Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:50295 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:247
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson
Path: world!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: SIDEBARS - July 18, 1995
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:40:01 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 416
Sender:
[email protected]
Sidebars from July 18, 1995
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. KELBERG, YOU TOLD ME TWO MORE QUESTIONS AFTER THE
VIDEOTAPE.
MR. KELBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DID NOT EXPECT HIS ANSWER TO BE
-- I DID NOT EXPECT HIS ANSWER, WHICH I THINK THE COURT WILL
RECOGNIZE, WENT ON FOR PROBABLY ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MINUTES,
UNABATED, AFTER I ASKED THE SIMPLE QUESTION REGARDING THE
MOTIVATIONAL VIDEO.
HE HAS THROWN IN THE KITCHEN SINK IN AN EFFORT -- AS
AN ADVOCATE -- AS THE JURY WILL SEE, IS AS AN ADVOCATE RATHER
THAN AS A PHYSICIAN.
THE COURT: HAVEN'T WE ESTABLISHED THAT AT THIS POINT?
MR. KELBERG: I THINK I HAVE.
MR. COCHRAN: EXACTLY.
THE COURT: THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO DO
IS WE HAVE THE TAPE FROM YESTERDAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT WILL
SHOW --
MS. CLARK: WE DON'T KNOW.
MR. KELBERG: WE ARE PREVIEWING IT TO SEE IF IT WILL SHOW
THE DOCTOR PRESENT WHEN --
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, DEPENDS ON THE CAMERA PAN.
MR. KELBERG: WE ARE GOING TO SEE IF IT SHOWS HIM PRESENT.
THE COURT MAY THINK IT IS COLLATERAL.
THE COURT: I THINK THAT IS REAL COLLATERAL. LET'S FINISH.
MR. KELBERG: I WANT TO FIND THE ONE DOCUMENT. THERE IS A
DIFFERENT DOCUMENT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
THE COURT: I AGREE YOU CAN LOOK FOR THE DOCUMENT, BUT
LET'S WIND THIS UP.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY?
THE COURT: YES, MR. SHAPIRO.
I'M SORRY, YOU NEEDED TO MAKE YOUR RECORD ON AN
OBJECTION PREVIOUSLY.
MR. SHAPIRO: TO PARAPHRASE THE FORMER CHIEF JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOT A MARATHON, AND
THIS WITNESS IS CALLED FOR LIMITED PURPOSES.
THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOW APPROACHING A RECORD,
JUST AS THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. KELBERG BROKE ALL EXISTING
RECORDS, THAT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT UNDER 352 THAT THE COURT
SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF THIS
CASE, AND THAT THE ONLY OBJECT OF MR. KELBERG'S
CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH SOMETIMES IN MY OPINION BORDERS ON THE
LUDICROUS, IS TO SLOW DOWN THE PACE OF THE DEFENSE, WHICH WE HAVE
TOLD THE COURT WE WANT TO FINISH IN THREE TO FOUR WEEKS, TO THROW
OFF OUR FLOW OF WITNESSES AND TO ACCOMPLISH NOTHING OTHER THAN TO
BORE THE JURY AND ENGAGE IN SOME TYPE OF PRIVATE CONVERSATION
WITH THE DOCTOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. KELBERG, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU HAVE LEFT?
MR. KELBERG: IF I CAN FIND THE DOCUMENT, VERY, VERY, VERY
BRIEF.
THE COURT: ONE DOCUMENT?
MR. KELBERG: I JUST WANT TO REVIEW THE MARTEL REPORT AND
SEE IF THERE IS ANY OTHER --
THE COURT: ALL IT IS GOING TO SAY -- LET'S FACE IT, IT IS
REALLY A FINE POINT WITHOUT A DISTINCTION.
IF IT IS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN HIS KNEE OR IF IT IS
OSTEOARTHRITIS IN HIS KNEE, IT IS STILL ARTHRITIS, AND WE AGREE
THAT LOOKING AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE SIDE OF HIS KNEE AND
LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF HITS THE GUY TOOK, HE PROBABLY HAS GOT
KNEE PROBLEMS. HE HAS GOT KNEEMONIA.
