPENED TO FALL ON A FIVE-DAY WEEKEND AT THAT TIME SO THAT WAS
A GOOD TIME FOR ME TO DO WHATEVER I HAD TO DO TO
MOVE -- TO BE ABLE TO MOVE, PLUS I HAVE TO GIVE A THIRTY-DAY
NOTICE.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND.
JUROR NO. 320: SO I JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT AT THAT
POINT.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND. AT THAT TIME DID YOU HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH HIM WHERE HE ASKED YOU ABOUT MOVING BACK TO
.... AND YOU SAID, "YOU KNOW I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE BACK TO
...."?
JUROR NO. 320: I HAD NEVER -- I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO
.... AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH -- IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
AFRICAN AMERICANS. IT HAS NOTHING -- I LOVE AFRICAN AMERICANS.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
IT IS JUST THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO .....
BECAUSE I HAVE TO TAKE MY KIDS BACK TO ...... AND THEN I HAVE TO
GO TO ......... FROM ........ I GOT TO GO BACK TO ...... AND
BACK TO ...... IT WAS TOO MUCH FOR ME.
MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND. DID YOU EVER WORK AT THE .....
.........?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: ........ IS THE ONLY ..........?
JUROR NO. 320: THAT IS WHERE I GOT CALLED AND THAT IS
WHERE I WENT.
MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU A ..... .......?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR, AND I DEAL WITH ALL KIND OF
PEOPLE EVERY DAY, YOU KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN MR. COCHRAN AND
DR. DIMITRIUS.)
MR. COCHRAN: GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNOW, AND YOU HAD A
LOT OF TIME TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS CASE AND FILLED OUT A
QUESTIONNAIRE -- YOU KNOW THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE FACTS
OF THIS CASE AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE OF SPOUSAL ABUSE
AND THAT SORT OF THING, IF YOU WERE TO TRADE PLACES WITH O.J.
SIMPSON WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH A PERSON IN YOUR PRESENT
MIND-SET IN YOUR PRESENT POSITION?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: EVEN THOUGH HE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN? DO YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM OF SPOUSAL ABUSE
AND HAS WIFE HAS BEEN KILLED?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT THAT?
JUROR NO. 320: I HAVE NONE.
MR. COCHRAN: I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AS THE JUDGE
HAS INDICATED I HAVE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS.
JUROR NO. 320: I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T CALL HIM; HE CALLED US.
JUROR NO. 320: I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I WANTED TO BRING
THIS UP TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T NOW IF IT WAS GOING TO
AFFECT ME IN ANY WAY AND I THOUGHT, WELL, I JUST WON'T SAY
NOTHING BECAUSE MAYBE NOTHING WILL COME UP, BUT HE TOLD ME AND HE
MADE IT HIS WORD THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE LIFE VERY MISERABLE
FOR ME ON THIS JURY AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS DOING IT.
MAYBE BECAUSE I'M ON THE JURY AND -- I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: ONE LAST QUESTION. AS YOU SIT HERE NOW DO
YOU THINK YOU WOULD TEND TO IDENTIFY WITH THE PROSECUTION IN THIS
CASE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAS BATTERED YOU DURING
THIS TRIAL?
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO MAKE YOU FAVOR THE
PROSECUTION?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NO. 320, "R" TOLD US ABOUT A PERSON
WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,
SOMEBODY BY THE NAME OF "S" WHO IS ALSO A ..... ....... OVER AT
THE ........ .......... OFFICE.
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: WHO IS "S"?
JUROR NO. 320: SHE IS JUST A FRIEND.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS "S'S" LAST NAME?
JUROR NO. 320: HER LAST NAME IS "S".
THE COURT: "S". ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU WISH
TO SAY?
JUROR NO. 320: NO, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ASK ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?
ARE THERE ANY AFRICAN AMERICAN FRIENDS THAT YOU HAVE
AT THAT ..........?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR, I HAVE AT LOT OF THEM.
MR. COCHRAN: THE NAMES?
JUROR NO. 320: SURE. "Y" -- I'M NOT SURE HIS LAST NAME.
"Y" -- HIS NAME IS "Y" AND THERE IS -- LET ME THINK.
THERE IS "Y" AND THERE IS "Z".
MR. COCHRAN: "Z"?
JUROR NO. 320: "Z" AND THERE IS -- WE CALL HER "AA".
MR. COCHRAN: "AA" LIKE IN MAYBERRY?
JUROR NO. 320: WE CALL HER "AA".
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS HER REAL NAME?
JUROR NO. 320: I THINK HER REAL NAME IS "AA", BUT WE CALL
HER "AA".
AND THERE IS -- WHO ELSE IS THERE? THERE IS "BB".
SHE IS IN CHARGE OF ......... I'M NOT SURE OF HER LAST NAME.
AND THERE IS "CC" AND THERE'S -- I'M A LITTLE BIT
NERVOUS RIGHT NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: THESE ARE ALL FRIENDS OF YOURS?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, AND THEY ARE ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS,
AND THERE IS -- I CAN'T -- HE IS JUST MADLY IN LOVE WITH ME, HE'S
AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HE IS JUST MADLY IN LOVE WITH ME. HIS NAME
IS -- WHAT IS HIS NAME?
MR. COCHRAN: HE IS IN TROUBLE IF YOU DON'T KNOW HIS NAME.
THE COURT: HE IS NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB.
MR. COCHRAN: HE IS NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB.
JUROR NO. 320: I'M NERVOUS RIGHT NOW. I JUST CAN'T THINK
OF HIS NAME. I DON'T LIKE HIM. I LIKE HIM AS A FRIEND BUT
NOTHING ELSE, AND I KNOW THAT -- BECAUSE HE ALWAYS TELLS ME -- HE
WILL WHISPER TO ME "I LOVE YOU" AND I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY
ARE JUST VERY NICE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW. I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU THINK OF HIS NAME, YOU WILL TELL US.
MS. CLARK: CAN I PLEASE ASK A QUESTION?
THE COURT: ONE QUESTION. TWO QUESTIONS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD -- HE HAD SHOVED YOU A COUPLE
OF TIMES IN THE PAST. DID YOU SUFFER ANY PHYSICAL INJURY AS A
RESULT?
JUROR NO. 320: NO. IT WAS JUST A MOVING LIKE, YOU KNOW,
HE WILL -- HE WILL SHOVE ME AND I SHOVE HIM BACK, YOU KNOW. IT
GOT TO THE POINT WHERE I JUST -- I WOULDN'T LET HIM GET THE
BETTER OF ME, YOU KNOW.
IF HE HIT ME -- YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A FIST OR
ANYTHING; IT WAS JUST A PUSH.
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. SO YOU WEREN'T INJURED SO YOU DIDN'T
CONSIDER THAT PHYSICAL ABUSE?
JUROR NO. 320: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THE LAST QUESTION.
THE COURT: THAT IS TWO QUESTIONS. IS THAT IT?
MS. CLARK: NO. I THOUGHT YOU WERE CUTTING ME OFF.
THE COURT: LAST QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU OFTEN HAVE PEOPLE INTO YOUR HOME?
