Trial-January-26
.txt
School
University Of Arizona**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
CYBV 385
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 19, 2024
Pages
56
Uploaded by CaptainFang11596
*LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1995 10:00 A.M.*DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGEAPPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCEOF THE JURY:)*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.*MR. COCHRAN:* GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.*MR. SHAPIRO:* GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR.SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO,MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISSCLARK AND MR. DARDEN. COUNSEL, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WE ARE IN THEMIDST OF OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION HAVINGCOMPLETED THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENSE MADECERTAIN DISCLOSURES TO THE PROSECUTION PERTAINING TO CERTAIN WITNESSESWHO WERE MENTIONED AND/OR ALLUDED TO DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSEOPENING STATEMENT, AND THE PROSECUTION ASKED FOR LEAVE TO -- ACTUALLY ATTHE COURT'S SUGGESTION THE PROSECUTION ACCEPTED LEAVE OF THE COURT TOEVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT DISCLOSURE AND TO REPORT BACK TO THECOURT THIS MORNING. AND SO THE RECORD IS ALSO CLEAR, YESTERDAY EVENINGAT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 IN THE EVENING I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THEASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FRANK SUNDSTEDT, AT MY HOME, ADVISING ME OFTHE SUDDEN ILLNESS OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYASSIGNED OR WHO WAS HANDLING THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND THE OBJECTIONS TOTHE OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. COCHRAN. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS THE POSITIONOF THE PEOPLE THIS MORNING?*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION, LAST NIGHT WEATTEMPTED TO GO AND EVALUATE WHAT EXACTLY HAD OCCURRED IN COURT ANDATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE EGREGIOUS ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT. WE WERE WORKINGUNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1:30 IN THE MORNING AND WE WERE DOING IT WITHOUT THEBENEFIT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF MR. HODGMAN WHO WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITALAT I BELIEVE APPROXIMATELY 6:00 P.M., WHICH DID HAMPER OUR PREPARATION.WE ARE GOING TO BE READY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THECONDUCT OF COUNSEL. IF WE COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL1:30 THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING FOR THE COURTADDRESSING EACH OF THE ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY COUNSEL, AND WEDID ATTEMPT TO HAVE IT READY FOR THE COURT THIS MORNING, BUT HAVINGWORKED UNTIL 1:30 IN THE MORNING LAST NIGHT, WE SIMPLY COULD NOTCOMPLETE IT IN TIME.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. ASSUMING THE PROSECUTION'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONSARE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT TODAY AT 1:30, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION AS FARAS CONTINUING THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OFMR. HODGMAN?
*MS. CLARK:* THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE COURT'S RULING ON OUR MOTION, YOURHONOR, AND WHEN WE -- WE WILL BE REQUESTING CERTAIN THINGS OF THE COURT,AND DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE REQUESTS INOUR MOVING PAPERS, THEN WE WILL KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS IN THAT REGARD.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU IN A POSITION TO TELL ME WHAT REMEDIESYOU ARE GOING TO BE SEEKING?*MS. CLARK:* NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS BEING PREPARED AS WESPEAK. WE HAD -- WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD, AMONGOTHER THINGS -- SO THE COURT WILL KNOW HOW SOME OF OUR TIME WAS TAKENUP, WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE RECORD FOR ALL OF THEREPRESENTATIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCERNING THEIR COMPLIANCE WITHDISCOVERY ORDERS, AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS REPRESENTATIONS BYTHE DEFENSE OF FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, WHICH HAVE OF COURSE BEENPROVEN TO BE FALSE, AND WE HAD TO CITE THOSE TO THE COURT, AS WELL ASTHE NUMEROUS LETTERS THAT WE HAVE SENT TO THE DEFENSE WHICH WERE NOTANSWERED IN A TRUTHFUL MANNER, AS WELL AS THE COURT ORDERS THAT WEREISSUED WHICH WERE WILLFULLY VIOLATED BY THE DEFENSE. SO WE HAVE HAD TOCOMPILE QUITE A BIT OF MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THEMISCONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE, IN ADDITION OF COURSE TO THE MOST RECENT.*THE COURT:* I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS KNOWING WHATTHE PROSECUTION'S POSITION WILL BE WITH REGARDS TO EACH OF THEINDIVIDUAL ITEMS THAT OBJECTION WAS MADE TO, EACH OF THE WITNESSES THATWERE DISCLOSED IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND THE LINE OF ARGUMENT OR DEFENSETHAT WAS OBJECTED TO OR THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBJECTED TO. I NEED TOKNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS WITH REGARDS TO EACH ONE OF THOSEDISCREET ITEMS, BECAUSE EACH IS DIFFERENT, EACH HAS A DIFFERENT DATE OFDISCLOSURE AND EACH HAS DIFFERENT RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, SOME OF WHICHIS HARD FOR THE COURT TO EVALUATE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOUR SPECIFICPOSITION WILL BE ON THAT.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* WE --*THE COURT:* CAN YOU GIVE ME PERHAPS AN EXPLANATION UNDER WHAT SCENARIO,UNDER WHAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE WILLING TO GOFORWARD AND COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY?*MS. CLARK:* WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S DIRECTION, NO. 1, AS TO WHATTHE COURT DESIRES WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS AND THE REPRESENTATIONSMADE IN ARGUMENT. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS IT IN THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY,THOUGH, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS THE COURT WITH MORE THAN ONELAWYER BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR LAWYERS WORKING ON SEPARATE AREAS, ANDORDINARILY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ONE-LAWYER RULE, WE WOULD HAVEALL OF THEM FUNNEL THEIR INFORMATION TO ONE. IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE USTO RESPOND WITH THAT SPECIFICITY, WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TOHAVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN BEREADY WITH ONE LAWYER TO PRESENT ALL OF THAT AT 1:30. EITHER THAT OR TOALLOW US A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME. BUT WITH RESPECT TO EACH WITNESS ORGROUPS OF WITNESSES, THERE WILL BE -- THE COURT -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT THECOURT IS SAYING. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE SANCTION. IDO APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING IS SINCE I HAVE A JURY -- THERE IS AVERY PRACTICAL REASON FOR MY QUESTION. I HAVE GOT A JURY IN THE WAITINGROOM RIGHT NOW SITTING THERE, AND IF THERE IS ANY POINT TO KEEPING THEM
HERE, IS THERE -- WHAT IS THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WOULD BEWILLING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND CONCLUDE AT LEASTMR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT?*MS. CLARK:* MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?*THE COURT:* SURE.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MR. COCHRAN:* MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME?*THE COURT:* HOLD ON. CERTAINLY. I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO TALK WHILE SHEIS TALKING TO MR. DARDEN.*MR. COCHRAN:* NO, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*THE COURT:* MISS CLARK.*MS. CLARK:* YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THE SANCTIONS THAT WE WILL BEREQUESTING WILL BE ADMONITIONS TO THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO SOMEWITNESSES, PRECLUSION WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS AND WE NEED A CONSENSUSAMONG US AS TO WHICH SANCTION FOR WHICH WITNESSES AND THAT IS WHY IT ISDIFFICULT TO ADDRESS THE COURT. I UNDERSTAND --(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* THERE ALSO WILL BE ISSUES OF CONTINUANCE REQUIRED IN ORDERTO ADDRESS THE NEW DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE REQUEST TO REOPEN THEPEOPLE'S OPENING STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS POSED BY COUNSEL.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE CLERK.)*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MS. CLARK:* AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S POSITION. IT NEEDS TO KNOWWHAT TO DO WITH THE JURY. THESE ISSUES ARE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILETO RESOLVE, BUT DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S RULING WITH THAT -- ON THOSEVARIOUS ISSUES, WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENINGSTATEMENT, BUT WE DO -- I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT THIS TO THE COURT FORRESOLUTION BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. I JUST DON'TKNOW HOW LONG THAT IS GOING TO TAKE, BECAUSE WE ARE PRESENTED WITH AMYRIAD -- MYRIAD ISSUES TO ADDRESS.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR.COCHRAN.*MR. COCHRAN:* GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THOSEOF US ON THE DEFENSE ARE VERY SORRY ABOUT MR. HODGMAN'S ILLNESS AND WEWISH HIM A SPEEDY RECOVERY. WE ARE ALSO REPRESENTING MR. O.J. SIMPSON, AMAN WE BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT,SO WE HAVE TO KIND OF BALANCE THAT. CERTAINLY, AS I INDICATED TO THECOURT EARLIER, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MR. HODGMAN BEING HERE ANDTHAT WILL CAUSE THE PEOPLE SOME PROBLEMS, WE ARE WILLING TO WAIT ACOUPLE OF DAYS ON THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PROCEEDING WITH THE EVIDENCE.BUT YOUR HONOR, I NEED HARDLY REMIND THIS COURT, WITH REGARD TO OPENING
STATEMENTS, THAT WE WERE READY TO PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS ONTUESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THE PEOPLE CONCLUDED AT 3:30 AND BECAUSE OF AGLITCH WHICH WAS NO FAULT -- AN ACCIDENTAL GLITCH, BUT CERTAINLY NOFAULT OF MR. SIMPSON'S, THE COURT TOOK A RECESS AT THAT TIME AND WEWEREN'T ABLE TO FINISH OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. WE ACCEPTED THAT LIKE WEDO ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED HERE. FINALLY YESTERDAY I WAS ABLE TOMAKE MY OPENING STATEMENT. AND I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN THEIRMOTION. AS USUAL, THEY TEND TO BE TOTALLY JUDGMENTAL, TALKING ABOUTMISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE. THEY CAN'T STAND THETRUTH. I INDICATED THAT BEFORE. IF COUNSEL GETS UP AND IF YOU LOOK VERYCLOSELY AT THAT OPENING STATEMENT I GAVE YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUTLET'S SAY THE BLOOD UNDER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, THAT ISNOT ANYTHING THEY TOLD THEM, SO THE FACT THEY ARE UPSET -- THIS IS THESAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. IF ADEFENDANT HAD DONE THIS, ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE AND THEN HAVE ALLTHESE THINGS AND CONTINUE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE, EVERYONE WOULD BEVERY SUSPICIOUS, BUT HERE IT IS PROSECUTION WHO IS CONTINUALLY DOINGTHIS SO. ALL I'M ASKING AND WHAT MR. SIMPSON ASKS IS THAT WE BE ALLOWEDTO COMPLETE THE OPENING STATEMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT ISUNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE MY OPENING STATEMENT INTERRUPTED ALL OF THESETIMES, TO HAVE THEM -- TALK ABOUT GETTING UP AND GIVING A FURTHEROPENING STATEMENT. THEN DO I GET TO REBUT THAT? THEY CANNOT SHUT ME UP,YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS CASE. I'M GOING TOCOMPLY WITH THE RULE. WE MAKE A MISTAKE, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT IFYOU LOOK THROUGH THAT TRANSCRIPT, THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ARETHINGS THAT WE EITHER DISCLOSED TO THEM OR THINGS I KNOW ABOUT THAT IHAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM ABOUT. THEY CANNOT GET INSIDE MY HEADAND THEY MIGHT AS WELL UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU RECALL ONCE BEFORE I SAIDTHEY ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO SHACKLE ME FROM THE STANDPOINT OFADDRESSING THE ISSUES. THE COURT HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO THESE JURORSWHAT BOTH COUNSEL SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE AND IF WE DON'T PROVE SOMETHING ORIF WE FALL SHORT OF THAT, THE REMEDY SAYS THE JURORS SAY YOU SAID YOUWERE GOING TO DO THIS AND YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TOLD THEM HOWMANY TIMES THAT IT IS NOT -- OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE.AND I NOTICE MISS CLARK INADVERTENTLY KEPT USING THE WORDS "ARGUMENT"YOU RECALL WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, MAKING ALL OFTHESE OUTRAGEOUS SPECIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON, CONTINUING TOTARNISH HIS REPUTATION. WE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO THAT, AS WE HAVEBEEN DOING FOR SEVEN YEARS -- SEVEN MONTHS. THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THISMOUND OF EVIDENCE. WE DIDN'T OBJECT. WE TRIED TO CONDUCT OURSELVES ASPROFESSIONALS UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN YOUR HONOR HAD TO ASK MISS CLARKTO SIT DOWN FOR BEING SO ARGUMENTATIVE. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. WE WENTTHROUGH THAT YESTERDAY. THEY ASSIGNED MR. HODGMAN TO TRACK MY OPENINGSTATEMENT WHERE HE OBJECTS THIRTEEN TIMES, ABOUT ELEVEN OF WHICH WEREOVERRULED AND BUT -- AND I TOLD THEM AT THE TIME THEY ARE NOT GOING TOTHROW US OFF WITH THAT KIND OF TACTIC, YOUR HONOR. NOW THEY WANT STILL AFURTHER DELAY. SO WE NEED TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT WE ARETALKING ABOUT HERE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE OUR OPENING STATEMENTAND GET TO THE CASE. JUDGE, AS SOMEBODY WISE INDICATED, THIS IS THEPEOPLE'S CASE. THEY MADE THIS JUDGMENT BACK ON JUNE 16 TO CALL FOR THISMAN'S ARREST ON JUNE 17. THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE LOS ANGELES POLICEDEPARTMENT, I PRESUME. THEY HAVE 8000 PERSONS. THEY HAVE THE THIRD ORFOURTH LARGEST POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THIS COUNTY, AND THE DISTRICTATTORNEY'S INVESTIGATORS. THEY HAVE 900 LAWYERS. THEY SAID THEY WEREREADY TO GO. THEY HAVE ALL OF THAT ON THEIR SIDE AND YET THEY ARE GOINGTO COME WHIMPERING INTO THIS COURT AND CLAIMING THEY DIDN'T KNOWSOMETHING OR THEIR INVESTIGATORS DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING BECAUSE I HAVE ATHEORY IN MY HEAD OR A FACT IN MY HEAD ABOUT THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL
CONDITION OR SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WHAT TO HEAR. SO WE HAVE TO PUT IT INPERSPECTIVE AND THEY WANT TO CALL THAT MISCONDUCT. IT IS NOT MISCONDUCTAT ALL. BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN TRYING CASES FOR TWENTY SOME YEARS. IGUESS AS BOB PHILIBOSIAN, WHO WAS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, SAID LAST NIGHT,THIS IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING. HE SAID HE TRIED CASES FOR TWENTYYEARS, AS YOU DID, AND NEVER HAD A REPORT FROM THE DEFENSE AND NOW THEYWANT TO GET IN OUR BRIEFCASE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME HOME WITH US IFTHEY COULD. THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT. THEFORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAYS THAT AND EVERYBODY SAYS THAT AND WE NEEDTO GET DOWN TO IT. THIS IS A STALL, YOUR HONOR. LET ME FINISH MY OPENINGSTATEMENT. WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF ME ADDRESSING THIS JURY AND TELLINGTHE TRUTH? THAT IS ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT AND THAT IS ALL I WANTTO DO, IS COMPLETE MY OPENING STATEMENT.YOU ARE THE ARBITER AND YOU KNOW YESTERDAY WE WERE TOTALLY RESPECTFUL.EVERY TIME THERE IS AN OBJECTION WE APPROACH THE BENCH. AND WHEN THECOURT GIVES SOME DIRECTIONS, I FOLLOW THOSE DIRECTIONS. I DON'T GOBEYOND THAT. I WAS NOT NEARLY, NEARLY AS ARGUMENTATIVE AS BOTH OF THEMWERE IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS, ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND YOUR HONOR --BECAUSE IF I HAD, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLING ME ON IT, BUT AT THE ENDYOU HAD TO HAVE HER SIT DOWN, SO LET'S GET TO WHERE THIS REALLY IS. ITIS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITIES. AND WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS TRYING TO GETA FAIR TRIAL FOR THIS MAN HERE AND HE SHOULDN'T SUFFER BECAUSE OF THEIRTACTICS AND THEIR STALL TACTICS, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. SOWE ARE READY TO PROCEED. AND QUITE FRANKLY I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED RIGHTNOW, BECAUSE AS YOU'VE ALSO SAID, AND I WANT TO END ON THIS NOTE, THISALSO IS ABOUT THESE 22 CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS, AND YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAMEOUT, OR THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY WHEN THEY CAME OUT, YOU SAID "I HOPETHIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR NOT STARTINGON TIME" AND THEN YOU CAUGHT YOURSELF AND SAID, "BUT I KNOW IT WON'TBE," SO NOW WE GOT TO APOLOGIZE AGAIN TODAY ALL BECAUSE OF THESE DELAYS,AND THE DELAYS ARE FROM THEM. I AM READY TO GO. YOU BASICALLY WOULD BEREADY TO GO. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY READY TO GO. THIS IS THEIR CASE. WHO ISNOT READY TO GO? THE PEOPLE. WHO IS IT WHO WANTS TO LIKE CONTINUE TOCURTAIL WHAT I CAN SAY TO THE JURY? THE PEOPLE. AND IT IS THEIR CASE,JUDGE. AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH INTHIS CASE, BUT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT, AND WHEN YOU PUT IT IN COUNTERPOSITION, JUDGE, FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS THEY HAVE BEEN ON APUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN TO TAR AND BESMIRCH THIS MAN.*MR. DARDEN:* I OBJECT AT THIS POINT. ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE WHETHER ORNOT WE ARE GOING TO GO TO 1:30? ISN'T THAT THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT?*MR. COCHRAN:* MAY I FINISH, YOUR HONOR?*THE COURT:* THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. WHENEVER I'M TALKING,YOUR HONOR, THEY WANT TO STOP ME FROM TALKING.*MR. DARDEN:* I HAVE WORK TO DO, SO I CAN DO THIS OR GO UPSTAIRS.*THE COURT:* MR. DARDEN, I AM HEARING FROM ONE COUNSEL AT A TIME. MISSCLARK IS THE ONE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.*MR. COCHRAN:* NOTHING COULD BE MORE GRAPHIC THAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUSTSAW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CASE. AND IT IS NOTPERSONAL BETWEEN ME AND MR. DARDEN OR MISS CLARK. THIS IS WITH OURCLIENT. THEY WENT ON THIS PUBLIC RELATIONS MEDIA BLITZ TO TAR THIS MAN.
FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, AFTER SEVEN MONTHS, YESTERDAY SOMEBODY SPOKE UP FORO.J. SIMPSON. ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN THE BYWAYS AND HIGHWAYS THEYHEARD ANOTHER SIDE OF WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEY CAN'TTAKE IT AND THAT IS NOT FAIR. NOW, WHAT ABOUT HIM? I MEAN, HE WOULD LOVETO ADDRESS IT, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM, BUT ON WHAT IT FEELSLIKE TO BE THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN THE OBJECT OF ALL THE THINGS THEY HAVEDONE TO HIM AND THEY THEN HAVE THE TEMERITY, THE UNMITIGATED GALL TOCOME IN HERE AND COMPLAIN THAT, GEE, THEY HAVE SOMEHOW BEEN SABOTAGEDAND THEY ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE CASE, YOUR HONOR. SO LET'S GET THISOPENING STATEMENT COMPLETED. LET'S GET TO THE EVIDENCE AS SOON ASPOSSIBLE. LET'S TRY TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE AND LET'S CONDUCTOURSELVES LIKE LAWYERS. WE WON'T BE TRYING TO INTERRUPT THEM. WE DIDN'TINTERRUPT THEM WHEN THEY WERE GIVING THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. I WON'T BESTANDING UP WHEN HE IS TALKING LIKE THAT. THEY SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVESLIKE LAWYERS AND BE PROFESSIONAL AND LET'S GET THIS DONE.*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, THOUGH. THE ISSUERIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO TRAIL OVER UNTIL 1:30 TODETERMINE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS GOING TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY WEARE IN THE UNUSUAL POSITION WHERE MR. HODGMAN HAS TAKEN ILL, HE IS INTHE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SOMERELIEF, IF NOTHING ELSE, JUST TO REGROUP. SECONDLY, THE DEFENSE DID MAKEDISCLOSURE YESTERDAY OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND TURNED OVER WITNESSSTATEMENTS THAT WERE DATED IN AUGUST AND JULY OF LAST YEAR THAT THEYWERE NOT AWARE OF, AND MR. DOUGLAS FORTHRIGHTLY INDICATED THAT AN ERRORHAD BEEN MADE IN NOT TURNING THOSE OVER, SO THE PROSECUTION IS IN THESITUATION WHERE ONE OF THE THREE LEAD PROSECUTORS HAS TAKEN ILL, STILLIS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND YOUR SIDE HAS CONCEDED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE NOTTO TURN THOSE ITEMS OVER TO THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEOPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE WHAT WAS TURNED OVER LATE. THEY ARE ENTITLED TOASK THIS COURT FOR SANCTIONS. THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO REEVALUATE THEIRPOSITION IN LIGHT OF THE ABSENCE OF MR. HODGMAN. I'M GOING TO GIVE THEMTHE TIME UNTIL 1:30 TO DO THAT.*MR. COCHRAN:* MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? AND I STARTED MY REMARKS BYSAYING, YOUR HONOR, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO MR. HODGMAN.*THE COURT:* WE ALL ARE.*MR. COCHRAN:* HE IS A WONDERFUL PERSON AND THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUTTHAT, AND AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. YOUR HONOR, IWANT TO PUT ONE THING IN PERSPECTIVE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST --FIRST OF ALL, THE LIST CAME ABOUT --*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, WHY DON'T WE SAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ISON THE LIST.*MR. COCHRAN:* CAN I MAKE A RESPONSE TO ONE THING YOUR HONOR SAID IF YOUALLOW ME, PLEASE?*THE COURT:* CERTAINLY.*MR. COCHRAN:* YOU HAD INDICATED ON THE LIST THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OFDISCLOSURES THAT WERE LATE. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, THE LISTCAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAD ASKED MR. DOUGLAS TO MAKE SURE -- MR. DOUGLASONLY BECAME THE EVIDENCE COORDINATOR, I CAN SAY THIS --*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
*MR. COCHRAN:* RIGHT.*THE COURT:* I UNDERSTAND MR. DOUGLAS' COMMENTS TO ME. I RECALL THEMVERY CLEARLY.*MR. COCHRAN:* I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THERE ARE VERY FEWWITNESSES ON THAT LIST, IF ANY, THAT I ALLUDED TO IN OPENING STATEMENT,MANY OF WHOM WON'T EVEN I DON'T THINK BE CALLED, BUT AGAIN, I THINK ITWAS JUST A QUESTION --*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, WE WILL TAKE THIS UP --*THE COURT:* NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I LISTENED TO ONE SIDE VERY CAREFULLY,VERY PATIENTLY, THEN YOU GET TO RESPOND. I'M GOING TO GRANT YOUR REQUESTTO 1:30, MISS CLARK.*MR. DARDEN:* ON THAT NOTE, YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?*THE COURT:* NO. BE SEATED, PLEASE.*MR. DARDEN:* THEY WANT ME TO WRITE THE MOTION.*THE COURT:* BE SEATED, MR. DARDEN, WILL YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU. MR.COCHRAN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?*MR. COCHRAN:* NOT YET, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* WOULD YOU PLEASE.*MR. COCHRAN:* OKAY, I WILL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL.*MR. COCHRAN:* I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. IF THEY WOULD LEARN TOFOLLOW YOUR RULES I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE. ALL I WANT TO SAY AND JUSTCONCLUDE --*THE COURT:* WELL, MR. COCHRAN, DON'T BAIT THEM UNNECESSARILY IF YOUDON'T HAVE TO.