MR. KELBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL ACCEPT ALL THAT, BUT THE
ISSUE IS THIS DOCTOR NOW WANTS TO MAKE IT OUT THAT HE HAD AN
ACUTE ONSET OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED HIM
ON JUNE 12 --
THE COURT: HE HASN'T SAID THAT.
MR. KELBERG: WELL, HE IS SUGGESTING IT. THAT IS THE
INFERENCE THAT HE WANTS THE JURY TO DRAW.
AND THE QUESTION IS, IS HE CREDIBLE -- IS HE CREDIBLE
IN FORMING SUCH AN OPINION? I FIND THIS DOCTOR --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU'VE GOT A VIDEOTAPE OF MR. SIMPSON
WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK ON JUNE THE 12TH AT THE RECITAL WHERE
HE IS NOT LIMPING. YOU'VE GOT THIS EXERCISE VIDEO WHERE HE IS
JUMPING AROUND ALL DAY AND HE IS MAKING THESE ARM MOTIONS AND ALL
THIS KIND OF STUFF.
THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY IS THAT THEY CORNERED MR.
GOLDMAN IN THAT LITTLE CAGE. YOU DON'T NEED TO CHASE THE GUY
DOWN. YOU CAUGHT HIM.
MR. KELBERG: I AGREE WITH ALL THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: LET'S WIND THIS UP.
MR. KELBERG: I WILL.
MS. CLARK: CAN I JUST MAKE ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR? EIGHT
DAYS OF CROSS ON TOM LANGE.
THE COURT: NO, NO, NO.
MS. CLARK: THE COURT REMEMBERS THAT SO I WANT TO PUT THAT
IN CONTEXT.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT, BUT I
THINK WE'VE ALREADY MADE OUR POINT HERE IS THE POINT I'M TRYING
TO MAKE.
MR. KELBERG: I AGREE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: YOU MADE THE POINT THAT THERE WERE MANY OTHER
INJURIES ON THE BACK OF THE LEFT HAND. THAT WAS GREAT STUFF.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT, RIGHT.
MR. KELBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?
THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
MS. CLARK: I'M NOT DISPUTING THE COURT'S OBSERVATIONS. I
JUST THINK THAT MR. SHAPIRO'S OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENTS --
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU DON'T NEED TO CALL HIS COMMENTS
OUTRAGEOUS.
MS. CLARK: YES, I DO.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD ALSO OBJECT, SINCE THEY DON'T WANT TO
BE HERE, TO THE PLAYING OF THE JUICE PLUS VIDEO, AS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION AS BEING -- AS BEING A 352 OBJECTION
AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE -- WE ARE PRACTICING LAW WHILE YOU ARE
JOKING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND WE WERE --
MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK I WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE OF THIS,
AND I THINK THAT THE COURT OUGHT TO SHUT MR. SHAPIRO DOWN BEFORE
THOSE PERSONAL REMARKS ARE MADE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO
BE ALLOWED.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, STOP, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: IS IT ONLY ALLOWED ON ONE SIDE?
THE COURT: STOP IT. THE COURT ALREADY RULED ON THAT. THE
OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: JUST CLEANING UP OUR RECORD HERE, MISS CLARK.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MS. CLARK: THIS GIVES US SOME CLUE --
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR.
WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS, MR. COCHRAN?
MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE LAST TIME SHE CUT HIS HAIR.
JUDGE, I'M GOING TO JUST BRING OUT THE LAST TIME SHE CUT THE
DEFENDANT'S HAIR AT ROCKINGHAM, WHAT CONDITION HIS HAIR WAS IN.
MS. CLARK: THAT'S ALL? WHO WAS THERE, I WANT TO HEAR
ABOUT THAT. WHY IS THAT RELEVANT?
MR. COCHRAN: WHY IS IT RELEVANT WHO WAS THERE?
MS. CLARK: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: IT'S VERY RELEVANT.