JUROR NO. 320: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND ARE THEY PEOPLE FROM WORK USUALLY?
MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS THREE, FOUR.
THE WITNESS: WELL, RIGHT NOW I'M STAYING WITH MY SISTER,
ROOMING, SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE NO COMPANY, BUT A COUPLE OF
FRIENDS HERE AND THERE, YOU KNOW.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS MAINLY FAMILY?
JUROR NO. 320: YEAH, A LOT OF FAMILY.
THE COURT: I SEE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE AT TRIAL
HERE.
ALL RIGHT.
NO. 320, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU NOT TO DISCUSS THIS
WITH ANYBODY ELSE, FAMILY MEMBERS, FELLOW JURORS, ANYBODY, UNTIL
I TELL YOU OTHERWISE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER?
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT HAS
GONE ON TODAY IS GOING TO BE SEALED AND WON'T BE AVAILABLE UNLESS
THE APPELLATE COURT TELLS ME TO OPEN UP THE TRANSCRIPT IF THERE
IS ANY NEED FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO SEE IT OR SOME OTHER COURT
TELLS ME I HAVE TO OPEN IT UP.
JUROR NO. 320: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: SO THIS IS A PRIVATE DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOU, ME
AND THE LAWYERS HERE.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN WE INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE NAMES WERE SUPERVISORS?
JUROR NO. 320: OH, "DD". SHE IS MY .......... AND SHE IS
AFRICAN AMERICAN.
THE COURT: "DD"?
JUROR NO. 320: "DD".
THE COURT: JUST SO YOU KNOW --
JUROR NO. 320: SHE IS AWARE OF THE SITUATION OF "R"
BECAUSE SHE LIKES "R" AND SHE THINKS THAT WE SHOULD GET BACK
TOGETHER.
THE COURT: OKAY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, NO. 320, I'M GOING TO HAVE A
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY GO DOWN TO THE .......... AND JUST ASK A FEW
QUESTIONS, SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE DONE AS DISCREETLY
AS POSSIBLE, BUT I'M SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO DO
THIS.
JUROR NO. 320: SURE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO ON BACK THERE AND SMILE AND DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY.
ALL RIGHT.
(JUROR NO. 320 EXITED CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS
ASK -- I'M GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME AS TO EITHER OF
THESE TWO JURORS.
GO AHEAD AND BE SEATED.
I'M GOING TO ASK DEPUTY DOWNS TO GO OUT TO HERTZ AND
CHAT WITH THE TWO PEOPLE THAT MR. 228 HAS GIVEN US, AND THEN TO
RUN DOWN TO THE ...... ..........
MR. COCHRAN: ........?
THE COURT: ........, I'M SORRY, TO CHAT WITH THE PEOPLE
THAT SHE NAMED, OR AS MANY AS POSSIBLE, REASONABLY POSSIBLE, IN
THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.
DEPUTY DOWNS, ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT?
DEPUTY DOWNS: NONE AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO 228, WHEN I SPOKE
TO "H", AND I THINK SHE MENTIONED THAT WHEN SHE WAS HERE, SHE
MENTION THE NAME "G" WHO APPARENTLY RESIDES IN THE ......... AREA
WHO MIGHT HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT, LET ME -- I AM INTERESTED
IN THE PERSONS THAT HE INDICATES MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM
HIS POINT OF VIEW. THAT IS WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK WE NEED TO GO OUT
THERE AND FORMALLY SEQUESTER THE JURY AND SET THEM LOOSE.
AND DEPUTY DOWNS, DON'T GO WAY BECAUSE I WANT TO CHAT
WITH YOU FOR A FEW MOMENTS.
DEPUTY DOWNS: JUST TO CONFIRM, THE TWO PARTIES AT HERTZ
ARE "W" --
MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT IS "W" OR "W".
MS. CLARK: "W".
DEPUTY DOWNS: AND THE SECOND PARTY,
"X"?
MR. COCHRAN: "X", LIKE THE ...
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SINCE WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
AS TO JUROR MISCONDUCT AS TO ALL THREE BEFORE THEY ARE
SEQUESTERED --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT BEFORE THEY ARE
SEQUESTERED. I CAN DO IT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL, BUT I WANT TO GET THEM SEQUESTERED BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE
OTHER PROBLEMS COMING UP.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE JURORS WHO
ARE POTENTIALLY UNFIT IN THERE TAINTING THE REST OF THE JURY.
THE COURT: I HAVEN'T MADE THAT DETERMINATION YET, HAVE I?
MS. CLARK: NO, BUT --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS COMING UP
THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE US PROBLEMS IF I DON'T HURRY UP AND GET
THIS JURY SEQUESTERED. I WANT TO GET THEM SEQUESTERED FIRST.
WE WILL THEN TAKE UP THE JUROR POLLUTION PROBLEMS
THAT WE HAVE, BUT BECAUSE THESE ARE JURORS, I HAVE TO BE VERY
CAREFUL ABOUT HOW I DO THESE THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, I MEAN, THESE ARE CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS
WHO ARE GIVING US THEIR SERVICES AND THEY NEED TO BE TREATED WITH
SOME DUE PROCESS. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE.
MS. CLARK: I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO
SEQUESTER TOGETHER THESE JURORS, SOME OF WHOM SHOULD NOT BE ON
THE PANEL AND CAN SPREAD FURTHER PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PANEL. YOU
ARE SEQUESTERING THE PROBLEM WITH ITSELF.
MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE NOT READY TO ARGUE IT YET. WE
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
MS. CLARK: WE ARE EXACERBATING THE MATTER WE ARE TRYING TO
RESOLVE.
THE COURT: THIS IS A MATTER OF PRIORITIES. I CHOOSE MY
PRIORITY AS I HAVE. THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE ANY OTHER
MATTERS TODAY?
THE COURT: I HOPE NOT.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS IT THEN, WE WILL BE EXCUSED UNTIL
WEDNESDAY?
MR. DARDEN: I DON'T KNOW IF WE MENTIONED IT YET ON THE
RECORD, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE THE MOTION TO QUASH BY SOJOURN
ON WEDNESDAY?
THE COURT: I HAVEN'T CALENDARED A DATE FOR IT YET.
MR. DARDEN: COULD WE CALENDAR A DATE FOR IT FOR WEDNESDAY?
THE COURT: WHY DO I WANT TO DO IT ON WEDNESDAY AS OPPOSED
TO ANY OTHER TIME? I GUESS YOU NEED THAT INFORMATION FOR THE
MOTION, THOUGH, HUM?
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY, YEAH, WE WILL DO IT WEDNESDAY.
(AT 11:44 A.M. THE PROCEEDINGS
IN CAMERA WERE CONCLUDED.)
****
January 13, 1995:
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1995
4:10 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
THE COURT: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD ON THE JUROR ISSUES.
WE'RE IN CHAMBERS WITH MR. COCHRAN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR.
BAILEY, MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK.