*MR. COCHRAN:* I'M NOT BAITING THEM, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN THEY ARE ADULTS;NOT CHILDREN. OKAY. BUT I WON'T BAIT THEM.*MR. DARDEN:* DO WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS ALL MORNING?*THE COURT:* MR. DARDEN, PLEASE, PLEASE.*MR. COCHRAN:* LET ME CONCLUDE JUST BY SAYING --*THE COURT:* WOULD YOU BE SEATED, SIR. THANK YOU. MR. COCHRAN.*MR. COCHRAN:* YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE -- THE POINT I WAS JUST TRYING TOMAKE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S STATEMENT, I THINK YOU WILL SEE WHENYOU SEE THE WITNESS LIST THAT VERY FEW OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE ALLUDEDTO IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. THE LIST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HADINSTRUCTED US TO GET ON TOP OF THAT.*THE COURT:* THE PROBLEM IS THAT BY CONCEDING THAT VERY FEW ON THAT LATEDISCLOSED LIST WERE MENTIONED, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MENTIONED AT ALL
AND LATELY DISCLOSED IS AN ISSUE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TOLITIGATE.*MR. COCHRAN:* IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT ISSUE THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR,BUT WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN QUICK ORDER ITHINK. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IT IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING ANDTHAT IS THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT SO THAT WE CAN GETON WITH IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT AND LISTENING, YOUR HONOR. IAPPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.*THE COURT:* COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE RECESS UNTIL 1:30? MR.DARDEN?(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*THE COURT:* I ALSO HAVE TO TAKE UP THE DNA DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT MR.BLASIER AND MR. HARMON I THINK ARE GOING TO ADDRESS. ANYTHING ELSE, MR.DARDEN?*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, I SEE THAT EVERY TIME THE JURY COMES IN THATTHE DEFENSE HAS PICTURES OF MR. SIMPSON AND THEIR BOARDS TURNED TO FACETHE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN READ THEM AS THEY WALK THROUGH THE JURY BOX.AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE DEFENSE BE DIRECTED TO TURN THEIR BOARDSAROUND, AS WE HAVE.*THE COURT:* THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE. BOTH SIDES NEED THE COURT'SPERMISSION BEFORE THEY PUT UP ANY DISPLAYS WHILE THE JURY IS HERE. THANKYOU, COUNSEL.*MR. COCHRAN:* I THINK IT IS UP FROM LAST NIGHT. THE JURORS HAVEN'T SEENIT; THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN HERE.*THE COURT:* A STANDING RULE WILL BE NO EXHIBITS WILL BE DISPLAYED UNTILTHE COURT IS IN SESSION AND THE COURT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION FOR THAT TOBE POSTED.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.*MR. DARDEN:* ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T DESIRETO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY AT THIS TIME, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THERECORD PERFECTLY CLEAR, AND WE WILL SHOW THIS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WEDISCUSS THE ISSUE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLEMENTIONED YESTERDAY, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, PEOPLEWHOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO US AS THEYSHOULD HAVE BEEN. WHEN WE OBJECTED WE GOT NO RELIEF. HAD WE KNOWN ABOUTSOME OF THESE WITNESSES, WE COULD HAVE INFORMED COUNSEL THAT THEY AREHEROIN ADDICTS, THIEVES, FELONS, AND THAT ONE OF THESE WITNESS, ONE OFTHEIR SO-CALLED MATERIAL WITNESSES IS THE ONLY PERSON I HAVE EVER KNOWNTO BE A COURT CERTIFIED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET ME, BEFORE I EXCUSE YOU,MR. DARDEN, LET ME ALSO ADVISE COUNSEL THAT THERE IS A STANDING ORDER BYBOTH SUPERVISING JUDGES IN THIS BUILDING THAT NO PRESS CONFERENCES WILLBE HELD ON THE 9TH FLOOR. APPARENTLY WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING BYCOUNSEL IN THIS CASE WHO HAVE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS OR GRANTED INTERVIEWSTO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS HERE ON THE 9TH FLOOR. JUST SO THERE IS NOMISUNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE TO BE NO PRESS INTERVIEWS ON THE 9TH FLOORCONDUCTED BY COUNSEL. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THIS IS A HIGH SECURITYFLOOR, IT CREATES CONGESTION, IT IS A SECURITY PROBLEM, IT INTERFERES