MS. CLARK: THEN LET'S HEAR WHAT IT IS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU'RE THE JUDGE. I'M NOT --
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN --
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
WHO'S THERE? WHO'S THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: GIGI COOKED THE DINNER. THE FACTS ARE, THEY
HAD -- GIGI GUARIN IS THE HOUSEKEEPER. SHE COOKED DINNER. I
THINK THE DIRECTOR, ONE OF HIS DIRECTORS OF A MOVIE OR
SOMETHING.
THEY HAD DINNER. AFTER THAT, O.J. WAS WATCHING
FROGMAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SHE CUT HIS HAIR. THAT WAS IT.
I THINK PAULA WAS THERE. THAT WAS IT.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. COCHRAN: NO BIG THING.
MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF PAULA BEING THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: BECAUSE SHE WAS THERE.
THE COURT: THE LAST TIME HE HAD HIS HAIR CUT?
MS. CLARK: MAY I POINT OUT TO THE COURT, IF THAT IS THE
OFFER, AN UNRELIABLE OFFER OF PROOF WAS MADE INFORMALLY TO MR.
DARDEN. MR. DARDEN RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING OFFER OF PROOF OFF THE
RECORD JUST BEFORE WE BEGAN:
THAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT HIS HAIR WAS
NEVER TREATED. AND WE HAVE NOW HEARD EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT
DANDRUFF AND NOW ABOUT THE LAST DAY SHE CUT HIS HAIR.
I AM GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO REQUIRE AN OFFER OF
PROOF AND AN OFFER THAT IS COMPLETE AND HONEST IN THE FUTURE WHEN
WE HAVE WITNESSES WHO HAVE NO STATEMENTS. THIS IS A TRIAL BY
AMBUSH NOW.
THE COURT: LET'S PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I --
THE COURT: NO. NO.
LET'S PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT WAS WRONG.
THE COURT: LET'S PROCEED.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR.
WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?
MS. CLARK: WELL, THE REASON THAT THEY CALLED HER OBVIOUSLY
IS BECAUSE OF THE NON-MATCHING HAIRS IN THE CAP THAT ARE TINTED,
DYED, BUT BLACK ORIGIN HAIRS. AND THOSE HAIRS COULD HAVE BEEN
>FROM A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY WHO TINTED OR DYED THEIR HAIR LIKE
MARGUERITE OR ARNELLE. SO I WANT TO PROBE WITH THIS WITNESS
WHETHER SHE KNOWS WHETHER THEY TREATED THEIR HAIR.
THE COURT: HOW IS IT EVEN PLAUSIBLE THAT MARGUERITE COULD
BE A SOURCE?
MS. CLARK: BECAUSE THIS HAT HAS BEEN IN HIS POSSESSION FOR
THE LAST -- WELL, THEY STOPPED MANUFACTURING THIS HAT IN 1980.
IT'S AN OLD HAT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS DESPERATE. THAT IS
PREPOSTEROUS. SHE ALREADY INDICATED SHE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING
ABOUT MARGUERITE.
THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE. WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS
CASE ALONG RATHER THAN SPENDING THREE, FOUR DAYS ON SOMETHING
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
THE COURT: THE ISSUE OF TINTED HAIR IS FAIR GAME. SO I'LL
ALLOW SOME LIMITED CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS AREA, LIMITED
HOWEVER.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
CHRIS, WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?
MR. DARDEN: MR. COCHRAN HAS I THINK IMPRESSED THE JURY
WITH THE NOTION THAT LAPD OR THIS OFFICER IN PARTICULAR HAD NO
CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT WITHIN 30 SECONDS OF HIS ARRIVAL AT
HOME. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER
WENT TO BUNDY, HE SAW THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS, HE KNEW ABOUT THE
BLOOD DROPS, HE KNEW ABOUT THE DEAD BODIES IN FRONT OF THE PLACE.
HE KNEW IT WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.
HE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM, HE SAW THE BLOOD IN THE
BRONCO, HE SAW THE BLOOD TRAIL BEHIND THE BRONCO, HE SAW THE
BLOOD GOING UP THE DRIVEWAY, HE SAW THE BLOOD IN THE FOYER. AND
THIS OFFICER IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE HOOKED
O.J. SIMPSON UP.
MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
MR. DARDEN: THEY SHOULD HAVE HOOKED HIM UP AT THAT TIME.
COUNSEL RAISED THE NOTION THAT HE HAD NO CAUSE TO
ARREST HIM, AND ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS PERMISSION TO REBUT THAT
NOTION AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER THAT IF IT WAS ANYBODY ELSE,
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HOOKED UP, AS MR. COCHRAN PUT IT, AND THERE
WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT LEGAL CAUSE TO DO IT. AND I THINK UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JURY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL I TRIED TO SHOW IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE
CAME HOME. HE WAS ARRESTED OR HOOKED UP AT THIS POINT UNTIL
HOWARD WEITZMAN CAME. HE ALREADY KNEW.
I DIDN'T GO INTO BUNDY. WE SPECIFICALLY APPROACHED
TO DISCUSS THE LIMITED INQUIRY I WOULD ASK ABOUT, AND THAT'S ALL
I WENT INTO.
352. WE'RE NOT RAISING THE ISSUE OF THAT. WE'RE
JUST INDICATING HE WAS ARRESTED, HOOKED UP. IT WASN'T EVEN THIS
GUY'S IDEA ANYWAY. HE WAS I GUESS JUNIOR TO VANNATTER.
THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS WHAT HAPPENED ON
THAT PARTICULAR MORNING. THAT'S ALL.
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE SHOULDN'T BE
ALLOWED TO RESTRICT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS REASONABLE CROSS. AND
THIS IS REASONABLE. YOU RAISED THESE ISSUES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO
FINISH.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVEN'T RAISED ANY ISSUE. THE COURT
INDICATED IN THE PAST IN THIS SITUATION.
THE COURT: IF YOU'RE NOT RAISING THIS ISSUE, WHY DID WE
CALL THIS GUY?
MR. COCHRAN: I DID NOT RAISE THAT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. AND
I APPROACHED THE BENCH AND WENT THROUGH THIS. I DIDN'T RAISE
THAT ISSUE ABOUT THAT. I JUST RAISED THE ISSUE THIS MAN
HANDCUFFED MR. SIMPSON, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE I RAISED AND TALKED
ABOUT THE COFFEE CUP.
THAT IS ALL I DID, AS YOU SAID WITH US BEFORE. THEY
PRESENTED THEIR CASE. THIS IS OUR CASE OR PART OF THE CASE.
HOW DOES THAT BECOME RELEVANT, GOING OVER TO BUNDY?
WE WENT THROUGH THAT ALREADY. I MEAN AFTER THAT, WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO PUT OUR CASE ON IN A WAY THAT YOU'VE SAID THEY COULD
PUT ON THEIR CASE.
WE'VE DONE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. I DON'T SEE HOW
HE CAN GO FAR AFIELD OF THAT, HOW THIS IS EVEN RELEVANT.
MR. DARDEN: I NEVER HEARD THE TERM "FAR AFIELD" UNTIL I
ENCOUNTERED MR. COCHRAN AND MR. SHAPIRO. I WATCHED THEIR CROSS.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WHAT WAS THE RELEVANCE OF PUTTING
THIS GUY ON IN THE FIRST PLACE; THAT HE WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN HE
ARRIVED, WITHIN 30 SECONDS OF HIS ARRIVAL?
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WAS THE RELEVANCE OF THAT?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: THE RELEVANCE OF THAT IS THEY -- THIS IS ON
JUNE 13TH AT 12:00 O'CLOCK. THERE'S NOTHING BACK, NOTHING AT
ALL, AND HE'S HANDCUFFED AT THAT POINT.
MS. CLARK: THERE'S A BETTER OFFER OF PROOF THAT I CAN
MAKE.
MR. COCHRAN: NOT AT ALL. THAT IS A FACT. YOU ARE SAYING
I CAN'T PUT THIS ON? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PROBABLE
CAUSE.
THE COURT: I ALLOWED YOU TO PUT THAT ON.