COUNSEL, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD AN ON-GOING
INVESTIGATION WITH REGARDS TO NO. 228 AND NO. 320, AND YOU BOTH
HAVE RECEIVED -- BOTH SIDES HAVE RECEIVED THE UPDATES FROM DEPUTY
DOWNS I BELIEVE THAT ARE DATED JANUARY 9TH AND JANUARY 10TH.
AND LET ME NOW SHARE WITH YOU -- THIS IS THE LATEST
FILES REGARDING NUMBER 320 AND HER DOMESTIC PROBLEM.
ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I'LL HEAR ANY COMMENT OR
ARGUMENT YOU WISH TO MAKE REGARDING THE CHALLENGE TO NO. 228.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I THINK -- AND I'LL BE
BRIEF, YOUR HONOR.
NO. 228 -- I HAVE IN MIND WHAT YOUR HONOR SAID ON A
NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR WE HAVE TO
PROCEED VERY DELICATELY WITH REGARD TO THESE CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS.
228 FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TOLD US HE WORKED FOR HERTZ.
EVERYBODY KNEW THAT AND HE WAS QUESTIONED IN THAT REGARD.
I BELIEVE THAT HE INDICATED HE DID NOT PERSONALLY
KNOW MR. SIMPSON, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION
THAT IS IN ISSUE. WE ALREADY KNEW HE WORKED FOR THE HERTZ
CORPORATION.
IF YOU TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF "H" AND THE OTHER LADY
AND YOU THROW OUT THE STUFF ABOUT THE STAR AND ALL THE MONEY THEY
MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EXPECTED, BASICALLY WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO, AS
I RECALL, WHAT THEY SAID TO US IS THAT THEY ATTENDED AN OPEN
HOUSE AT THAT FACILITY, LAX, IN 1982.
AND I KNOW THAT FACILITY BECAUSE WHEN I WAS PRESIDENT
OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION WHEN IT WAS BEING BUILT, I WAS THERE
MYSELF THAT DAY. AND IT SEEMS TO ME IN THAT SITUATION, THAT WHAT
THEY SAID IS THAT -- JUST ONE LADY SAID, "I JUST CAN'T CONCEIVE
OF HIM NOT HAVING SEEN OR MET MR. SIMPSON ON THAT PARTICULAR
DAY." SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT RECOLLECTION OF THAT BECAUSE
WHO WOULD REMEMBER IT LIKE 12 YEARS AGO OR WHATEVER.
WE THEN I THINK BROUGHT HIM BACK IN OR WE QUESTIONED
HIM AT ANY RATE AND ASKED HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD MET MR.
SIMPSON ON THIS OCCASION, AND HE SAID NO, HE HAD NOT, AND HE
STUCK BY THAT. NOBODY CAN SAY THAT HE DID POSITIVELY.
AND BY THE LATEST REPORTS, IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE
I THINK HE'S MISREPRESENTED OR LIED IN HIS POSITION. HE HAD TOLD
US BEFORE, FOR INSTANCE, HE WAS A SPORTS FAN AND WE HEARD THAT HE
LIKES BETTING ON GAMES OR WHATEVER. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE HE'S A
GAMBLER OR HAS A GAMBLING PROBLEM OR WHATEVER.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS -- AND I ALSO WANT TO BE
SENSITIVE ABOUT THIS. HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING SINCE THE TIME WE
PICKED HIM. WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANYTHING OUT THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW
BEFORE THAT TIME REGARDING THIS MAN. WE KNEW HE WAS WITH HERTZ.
WE KNEW BECAUSE MARCIA QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON, THAT
SORT OF THING. AND THERE'S BEEN NO PROOF THAT HE KNOWS THIS MAN
OR HE SHOOK HIS HAND THAT DAY. NOBODY SAYS THAT.
THE WITNESSES -- AND I APPLAUD THE COURT'S EFFORT IN
SENDING THE DEPUTY OUT TO GO BACK TO TALK TO HIS FRIENDS OR
ACQUAINTANCES. BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NO PICTURE OF HIM WITH O.J.
SIMPSON, NOTHING LIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR. AND SO I THINK THIS
JUROR -- AND IT'S A REAL TOUGH THING INVESTIGATING THESE PEOPLE.
I THINK THIS JUROR CANNOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE LIED TO THIS COURT OR
TO HAVE LIED TO US.
SO WE'RE KIND OF BACK IN THE POSITION WE WERE WHEN WE
PICKED HIM. THE FACT IS, THE PROSECUTION MAY NOW HAVE SECOND
THOUGHTS ABOUT IT, MAY WANT A SECOND BITE OF THE APPLE. THAT'S
NOT THE TEST AS I'M SURE YOUR HONOR IS AWARE. THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE GROUNDS, SUFFICIENT GROUNDS, WHETHER
THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT HE LIED TO US; AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S RECIPROCITY OF PROOF IN THAT REGARD.
SO FROM THE DEFENSE, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS JUROR
SHOULD STAY, SHOULD STILL BE HERE AND WE OBJECT TO HIS BEING
THROWN OFF THIS JURY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN. AND I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT AGAIN HOW ALL THESE THINGS
STARTED.
SOMEBODY FROM THE STAR OFFERING 60-, 80-, $100,000 OR
SOMETHING CALLING THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THE D.A.'S OFFICE GETS
INVOLVED IN AN INVESTIGATION, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAY, THEY PULL
BACK AND THEN THIS THING GOES ON.
AND YOU'VE MADE AN INVESTIGATION AND IT JUST HASN'T
SHOWN US -- AND THE GOOD THING ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION IS THAT
DEPUTY DOWNS DOESN'T HAVE A BIAS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. HE'S
OBVIOUSLY JUST TRYING TO GET THE FACTS. AND THE FACTS ARE ONE
THING THAT ARE LACKING WHETHER OR NOT WE EXCLUDE THIS JUROR IT
SEEMS TO ME.
THE COURT: PEOPLE.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I DISAGREE WITH COUNSEL'S
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EVIDENCE AS IT RELATES TO 228'S VOIR DIRE
AND WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION HE PROVIDED TO THE COURT.
WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE, HE NEVER
INDICATED THAT HE WORKED FOR THE VIP COMMITTEE IN 1982. HE NEVER
INDICATED THAT HE WORKED FOR THE VIP SECTION AT HERTZ. AND THIS
WAS A SECTION WHICH CATERED TO CELEBRITIES LIKE O.J. SIMPSON WHO,
ACCORDING TO "B" AND "H", OFTEN VISITED THE LAX FACILITY. SO HE
NEVER INDICATED OR GAVE ANY INDICATION THERE WERE NUMEROUS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIM TO HAVE CONTACT WITH O.J. SIMPSON.
AND I ALSO DISAGREE WITH MR. COCHRAN'S
CHARACTERIZATION THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT 228 EVER MET O.J.
SIMPSON. IN FACT, "B", STATED HERE IN CHAMBERS RATHER CLEARLY
THAT SHE WAS PRESENT AND THAT SHE HAS A VERY VIVID CLEAR PICTURE
OF 228 HAVING MET MR. SIMPSON.