WITH OTHER COURTS, IT INFLUENCES OTHER WITNESSES AND JURORS ON OTHERCASES, AND THERE IS A STANDING ORDER AGAINST THAT. THE SHERIFF'SDEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED TO ME SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPERVISINGJUDGE'S ORDERS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. I AM JUST PUTTING COUNSEL ON NOTICETHAT DEPARTMENT 100 WILL BE CONDUCTING CONTEMPT HEARINGS IF THIS OCCURSAGAIN, SO PLEASE FOLLOW THE SUPERVISING JUDGE'S ORDER IN THAT REGARD. WEDO HAVE A FIRST FLOOR PRESS CONFERENCE AREA SET ASIDE FOR THAT PURPOSE.*MR. DARDEN:* MAY I BE EXCUSED?*THE COURT:* MR. DARDEN, YOU ARE EXCUSED. ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, MR.HARMON.*MR. BLASIER:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE PROVIDED A LETTER TO THEPROSECUTION AND TO THE COURT REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WITHRESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AND WOULD YOU LIKE --WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COVER THOSE ONE AT A TIME?*THE COURT:* I HAVE READ THE LETTER, COUNSEL. I UNDERSTAND YOU AREASKING FOR USABLE LARGE SEEABLE PHOTOGRAPHS.*MR. BLASIER:* CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE PHOTOGRAPHS I DID NOT PROVIDE TOTHE COURT. I HAD DR. GERDES FAX ME A COPY OF SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHSTHAT I REFERRED TO IN MY LETTER, AND I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THESEPHOTOGRAPHS CONTAIN EIGHT TESTING STRIPS IN THE SIZE OF ABOUT MY PICTUREON MY DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT USABLE IN THE FORM THATWE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEM AND WE WOULD LIKE COPIES THAT ARE THE SAME SIZEAS THE COPIES THAT THEY WILL BE USING IN THEIR TESTIMONY.*THE COURT:* MR. HARMON. GOOD MORNING, SIR.*MR. HARMON:* GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, NOTHINGIS AS SHORT OR AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.*THE COURT:* BOY, THERE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.*MR. SHAPIRO:* EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED FOR THIS ALSO?*THE COURT:* CERTAINLY.*MR. HARMON:* THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO CATEGORIES OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEENREQUESTED. THE SECOND CATEGORY INVOLVES PROFICIENCY TESTS AND THOSECOPIES -- BETTER COPIES WILL BE MADE OF THEM. THE FIRST CATEGORY I THINKIS MUCH MORE INTERESTING BECAUSE IT REALLY TIES IN WITH WHAT THE COURTIS STRUGGLING WITH TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME THIS COURT IS CONSIDERINGALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY THE DEFENSE INDISCOVERY, THE DEFENSE HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT THEYALREADY HAVE. I THINK TO ILLUSTRATE THE ABUSIVE EXTENT OF THE DISCOVERYIN THE DNA CONTEXT, I JUST SELECTED ONE OF THE DAYS IN THE LIFE OF GARYSIMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE NATURE OFTHE REQUEST AND WHY THIS COURT HAS TO DRAW THE LINE AT SOME POINT AT THESAME TIME THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED BY THEDEFENSE IN OTHER DISCOVERY AREAS. I JUST SELECTED OCTOBER 27 BECAUSE ITSEEMED TO BE THE LONGEST DAY FOR GARY SIMS. HE STARTED WORK AT ABOUT TENO'CLOCK THAT MORNING. HE DID A FULL DAY'S WORK ON THE DNA TEST RESULTSIN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO APPRECIATE, AND THE COURTHAS HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DNA. WE REALIZE THAT EVERY TEST HAS THEPOSSIBILITY OF EXCLUDING SOMEBODY IF THEY DESERVE TO BE EXCLUDED. IFTHEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED, THEY WILL BE INCLUDED. SO AT THE SAME TIME THAT
MR. SIMS WAS ANALYZING VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE, TOACCEPT WHATEVER RESULTS CAME OUT OF IT AND IF MR. SIMPSON WAS GOING TOBE EXCLUDED AND EXONERATED AND SHOWN TO BE INNOCENT, SO BE IT, THATWOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT THAT WAS PRODUCED. AT THE SAME TIME THATHAPPENED THE COURT HAD PROPERLY INSTITUTED SOME SORT OF RECIPROCALVISITATION BY DR. BLAKE, AND DR. BLAKE IS THE KEY FIGURE IN THISDISCOVERY REQUEST, SO GARY SIMS WORKED ALL DAY ANALYZING EVIDENCE ONTHIS CASE, AND AS WAS THE NORM -- AND I THINK WHAT HE DID THAT DAY ISALSO VERY INTERESTING.THAT WAS THE DAY, COINCIDENTALLY, THAT THE SOCK THAT IS THE SUBJECT OFGREAT DISCUSSION WAS EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAB AND ONEOF THE ITEMS THAT THEY PRODUCED SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO SINISTER ACTIVITYABOUT THAT SOCK. IT IS AN INFRARED VIDEO THAT SHOWS ONLY ONCE YOU KNOWTHERE IS BLOOD ON THE SOCK AND YOU HAVE VISUALLY EXAMINED IT AND YOUHAVE DONE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS, NOT ONLY DOES THAT JUST TELL WHERE YOU SOMEOF THE STUFF IS, YOU NEED TO DO INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY TO SEE OTHER THINGSONCE YOU REALIZE THAT SOCK HAS BLOOD ALL OVER IT. SO THAT IS WHAT MR.SIMS DID THAT DAY, PREPARED THAT EVIDENCE, PREPARED THE VIDEOTAPE,CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED THINGS AND THE DOCUMENTATION TAKES HOURS AND HOURS.AND THEN WHO SHOWS UP AT 7:45 THAT NIGHT, BUT DR. BLAKE. YOU HAVE TOAPPRECIATE THAT DR. BLAKE HAS A BUSINESS AND A LIFE OF HIS OWN, SO HEOFTEN DOESN'T SHOW UP DURING THE DAY, HE SHOWS UP AT NIGHT, WHICH MEANSMR. SIMS HAS TO WORK HIS FULL DAY AND THEN ON INTO THE NIGHT WITH DR.BLAKE. THEY SPENT FIVE HOURS GOING OVER ITEMS, UNPACKAGING ITEMS,DOCUMENTING ITEMS AND TAKING, IN MANY INSTANCES, SIMULTANEOUSPHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VERY SAME THINGS, AND NOW THOSE SIMULTANEOUSPHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT IS IN ISSUE AT THIS TEST. THIS IS THE SAME DR.BLAKE THEY HAVE HIDDEN BEHIND THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND THIS ISTHE SAME DR. BLAKE WHO HAS ALWAYS TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWODEFENSE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, DR. MULLIS