MR. COCHRAN: I'M SAYING, THE RELEVANCE OF IT HAS TO DO
WITH WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, WHICH IS FAR
DIFFERENT FROM PROBABLE CAUSE. WHETHER THEY MAKE A DECISION
WHETHER TO HANDCUFF THIS MAN WITHIN 30 TO 45 SECONDS, THIS SEEMS
TO BE EXTREMELY RELEVANT.
THE FACT TO ALLOW THEM TO PARADE UP THESE BLOOD SPOTS
OVER HERE, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT. IT'S CUMULATIVE. THEY DON'T
GET TO RETRY THEIR CASE. THEY TRIED THERE CASE. AT THIS POINT,
THIS IS OUR CASE.
THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION, HOWEVER, MR. DARDEN, IS THAT
THE DIRECTION TO OFFICER THOMPSON CAME FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY IT DID. HE JUST TOLD HIM WHAT TO
DO.
THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS CORRECT.
THE COURT: THEN THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS
DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO TESTIFY TO.
MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. HE COULD HAVE
TAKEN THIS UP WITH VANNATTER, OKAY, WHICH THEY DID. NOW THEY
CALLED THIS OTHER GUY UP HERE TO RAISE THE ISSUE AGAIN IN THE
DEFENSE, AND HE IS THE OFFICER WHO ACTUALLY PLACED HIM IN
PHYSICAL CUSTODY. HOW CAN HIS STATE OF MIND NOT BE AN ISSUE?
IT'S NOT FAIR, JUDGE.
MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT FAIR? YOUR HONOR,
THIS IS THE DEFENSE CASE. THIS IS THE DEFENSE CASE. WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO PUT THAT ON. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO --
THAT'S UNFAIR. I MEAN, I APPROACHED THE BENCH TO
TALK TO THE COURT ABOUT THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS CASE
ALONG. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. HIS STATE OF MIND, HOW CAN IT BE
RELEVANT TO DOING SOMETHING?
MR. DARDEN: MY TURN?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DARDEN: HE'S RAISED THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT STUFF IN HIS
DEFENSE, JUDGE. THE WITNESS IS HERE.
THE COURT: BUT THE POINT I'M MAKING --
MR. DARDEN: HE CAN TESTIFY TO HIS -- EVEN THOUGH VANNATTER
IS HIS SENIOR, HE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO PLACE SOMEONE UNDER ARREST
IF HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE. HE IS A POLICE
OFFICER EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD. YOU KNOW, THIS OFFICER HAS THE
RIGHT NOT TO MIND AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. IF THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
PROBABLE CAUSE, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ARREST O.J. SIMPSON.
MR. COCHRAN: IS HE FINISHED? WHO'S KIDDING WHOM?
THE COURT: WAIT. HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE? HE'S
GOING TO SAY HE WAS THERE, "I SAW THIS, I SAW THAT."
MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M ON CROSS. I CAN, YOU KNOW
-- I GET TO LEAD. I CAN LEAD HIM. 10 OR 12 QUESTIONS TO FINISH
THAT ASPECT.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, WHAT I ASK YOU TO DO IN THIS CASE IS
-- WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO GET THIS CASE FINISHED.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO
THIS. I AM GOING TO LET THE JURY GO.
HOLD ON. STAY THERE.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WHO'S HANDLING MERAZ?
MR. COCHRAN: I AM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, MARCIA?
MS. CLARK: THERE IS -- THE PEOPLE ARE MAKING A MOTION
UNDER 352 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY AS BEING IRRELEVANT AND UNDUE
CONSUMPTION OF TIME.
THE REASON FOR THIS MOTION, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT BLOOD
>FROM THE BRONCO WAS COLLECTED ON JUNE THE 14TH. THIS WITNESS
ONLY HAD CONTACT WITH THE BRONCO ON JUNE 15TH AFTER THE BLOOD WAS
COLLECTED.
IT IS TRUE FURTHER STAINS WERE COLLECTED FROM THE
SAME AREAS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED ON THE 14TH.