AND THAT WASN'T REVEALED BY JUROR 228, AND I THINK
JUROR 228 IS GUILTY OF GROSS MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO
PROVIDE THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION OF A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
AND MATERIAL FACT; AND THAT FACT IS THAT HE IS ACQUAINTED WITH
O.J. SIMPSON.
AND HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN HE WAS PERSONALLY
ACQUAINTED WITH O.J. SIMPSON, WE WOULD HAVE EXERCISED A CHALLENGE
OR WE WOULD HAVE ASKED THE COURT TO EXCUSE HIM FOR THAT, AND WE
-- I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE HAD A RIGHT TO HAVE HIM EXCUSED FOR
CAUSE.
SO I THINK THE RECORD IS CLEAR, JUROR 228 MADE
MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS. AND HAD WE KNOWN THIS INFORMATION, HE
WOULD NOT BE SEATED ON THIS JURY NOW, AND I THINK THERE IS MORE
THAN AMPLE CAUSE TO EXCUSE HIM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON 320.
MS. CLARK: MAY I SUPPLEMENT MR. DARDEN'S REMARKS ON 228,
JUST TO POINT OUT --
MR. DARDEN: SHE'S MY BOSS.
MS. CLARK: BUT I MEAN--
MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S NOT OUR BOSS. WE CAN OBJECT.
MS. CLARK: OR IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A PAUSE, I WILL REMIND
CHRIS.
THE COURT: REMIND CHRIS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: MISS CLARK TOLD ME TO TELL THE COURT THAT 228
NEVER ADVISED THE COURT OR COUNSEL THAT HE DISTRIBUTED CARS TO
THE VIP AREA OR THAT HE WORKED WITHIN 100 TO 200 YARDS OF THE
GOLD VIP AREA, WHICH APPARENTLY MR. SIMPSON FREQUENTED.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I SUGGEST A RESPONSE TO MR. COCHRAN?
MS. CLARK: MAY MR. DARDEN FINISH, PLEASE?
MR. DARDEN: DELAY IN THE TRANSMISSION.
IN FACT, HE INDICATED HE WAS A **********, WORKED IN
********. HE ACTUALLY WORKED OUT ON THE GROUNDS DELIVERING CARS
TO CELEBRITIES EXPLAINING HOW THE VEHICLES OPERATE, TAKING
VEHICLES TO LAX PERSONALLY AND PERSONALLY HANDING OVER THOSE
VEHICLES TO CELEBRITIES.
HAD WE KNOWN THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE OPENED UP
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF VOIR DIRE AND PERHAPS WOULD HAVE LED TO OUR
DISCOVERY OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD MET MR. SIMPSON. BUT HE DIDN'T
REVEAL ANY OF THAT IN THE VOIR DIRE EVEN THOUGH HE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
SO ON THOSE GROUNDS AND ONLY THOSE GROUNDS, WE WOULD
ASK THE COURT TO EXCUSE JUROR 228.
MR. COCHRAN: ARE BOTH OF THEM FINISHED NOW, YOUR HONOR?
MR. DARDEN: WE ARE FINISHED NOW.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I JUST SAY THIS?
WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IS, THE PROSECUTION KNEW HE
WORKED FOR HERTZ. HE DIDN'T LIE ABOUT THAT. REMEMBER "B", WHAT
SHE REALLY REMEMBERED, SHE THOUGHT HE HAD -- COULDN'T CONCEIVE OF
HIM NOT MEETING HIM. HE SAID HE DIDN'T SHAKE HIS HAND, AND
THERE'S NO OTHER PERSON WHO CAN SAY THAT.
AND SO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS GIVE THEM A
SECOND BITE OF THE APPLE BECAUSE THEY MADE THIS MISTAKE AND
SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH IT AND MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE FOUND OUT.
IF HE WORKED AS A ***********, THAT'S WHAT HE DOES, WORKS AS A
***********. I BET THERE'S A LOT OF JURORS ON THIS JURY THAT WE
DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK. BUT I MEAN IT SEEMS
TO ME THIS GUY WASN'T IN ANY WAY DOING THIS --
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A CIVIL
STANDPOINT. BEFORE THIS CASE, I WAS A CIVIL LAWYER. AND WHEN
SOMEBODY CAME IN TO ME AND SAID, YOU KNOW, "I TOLD THEM ALL THESE
THINGS --" I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY OF WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN.
FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, IF HE'S EXCLUDED FROM THIS
JURY -- AND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF IT AS A CIVIL LAWYER, IF A GUY
CAME TO ME AND SAID, "I TOLD THEM ALL OF THIS STUFF. THEY KICKED
ME OFF THIS CASE WITH SOME NICE WORDS, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?"
SO I LOOK AT IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. THERE IS RECIPROCITY OF
EVIDENCE REGARDING THAT.
AND I THINK NOT ONLY THAT I LOOK AT IT AS A CIVIL
LAWYER, I'M LOOKING AT IT AS HOW WE TREAT A CIVIL VOLUNTEER WHO
SPENT SINCE SEPTEMBER 26 -- AND A HUMAN BEING THAT'S BEEN
SEQUESTERED -- I GUESS THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE WEDNESDAY. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE DISAGREE AND FIRMLY THINK HE SHOULD NOT BE
EXCLUDED. WE THINK THERE'S A FAILURE OF PROOF.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND I'LL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS
REGARDING 320.
MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
320 I THINK IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT SITUATION. AND
I'LL BE BRIEF ABOUT IT.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S TWO THINGS. EVEN HER CLOSEST
FRIEND SAID SHE IS UNSTABLE, SHE'S UNSTABLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
SHE'S GOING THROUGH A TOUGH TIME IN HER LIFE. YOU WILL RECALL
THAT I AM THE ONE WHO ASKED TO APPROACH THE BENCH EARLY DECEMBER.
I SAID, "JUDGE, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS LADY. I THINK SHE'S
BEEN BEATEN." MARCIA SAID, "NO, I THINK SHE HAS A COLD SORE."
IT WAS MUCH MORE THAN A COLD SORE IT WAS CLEAR TO US,
AND HER MOUTH WAS ALL SWOLLEN. IT WAS OBVIOUS SHE HAD BEEN
BEATEN AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS,
SHE'S IN DENIAL. THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN A CASE OF SUCH EXPLOSIVE
NATURE, WHEN WE BRING HER IN HERE TALKING ABOUT HER BOYFRIEND
WHERE THE GUY WAS STALKING HER -- I MEAN IT'S BAD ENOUGH TO GO
THROUGH THIS KIND OF A CASE, BUT HERE'S A JUROR WHO IS ENDURING
IT RIGHT NOW.
HER PROBLEMS ARE WITH THE SAME FELLOW, "R", WHO YOU
GOT A CHANCE TO SEE HIM. I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO SAY MUCH ABOUT
"R". I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO SAY MUCH ABOUT EITHER ONE OF THEM
AS I LOOK AT THEM. BUT THEY'VE BEEN TOGETHER 14 YEARS, WHATEVER.