AND DR. GERDES. THESE AREPHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE SAME ITEMS. THE DEFENSE HAS MADE NOSHOWING, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HIDE DR. BLAKE. HE HAS NEVER BEENMENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT HIS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAMEITEMS THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM, WHAT THEY CALL INADEQUATE COPIES, AREINSUFFICIENT FOR HIS PURPOSES. HE HAS SEEN THEM HIMSELF, HE HAS TAKENPHOTOGRAPHS OF THEM. IN FACT, I THINK WHAT IS IRONIC ABOUT THE NATURE OFTHEIR REQUEST AND THE INVISIBLE DR. BLAKE, WHO HAS BEEN SHIELDED BY THEATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, IS THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, WHEN DR. BLAKEVIEWED THESE ITEMS, HE INTERPRETED THEM AND CALLED THOSE RESULTS ODDLY-- AND THOSE RESULTS IN EVERY INSTANCE CONCUR WITH THE PROSECUTIONEXPERTS RESULTS. SO HERE WE HAVE AN INVISIBLE WITNESS WHO HAS HIS OWNPHOTOS OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS WHO HAS CONCURRED IN MANY INSTANCESVERBALLY WITH THE RESULTS THAT THE PROSECUTION LAB HAS PRODUCED AND THEYJUST SAY WE WANT YOU TO PROVIDE BETTER PHOTOS AND THEY HAVE NEVERDEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PHOTOS THAT THEY HAVETAKEN OF THE VERY SAME ITEMS.COINCIDENTALLY, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE DEFENSE HAS NEVER OBTAINEDANY OF THE PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO DO ANY OF THETESTING THEMSELVES. DR. BLAKE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME WITH THE PHOTOSTHAT HE HAS TAKEN OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED WE PROVIDE NEWPHOTOS. HE WAS JUST THERE LAST NIGHT. HE CAN SHOW UP THERE ANY TIME TOSEE THESE THINGS, TO COMPARE HIS PHOTOS WITH THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS AND SEEIF THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY. I THINK WE'VE COMPLIED WITH IT. THECONSUMPTION OF TIME THAT IT TAKES DR. -- OR THE DOJ TO ACCOMMODATE DR.BLAKE HAS TAKEN DAYS AND DAYS WORTH OF VALUABLE LABORATORY TIME FROMTHIS CASE AND OTHER CASES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES WHILE,BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS CASE GOES ON RAPIDLY TO TRIAL. SO THE DEFENSE
SIMPLY HASN'T SHOWN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. IN FACT, IT IS CLEAR,IF YOU LOOK AT THESE VOLUMINOUS NOTES, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN COPIES, THEIROWN ORIGINAL PHOTOS OF THESE VERY SAME ITEMS, SO I THINK IT IS TIME TODRAW THE LINE. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL. WE WANT TO GO TO TRIAL,TOO. WE WANT THE WORLD TO SEE THIS. DR. BLAKE HAS SEEN THIS. DR. BLAKEHAS SEEN THESE THINGS BEFORE WE HAVE SEEN THEM, SO I THINK THE COURTSHOULD SAY IT IS TIME. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO GO TO TRIAL, WE WANT TO GOTO TRIAL AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL BURDENSOME REQUEST.*MR. BLASIER:* YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A DISCOVERY REQUEST FROM OUR SIDE,NOT MR. HARMON'S REQUESTS FOR DR. BLAKE'S MATERIALS. THE PHOTOGRAPHSTHAT RESULT FROM THESE TESTS ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE TEST RESULTSTHEMSELVES. THIS IS NOT LIKE WE ARE TAKING A PICTURE OF A PIECE OFPHYSICAL EVIDENCE, LIKE A PIECE OF CLOTHING THAT WILL THEN BE BROUGHTINTO COURT. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WHAT THE PROSECUTION WILL BE RELYINGON IN GIVING THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEST RESULTS. THERE IS A LOTOF CONTROVERSY IN THE DQ-ALPHA TESTING AREA ABOUT THE INTENSITIES OFDOTS, WHETHER DOTS ARE APPARENT OR NOT. DIFFERENT EXPERTS WILL LOOK ATTHE SAME PHOTOS AND GIVE YOU GIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF WHETHER THERE AREDOTS THERE OR NOT AND IT IS NOT OUT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY ARE GOING TOBE USING WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR EXPERTS; IT IS THEIR PHOTOS. THAT ISGOING TO BE WHAT THEY WILL BE RELYING ON. THEY ARE NOT BRINGING THE TESTSTRIPS IN, BECAUSE THEY FADE VERY QUICKLY, SO BECAUSE THESE ARE SOURCEMATERIALS, WE CERTAINLY ARE ENTITLED. THE EXPERTS ARE GOING TO RELY ONTHEM AND WE ARE GOING TO BE CROSS-EXAMINING THEM ABOUT THEIR PICTURES.*THE COURT:* HASN'T DR. BLAKE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESEPHOTOGRAPHS, TO LOOK AT THE TEST RESULTS, MAKE HIS OWN PHOTOGRAPHS OFTHE SAME THING?*MR. BLASIER:* WELL, DR. BLAKE, IT IS TRUE, HAS TAKEN PICTURES OF THETESTING STRIPS HIMSELF, BUT THAT IS OUR WORK PRODUCT MATERIAL. WE HAVENOT MADE A DECISION WHETHER DR. BLAKE WILL TESTIFY OR NOT. AT A POINT INTIME WHERE WE DECIDE THAT HE WILL, WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE EVERYTHINGTHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE. BUT IT IS THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY TOOKTHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE RELYING ON DR.BLAKE'S PHOTOGRAPHS; THEY ARE GOING TO BE RELYING UPON THEIR OWN AND WEARE GOING TO BE RAISING SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY INTERPRETTHEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. WE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.