HOWEVER, ALL THAT DOES IS PROVE FURTHER THAT THE BLOOD -- THE
AREA WAS NOT CONTAMINATED BECAUSE WE ARRIVED AT THE SAME RESULTS
WHETHER THE BLOOD WAS COLLECTED IN JUNE AND AS WE DO LATER ON IN
AUGUST.
SO THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
AND IMMATERIAL.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, AS THE COURT IS AWARE,
THEY WERE COLLECTING BLOOD FROM THE BRONCO UP UNTIL AUGUST, 300
SERIES, WHATEVER.
THIS MAN MOVED THIS CAR ON THE 15TH. COUNSEL DOESN'T
WANT HIM TO TESTIFY BECAUSE SHE KNOWS HE'S GOING TO SAY THAT NO
BLOOD WAS IN THERE. THIS IS VERY RELEVANT TESTIMONY. THEY'RE
STILL COLLECTING EVIDENCE UP TO THIS DATE.
THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT SECURED. THE COURT WILL RECALL
THIS WAS THE CASE WHERE THE CAR COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO
HERTZ. THERE WAS NO HOLD ON IT BY HARO OR ANYBODY ELSE.
HE DOESN'T SEE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS TAKE PLACE. SO
IT'S VERY, VERY RELEVANT. THERE'S NOT A 352 PROBLEM. IT'S VERY
RELEVANT. WE WANT TO GET THIS WITNESS ON AND OFF.
MS. CLARK: WE DON'T NEED A SOAP BOX, YOU KNOW, TO SEARCH
FOR THE TRUTH. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. THAT'S THE
POINT.
THE FACT THAT THEY CHECKED A BOX OR DIDN'T CHECK A
BOX ON THE IMPOUND SHEET IS IRRELEVANT. THAT MEANS NOTHING.
WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE 14TH SHOWING THE BLOOD
INSIDE THE BRONCO. THIS WITNESS DIDN'T LOOK FOR BLOOD IN THE
BRONCO. HE GOT IN ENOUGH TO PUT A PIECE OF PAPER IN THE CAP, AND
THAT'S IT, AND ALLEGEDLY TAKES SOME RECEIPTS LATER ON OUT OF THE
SIDE DOOR.
THIS HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. AGAIN,
THIS IS MORE SMOKING MIRROR. THAT'S FINE IF THERE'S SOMETHING
TANGENTIALLY RELEVANT. BUT THE RECOVERY OF EVIDENCE WAS ACHIEVED
BEFORE THIS WITNESS HAD CONTACT WITH THE BRONCO.
THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME, EVERYBODY'S TIME AND
PRODUCES NOTHING IN THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AT ALL. IT'S SIMPLY
MISLEADING, CONFUSING AND UNDER CONSUMPTION OF TIME. THIS KIND
OF GOOFING AROUND WHEN THE JURY IS BEING SEQUESTERED -- EVERYBODY
HAS HALF DAY. WE DON'T. THIS IS A JOKE.
MR. COCHRAN: COULD COUNSEL KEEP HER VOICE DOWN?
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR, WHO BROUGHT
DOWN BRIAN KELBERG FOR EIGHT DAYS ON DIRECT TESTIMONY --
THE COURT: WE DON'T NEED TO REHASH THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T HAVE TO REHASH THAT, BUT SHE'S THE
ONE WHO'S SAYING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, A
DOCUMENT WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S NAME OR WHATEVER ON IT IS
VERY RELEVANT TO A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
MS. CLARK: DATED MARCH OF '94.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
MR. SHAPIRO: JUST BY WAY OF OBSERVATION, IT APPEARS TO ME
WE EXTEND THE COURTESY TO COUNSEL TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AFTER THE
QUESTION IS COMPLETED AND NOT INTERRUPTING COUNSEL, AND THAT'S
ALWAYS BEEN THE COURT'S POLICY AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED
WITH MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONING.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN THOUGH HAS A WELL-DEVELOPED TALENT
FOR ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS, AND I CAN TELL RIGHT AWAY WHERE
WE'RE GOING WITH SOME OF THEM.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR RULINGS WERE ADVERSE WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN ALLOWED LEADING QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: NOBODY ASKED.