IT'S KIND OF A BIZARRE RELATIONSHIP WHERE SHE GOES AWAY FOR THREE
YEARS, THEY STILL THINK LIKE THEY'RE TOGETHER AND NOW THEY HAVE
THIS DIVIDING UP CUSTODY. SO SHE WANTS TO BE ON THE JURY IN THIS
KIND OF A SERIOUS CASE AND THIS MAN, "R", IS GOING TO HAVE THE
CHILD I GUESS ONE WEEK OR SOMETHING DURING THAT PERIOD.
EVEN HER COWORKERS SAID SHE'S UNSTABLE, IT'S AFFECTED
HER WORK. THIS LADY HAS A REAL PROBLEM IT SEEMS TO ME. BUT
BEYOND ALL THAT, SHE ALSO HAS THESE ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS AGAINST
AFRICAN AMERICANS.
IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE I ASKED HER, I SAID,
"WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU WORK WITH THESE AFRICAN AMERICANS. HAVE YOU
EVER HAD AN AFRICAN AMERICAN AT YOUR HOME?" "WELL, NO, NOT IN MY
HOME, BUT I WORK WITH EVERYBODY." AND IN FACT, THIS GUY IS
AFRICAN AMERICAN.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT
PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THIS PARTICULAR JUROR. WHAT CONCERNS ME --
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME GET TO THE POINT THEN. I KNOW WHERE
YOU'RE GOING. SHE DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH. I WAS TRYING TO SAVE
THE BEST FOR LAST.
THE COURT: WELL, WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE BEST
ARGUMENT. IF YOU NEED TO, THEN BACK IT UP WITH OTHERS.
MR. COCHRAN: THE BEST ARGUMENT THEN -- PROBABLY A GOOD
POINT. IT'S LATE. BUT I WANTED TO GET TO THE BEST ARGUMENT.
THE BEST ARGUMENT, I TRIED TO APPROACH THE BENCH. I TOLD YOUR
HONOR -- AND WE WENT BACK THROUGH OUR NOTES.
BOB SHAPIRO'S INTERROGATION OF THIS PARTICULAR JUROR,
SHE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE. SHE SAID NO, THERE HAD NOT BEEN, ONLY VERBAL, AND THAT
WAS IT. AND NOW SHE COMES IN AND TELLS US THAT HE PUSHED HER, SHE
PUSHED HIM BACK AND IT BECAME PHYSICAL.
AND SHE DIDN'T TELL US THAT. AND HAD WE KNOWN THAT,
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT THING ALTOGETHER, DIFFERENT THAN
228. SO THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO END UP SO IT WOULD BE FRESH IN
YOUR MIND. BUT I THINK THAT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. WHETHER SHE LIED
TO US BECAUSE SHE'S UNSTABLE, BECAUSE SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HARBOR
SOME RACIAL HOSTILITY, I DON'T KNOW. FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, THE
FIRST REASON BEING PERHAPS THE BEST CHOICE --
THE COURT: AT THIS POINT THOUGH, THE STANDARD IS, THESE
ARE CHALLENGES TO THESE JURORS ON THE BASIS OF MISCONDUCT. SO
THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY THINKS THAT SHE'S UNSTABLE IS NOT ACTS OF
MISCONDUCT.
THE ISSUE IS, WAS THERE, AS TO BOTH OF THESE JURORS,
SOME MISREPRESENTATION WHETHER -- AS TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS TO
BE A JUROR ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE INTERESTING THING IS,
THE CASE LAW HERE, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, GOES OFF IN DIFFERENT
DIRECTIONS. THERE'S A LINE OF CASES THAT SAYS THAT UNINTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION, AND THERE'S ANOTHER LINE OF CASES THAT SAYS
THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME INDICIA OF CONCEALMENT, OF INTENTIONAL
CONCEALMENT BEFORE THIS RISES TO MISCONDUCT.
BUT IN BOTH OF THESE SITUATIONS -- WITH 228, THE
PROBLEM IS, IT IS A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THIS DEFENDANT THAT THE
CONCEALMENT HAS TO DO WITH, AND THAT LEAVES THIS COURT TO BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS A BIAS DESPITE PROTESTATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.
AS TO NUMBER 320, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT?
MS. CLARK: I DO, YOUR HONOR.
I THINK THAT WHAT COUNSEL IS REALLY COMPLAINING OF IN
THIS CASE IS, THEY'RE CHANGING THEIR MINDS. THEY DON'T LIKE THE
BARGAIN THEY STRUCK IN ACCEPTING HER BECAUSE SHE DID ADMIT IN HER
INQUIRY RIGHT UP FRONT, SHE SAID THERE WAS VERBAL, MENTAL ABUSE.
SHE DID NOT CONSIDER PUSHING AND SHOVING TO BE PHYSICAL ABUSE
BECAUSE, AS SHE INDICATED TO US, THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL INJURY.
I THINK THAT'S VERY UNDERSTANDABLE AND NORMAL AND
PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR NOT CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS ABUSE IN THE
RELATIONSHIP. I WONDER IF THERE'S ANYONE PRESENT WHO HASN'T HAD
PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH SOMEONE THEY'VE BEEN INTIMATE WITH, OF THE
NATURE WHERE THERE'S NO PHYSICAL INJURY INVOLVED. MR. SHAPIRO
RAISED HIS HAND, BUT YOU'LL NOTICE NO ONE ELSE DID, MYSELF
INCLUDED.
SHE REPEATED IT IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. SHE STATED
THERE WAS VERBAL AND MENTAL ABUSE. SHE ALSO INDICATED SHE HAD TO
CALL FOR ASSISTANCE TO HAVE HIM REMOVED FROM HER HOUSE. AND
COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO PROBE THOSE AREAS IN ANY MORE DEPTH, TO
ELICIT FURTHER RESPONSE IS COUNSEL'S RESPONSIBILITY. BUT SHE HID
NOTHING. IN FACT, SHE WAS VERY FORTHRIGHT IN HER RESPONSES IN
THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
SHE DID NOT MAKE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS. THAT'S
WHAT DISTINGUISHES HER FROM JUROR 228. WHAT WE HAVE IN "R" IS A
VERY CONTROLLING AND ABUSIVE MAN WHO IS DETERMINED TO SEEK
REVENGE AGAINST HER FOR HER PERSONALLY TERMINATING THEIR
RELATIONSHIP. HE'S COME FORWARD TO MAKE INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE GROUNDLESS ABOUT HER.
SHE WAS VERY CLEAR AND I THOUGHT VERY FORTHRIGHT IN
HER CANDOR IN STATING IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON HER ABILITY TO
BE FAIR. AND INDEED THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IN THE MEMO BY HER
-- THAT WHEN SOMEONE POINTED OUT THE PHOTOGRAPH IN STAR MAGAZINE,
HER COMMENT WAS, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT ALWAYS AUTHENTIC.
THIS IS A VERY NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED RESPONSE AND
SOMEONE THAT I'M SURE COUNSEL WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE ON THIS
JURY, ONE THAT IS OF THE STATE OF MIND THAT IS UNWILLING TO
ACCEPT TABLOID JOURNALISM AS ANYTHING BUT WHAT IT IS; NONSENSE,
AND IT SHOWS THAT SHE'S RATHER LEVEL-HEADED ABOUT HER VIEW OF ALL
THE GARBAGE THAT'S BEING DISSEMINATED IN THE MEDIA.
THE FACT SHE HAS AN UNSTABLE RELATIONSHIP WAS TOTALLY
DISCLOSED IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE. AND WHAT HER COWORKERS WERE
SAYING IS THAT HER RELATIONSHIP IS UNSTABLE, NOT THAT SHE IS
UNSTABLE. SO THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SHE WAS FORTHRIGHT AND
SHE WAS CANDID ABOUT HER LIVING SITUATION. COUNSEL WAS INFORMED
OF IT.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE THAT CONFRONTS US. DID
SHE TELL? SHE TOLD, UNLIKE JUROR 228 WHO SAID HE ONLY WORKED IN
QUALITY CONTROL, NEVER ADMITTING THE FACT THAT HE ACTUALLY WORKED
IN THE DISPATCH BOOTH, WHICH "H" INDICATED WAS THE PLACE WHERE
PEOPLE WOULD MEET THE CELEBRITIES TO GIVE THEM KEYS TO THE CARS
>FROM THE VIP; SO HE PROBABLY MET O.J. SIMPSON ON A NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS, NOT JUST THE ONE WHERE THEY SHOOK HANDS THAT "B" SAID
HE DID.
THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION. THAT'S A DIRECT
MISREPRESENTATION OF HIS JOB DUTY AND FUNCTION WHERE HE TELLS US
IN COURT HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFENDANT AND SAW HIM AT A
DISTANCE IN THE AIRPORT ONCE WHEN HE WAS FILMING A COMMERCIAL,
WHEN IN FACT HE COMES IN COURT AND ULTIMATELY ADMITS HE WAS
WORKING 1- TO 200 YARDS AWAY, WAS IN THE VIP SECTION AND WORKED
IN THE DISPATCH BOOTH WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE EVEN HAD DAILY CONTACT
WITH THE DEFENDANT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON YOUR
RULING ON THE FIRST JUROR, YOUR HONOR?
MS. CLARK: I'M CONTRASTING --
THE COURT: I HAVEN'T RULED ON IT YET.
MS. CLARK: MAY I CONCLUDE?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT YOU WERE FINISHED. YOU BREATHED,
SO -- EXCUSE ME.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS HOW I LEARNED TO SPEAK.
BUT 320 I THINK HAS BEEN FORTHRIGHT TO THIS COURT
CONCERNING HER DOMESTIC SITUATION. HAD COUNSEL INQUIRED FURTHER
BASED ON THE ANSWERS CONTAINED IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE, HE WOULD
HAVE LEARNED MORE I'M SURE. HE FAILED TO DO SO. THAT IS NOT
ANYBODY'S FAULT. BUT HER EXPLANATION FOR FAILING TO INCLUDE --
SHE SAID TWICE IN THIS 14-YEAR RELATIONSHIP, THEY PUSHED EACH
OTHER WITHOUT RESULTING IN ANY PHYSICAL INJURY.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS -- THE
REASON SHE GIVES IS HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT
WOULD HAVE CHANGED COUNSEL'S VIEW OF HER IN ANY EVENT. I THINK
THAT COUNSEL HAS CHANGED THEIR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THIS
JUROR BASED ON THE NATURE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS COURT. THAT'S A
DIFFERENT SITUATION, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUROR
MISCONDUCT, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE CONFRONTING THIS COURT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU KNOW, IT'S SO INTERESTING, JUDGE, WHEN WE
ARGUE, SOMETIMES WHEN I HEAR THE TWO SIDES, IT'S LIKE WE ALMOST
CHANGE PLACES ACCORDING TO THE ISSUE. SHE SOUNDED JUST LIKE WE
DID ON THE OTHER ISSUE.
THE COURT: IRONIC, ISN'T IT?
MR. COCHRAN: SO IRONIC, YOUR HONOR.
BUT, YOUR HONOR, THE FUNDAMENTAL THING, BASIC THING
IS, YESTERDAY, MISS CLARK'S COLLEAGUES WERE ARGUING PUSHINGS WERE
VIOLENCE, PART OF THEIR WHOLE CASE. NOW WE'RE BACK HERE,
PUSHINGS ARE JUST MINIMAL, IT'S NOTHING.
PUSHINGS ARE NOT TO BE ACCEPTED, NOT TO BE TOLERATED.
AND YOU SAW -- YOU GOT A SENSE OF THE VOLATILE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE, AND PUSHING BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE MEANS A
LOT MORE THAN ANY VERBAL ABUSE.
SHE DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO
COME DOWN TO. NOT ANY BAD BARGAIN OR ANYTHING. WE DIDN'T ASK
HIM TO COME FORWARD. HE CAME TO US, HE CAME TO THE D.A.'S
OFFICE, HE CAME TO THE COURT, AND WE HAD TO ULTIMATELY LOOK AT
IT. THAT'S THE SITUATION.
AND I'M ONE WHO DOES SPEND A LOT OF TIME PICKING
THESE JURORS, JUDGE, AND I'M REALLY LOATHE TO HAVE ANY OF THEM
LEAVE. BUT I THINK WITH REGARD TO WHAT I'VE HEARD WITH HER, SHE
JUST SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS JURY FOR THE REASON SHE MISREPRESENTED
THE FACTS. AND I THINK BACK WHEN WE HAD OTHER JURORS, WHEN THERE
WAS A MISREPRESENTATION, YOU WERE VERY CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT.
THEY HAD TO GO. AND THAT'S THE SITUATION HERE.
AND I THINK THAT FOR HER TO SAY SOMEONE VOLUNTARILY
DIDN'T TELL US HIS PART IN THE COMPANY, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY
OBLIGATION FOR THEM TO TELL US WHERE -- HE SAID HE WORKED AS A
*************. HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW O.J. SIMPSON. AND THAT IS
STILL IN THE RECORD. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SPECULATION. WE CANNOT
SPECULATE. SPECULATION DOESN'T HELP US WITH THIS LADY WHO WAS
GOING TO SELL THAT STORY TO THE STAR. THAT DIDN'T HELP US.
THESE ARE CITIZENS WHO DESERVE SOME RESPECT. SO I
KNOW THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO RULE. AND YOU COULD LISTEN TO US
ALL DAY, BUT I'M READY TO SUBMIT IT. BUT I JUST WANT TO BE
MINDFUL AND GET MY FEELINGS OUT. I THINK THAT 320 SHOULD
DEFINITELY GO. 228 -- I MEAN I JUST THINK IF THE COURT LOOKS
WITHIN YOUR HEART, SOUL AND MIND, IT'S DIFFERENT IN HER SITUATION
BECAUSE HE DID TELL US THAT HE WORKED THERE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO
PROOF HE KNOWS O.J. SIMPSON.
I'LL SUBMIT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, IT'S INTERESTING THAT I AGREE WITH THE PARTIES
VARIOUSLY IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEIR ARGUMENT ON VARIOUS AND
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE DAY.
I FIND THIS TO BE AN UNINTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT ON THE
PART OF JUROR 320, THAT SHE SAYS THERE WERE INCIDENTS OF PUSHING
AND SHOVING. I DON'T BELIEVE, HOWEVER, SHE WAS AS CANDID WITH US
EXPLAINING THE CURRENT STATUS OF HER RELATIONSHIP WITH "R", AND I
THINK THIS IS THE SAME SITUATION WHERE, GIVEN THE FACTS AND
SITUATION OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, EVEN UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO
ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE THE NATURE OF HER RELATIONSHIP WITH "R", THE
CONFLICT -- I MEAN SHE CLEARLY APPEARS TO ME TO BE A BATTERED
WOMAN IN HER SITUATION.
MR. COCHRAN: AND NOT A COLD SORE.
THE COURT: AND THAT ALSO LEADS ME TO BELIEVE DESPITE HER
PROTESTATIONS SHE CAN REMAIN UNBIASED, THAT I THINK THERE'S
SUFFICIENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE COURT TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS NOT
LIKELY, AND I'M GOING TO EXCUSE BOTH THOSE JURORS.
NOW, HOW DO YOU SUGGEST --
OFF THE RECORD.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD,
NOT REPORTED.)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD.
MR. COCHRAN: WE WOULD STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO THE HERTZ
EMPLOYEE BEING EXCLUDED FROM THIS JURY.
THE COURT: NOTED.
MR. COCHRAN: WE FIND THERE'S NO BASIS FOR IT.
AND FURTHER, IN PICKING THE JURY, IT WAS VERY
IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF BALANCE; AND THERE WERE
ONLY THREE MALES ON THIS JURY. HE IS ONE OF THEM.
AND IN PICKING THE JURY, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS
VERY IMPORTANT TO US, AND WE BELIEVE THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE COURT'S FINDING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: MAY I INDICATE, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE
TO HAVE BALANCE AS WELL. WE'RE INTERESTED IN HAVING MALE JURORS
ON THE JURY, BUT WE AGREE WITH THE COURT'S REASONING.
(AT 4:25 P.M., THE PROCEEDINGS IN
CAMERA WERE CONCLUDED.)
****
January 18, 1995
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995
10:40 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT; MS. CLARK,
MR. HODGMAN AND MR. DARDEN REPRESENTING
THE PEOPLE; ALSO PRESENT, DR. DIMITRIUS.
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN CAMERA:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD.
WE HAVE MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MISS DIMITRIUS, MR.
DARDEN, MR. HODGMAN AND MISS CLARK, ALSO MR. DOUGLAS.
COUNSEL, THE COURT IS GOING TO INVITE IN 228 AND 320.
I'M GOING TO START WITH 228.
ANY OTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE PROCEED?
ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE 228, DEPUTY MAGNERA.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(JUROR NO. 228 ENTERS CHAMBERS.)
THE COURT: 228, WOULD YOU HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE.
JUROR NO. 228: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. NO. 228, GOOD MORNING.
JUROR NO. 228: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL, LET ME RETURN TO YOU THE HERTZ
COLLECTION OF LETTERS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO THE COURT EARLIER.
228, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT I HAVE TO DO AS A
JUDGE THAT ARE NOT PLEASANT, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT I'VE HAD TO MAKE AS A JUDGE.
I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: I ALSO WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT
A REFLECTION ON YOU, YOUR PERSONALITY OR ANYTHING ABOUT YOU.
I HAVE MADE A DECISION TO EXCUSE YOU FROM FURTHER
SERVICE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH HERTZ, AND
IT IS BECAUSE OF THE HERTZ CORPORATION'S CONNECTION WITH THE
DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.
I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN
SEQUESTERED, THE NEWS MEDIA HAS MISCHARACTERIZED THIS AS JUROR
MISCONDUCT AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT AFTER TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS
I'M GOING TO ISSUE A RULING INDICATING THAT I AM GOING TO EXCUSE
YOU FROM FURTHER SERVICE, BUT THAT IT HAS BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED
AS MISCONDUCT.
AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M TRULY SORRY TO
HAVE TO DO THIS AND IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT WE FIND
OURSELVES IN AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT YOUR FAULT.
BUT THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT THE APPEARANCE OF A
PROBLEM HERE IS ENOUGH TO GIVE US ALL A PROBLEM, AND I KNOW IT IS
UNREASONABLE FOR ME TO ASK YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK
YOU UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT THE COURT IS IN AND THAT BOTH
PARTIES ARE IN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT YOU WISH TO SAY AT THIS
POINT?
JUROR NO. 228: WELL, THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY I GUESS IS,
YOU KNOW, I'VE JUST BEEN SORT OF LIKE IN THE HOT SEAT FROM THE
BEGINNING AND I SPOKE THE TRUTH AT THE BEGINNING.
IF I HAD TO SAY THIS A THOUSAND TIMES, IT STILL
REMAINS THE SAME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. 228, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND SERVICE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO
US.
AND I'M GOING TO HAVE THE SHERIFFS ESCORT YOU BACK TO
THE HOTEL AND THEY WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
GET BACK HOME AND BACK TO COURT.
ALL RIGHT?
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
I'M SORRY, I FORGOT TO ADMONISH YOU, YOU ARE NOT TO
DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYONE.
AND ALSO, THERE IS A NEW LAW THAT INDICATES THAT YOU
MAY NOT ACCEPT ANY MONEY FOR ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THIS CASE
FOR 90 DAYS FROM TODAY'S DATE. IT IS THE NEW LAW REGARDING JUROR
PUBLICITY.
JUROR NO. 228: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
JUROR NO. 228: THANK YOU.
(JUROR NO. 228 EXITS CHAMBERS.)
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE BE HEARD FOR THE RECORD
BEFORE 320 IS BROUGHT IN?
THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIM TO BE TAKEN
BACK?
DEPUTY MAGNERA: WE WILL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: HE IS NOT GOING TO GO BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM.
DEPUTY MAGNERA: DO YOU WANT 320 AFTER I TAKE CARE OF THIS?
THE COURT: YES. MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE WOULD OBJECT TO THE PUBLIC
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REASON FOR THE EXCUSAL OF 228 AS NOT
BEING BASED ON MISCONDUCT.
I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THIS
COURT WAS VERY CLEAR AND PERSUASIVE THAT HE WAS IN FACT ENGAGING
IN MISCONDUCT IN HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
DEFENDANT.
IF THE COURT DOES ISSUE A STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY
INDICATING THAT THAT WAS NOT MISCONDUCT, THEN THE MESSAGE IS SENT
TO OTHER JURORS AND TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE THAT IT IS
ACCEPTABLE TO WITHHOLD IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE COURT IN
THE PROCESS OF VOIR DIRE, AND I THINK THAT IS NOT THE MESSAGE
THAT THIS COURT WOULD LIKE TO SEND.
THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, I THINK THE RECORD IN THE
PROCEEDINGS THAT WE'VE HELD SO FAR PRETTY MUCH SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES.
IT MAY APPEAR TO YOU TO BE CLEAR-CUT, BUT THE PROBLEM
I HAVE IN THIS SITUATION WAS THE APPEARANCE OF THAT PROBLEM, AND
I ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION IS WHAT I'VE DONE, AND I DON'T
WANT TO CAST UNNECESSARY ASPERSIONS ON THIS MAN'S CHARACTER IF I
DON'T HAVE TO.
AND TO SAY THAT ISSUES WERE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT
AND THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION CHOSE TO EXCUSE THESE JURORS AND
NOT NECESSARILY MAKE A FINDING -- I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO
MAKE A FINDING PUBLICLY OF MISCONDUCT, BUT I THINK THE RECORD IS
CLEAR.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU ARE GOING TO SAY IN AN ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION?
MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO
TELL YOU HOW TO DRAFT THE ORDER.
I DISAGREE WITH MARCIA. I DON'T THINK THE RECORD IS
CLEAR AT ALL, BUT SOONER OR LATER WE'VE GOT TO STOP ARGUING ABOUT
THIS, I SUPPOSE.
MS. CLARK: I'M DONE.
DEPUTY MAGNERA: 320, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(JUROR NO. 320 ENTERS THE COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: NO. 320, LET ME START BY THANKING YOU FOR ALL
THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE SPENT WITH US SO FAR. THIS HAS BEEN AN
UNUSUAL SITUATION.
I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE MANY DECISIONS THAT
I HAVE TO MAKE EVERY DAY IN A LOT OF CASES AND A LOT OF THESE
DECISIONS ARE NOT EASY TO MAKE.
AND THE DECISION THAT I HAVE MADE WITH REGARDS TO
YOUR SERVICE ON THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISIONS
I'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE.
AND I TOLD THE LAWYERS PREVIOUSLY THAT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT KEPT ME UP ALL NIGHT ONE NIGHT AND I WAS MULLING
IT OVER BECAUSE THE SITUATION THAT YOU WERE IN WITH MR. R IS A
HORRIBLE SITUATION AND UNFORTUNATELY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THAT RELATIONSHIP ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE SITUATION THAT WE ARE
DEALING WITH HERE, AND I FEEL COMPELLED TO EXCUSE YOU FROM
FURTHER SERVICE ON THE CASE.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME REPORTS
IN THE PRESS THAT CHARACTERIZE WHAT HAS GONE ON WITH REGARD TO
YOUR LIFE AS MISCONDUCT ON YOUR PART, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT
TODAY AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY I'M GOING TO ISSUE A RULING
EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM FURTHER
SERVICE.
AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE.
IT IS BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU FIND YOURSELF IN THAT
I BELIEVE YOU WOULD BE A VICTIM OF A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION TO
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
JUROR NO. 320: AND SIR, THE ONLY REASON WHY I THINK I AM A
VICTIM IS BECAUSE HE WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE.
THE COURT: I KNOW.
JUROR NO. 320: HE WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE AND I DO NOT THINK
THAT HE WILL EVER LEAVE ME ALONE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
ABOUT IT.
THE ONLY THING I WAS ABLE TO DO IS GO DOWN AND GET A
RESTRAINING ORDER THINKING THAT THAT WOULD DO IT, BUT I GUESS
NOT.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU GONE TO ANY OF THE -- CALLED ANY OF
THE BATTERED WOMEN'S HOTLINES?
JUROR NO. 320: I DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO. IF HE WOULD
JUST LEAVE ME ALONE, I WOULD BE OKAY.
THE COURT: YOU SEE, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT AFTER YOU
HAD BEEN SELECTED AS A TRIAL MEMBER IN THIS JURY, I MEAN YOU WERE
ASSAULTED IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION, AND IT IS SOMETHING
THAT IS UNFORTUNATE.
I MEAN, YOU ARE INDEED A VICTIM. YOU ARE A VICTIM OF
THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. HE CONTINUES TO MAKE YOU A VICTIM.
AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE THING THAT PAINS ME
SO GREATLY IS THAT BY MY EXCUSING YOU FROM THE JURY HE HAS
ESSENTIALLY WON A FIGHT WITH YOU.
JUROR NO. 320: THAT IS TRUE. I TOLD YOU HE WAS GOING TO
DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER.
THE COURT: TO MAKE YOUR LIFE MISERABLE?
JUROR NO. 320: TO MAKE ME LOSE EVERYTHING, AND THAT IS
OKAY, BECAUSE I HAVE MY KIDS.
THE COURT: NO. 320, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THAT PAINS ME
GREATLY.
JUROR NO. 320: PAINS ME, TOO.
THE COURT: AND ALL OF US, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS, AGREED
THAT IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCE, BUT THE PROBLEM THAT I
HAVE IS I HAVE TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL FOR BOTH SIDES HERE.
JUROR NO. 320: I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND LIKE I TOLD YOU, I
WOULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME, I CANNOT
COMPARE IT WITH ANYBODY ELSE.
THE COURT: I REALIZE YOU FEEL THAT WAY.
UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH SIDES HERE HAVE TO FEEL A LEVEL
OF COMFORT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SIT IN JUDGMENT, AND I'M
SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
JUROR NO. 320: I UNDERSTAND.
THE COURT: I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO AGREE WITH MY DECISION,
BUT I HOPE YOU AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE'VE HAD TO
GO THROUGH WITH REGARDS TO THIS.
I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND, HOWEVER, THAT YOU CONSULT
WITH A WOMEN'S GROUP REGARDING THIS PROBLEM, BECAUSE MY
ASSESSMENT OF YOUR SITUATION IS THAT IT IS A VERY SERIOUS
SITUATION THAT YOU ARE IN.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: MAY I PASS THIS TO THE COURT, PLEASE?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NO. 320, IF YOU WOULD, AFTER YOU
GET SETTLED BACK HOME, WOULD YOU CALL MRS. ROBERTSON, AND SHE
WILL GIVE YOU A LIST OF BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTERS IN YOUR AREA
THAT YOU CAN CALL AND CONSULT ON THIS PROBLEM AND THEY CAN GIVE
YOU ADVICE ABOUT RESTRAINING ORDERS, ABOUT COUNSELING. THEY CAN
REFER YOU TO LEGAL SERVICES AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEY ARE
SPECIALISTS IN THIS AREA.
AND I THINK IT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO
AVAIL YOURSELF OF.
DID YOU FILE THE RETRAINING ORDER AT THE LOCAL POLICE
DEPARTMENT SO THEY ARE AWARE OF IT.
JUROR NO. 320: YES, I HAVE A TWO-YEAR RETRAINING ORDER
AGAINST HIM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO BOTHER
ME.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
JUROR NO. 320: I MEAN, HE CAN TALK TO HIS DAUGHTER AS MUCH
AS HE WANTS, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT HIM HARASSING ME. IT IS
BASICALLY THE MENTAL AND VERBAL ABUSE THAT I GET FROM HIM. I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY LIKES THAT; I CERTAINLY DON'T.
THE COURT: NO. 320, MY APOLOGIES TO YOU AGAIN AND MY
THANKS TO YOU.