*MR. HARMON:* CAN I JUST BRIEFLY RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?*THE COURT:* THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.*MR. HARMON:* ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT.COUNSEL, I THINK THE DEFENSE HAS ALREADY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TOLOOK AT THESE THINGS IN THEIR STATE, THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TOMAKE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS, COMPARE THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. THE DEFENSEHAS BEEN GIVEN SMALLER COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS. I THINK THEPROSECUTION HAS ALREADY FULLY COMPLIED. THE REQUEST IS DENIED.*MR. BLASIER:* YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK FOR ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION?*THE COURT:* SURE.*MR. BLASIER:* WE HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDED WITH SMALLER PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEDQ-ALPHA TESTING STRIPS. THAT RELATED TO THE LAST REQUEST WHEN I ASSUME
MR. HARMON SAID HE WOULD COMPLY WITH. ALL WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH AREXEROX COPIES AND NONE OF THE EXPERTS HERE WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY CANMAKE ANY KIND OF AN ASSESSMENT FROM XEROX COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS.*THE COURT:* MR. HARMON.*MR. HARMON:* YOU SEE, THIS IS THE POINT. DR. BLAKE HAS NEVER TESTIFIEDFOR A DEFENDANT IN A CASE LIKE THIS.*THE COURT:* I AM JUST INTERESTED IN THE PHOTOS.*MR. HARMON:* I THINK IT IS THE POINT. THEY WANT TO PREVENT -- THEY WANTTO SHIELD THEIR WITNESSES, GERDES AND MULLIS, FROM THE TRUTH, AND THETRUTH IS, THIS IS THE DANGER THAT WE TRIED TO POINT OUT TO THEM ON THEMOTION TO QUASH. THEY HIRED THE MOST EXPERIENCED FORENSIC SEROLOGISTWITH PCR DQ-ALPHA AND WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THESE BURDENSOME REQUESTS TOHAVE GARY SIMS WORK UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING AT THE TIME WHENTHIS COURT WAS GOING TO CUT OFF OR THERE WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUTCUTTING OFF TESTING, SO NOW WE HAVE DONE ALL THAT, HE HAS TAKEN ALLTHESE PICTURES. HE HAS PICTURES OF ALL THESE STRIPS. HE HAS PICTURES OFTHE SAME THINGS WE HAVE PICTURES. THEY ARE AS REAL AND SCIENTIFIC ANDSOUND AS THE PICTURES WE HAVE. AND NOW TO FURTHER BURDEN US AND SHIELDTHEIR EXPERTS FROM THE TRUTH, THAT IS THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURESAND SAW IT AND CONCURS IN OUR RESULTS, AND THEY WANT TO FORCE US TO GIVE-- TO GIVE NEW PICTURES OVER. WE HAVE SATISFIED THAT. HE HAS SEEN IT ANDHE HAS HIS OWN PICTURES OF IT. AND I WOULD SUGGEST IF THIS COURT ISGOING TO SERIOUSLY ENTERTAIN ANY OF THIS ABUSIVE DISCOVERY REQUEST, THATTHE COURT PUT THE BURDEN ON THEM TO HAVE DR. BLAKE COME OUT OF HIDINGAND TESTIFY THAT THERE IS SOME DEFICIENCY IN HIS PHOTOS AND WE WILL DOIT ON A PHOTO BY PHOTO BASIS. WE HAVE WASTED VALUABLE DAYS -- WELL, IMEAN I THINK THE LEGAL PROCESS CALLS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* NO, NO.*MR. HARMON:* IT IS REAL EASY TO SAY JUST GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT I DON'TTHINK THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* NO. WHAT STRUCK ME, MR. HARBOR, IS I CAN SEE MYSELF HAVINGTO START ANOTHER ONE OF THESE HEARINGS AND HAVING TO LOOK AT ALL OFTHESE PHOTOS.*MR. HARMON:* IF THE PROCESS CALLS FOR THAT, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT,YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS REAL SIMPLE TO SAY GIVE HIM NEW COPIES. WEHAVE SHUT DOWN THE STATE LAB TO SATISFY DR. BLAKE'S SCHEDULE. YOU KNOW,IF YOU HAVE EVER DONE LAB WORK --*THE COURT:* MR. HARMON, YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING THE COURTS "OH-VEY"REACTION.*MR. HARMON:* SURE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'TMISINTERPRET IT, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* OKAY.*MR. HARMON:* BUT THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OFANYTHING, AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO THAT IS TO BRING BLAKE OUT OFHIDING AND PUT HIM UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.*THE COURT:* OKAY.
*MR. BLASIER:* VERY BRIEFLY, WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE CALLED, THEY ARE GOINGTO HAVE THE PICTURES AND WE WILL BE ENTITLED TO REVIEW THEM. I JUST WANTTO SAVE SOME TIME BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO MAKE BLOWUPS OF THE PICTURES,AND IF WE DON'T GET THEM UNTIL THE WITNESS TESTIFIES, IT IS GOING TOCAUSE A TIME DELAY.*THE COURT:* THE ISSUE IS ACCESS, DISCLOSURE, KNOWLEDGE. YOU HAVE HADTHAT. THE REQUEST IS DENIED. WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.(AT 10:36 A.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1995 1:50 P.M.DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGEAPPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)(PAGES 11974 THROUGH 11989, VOLUME 76A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDERSEPARATE COVER.)(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCEOF THE JURY:)*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD INTHE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR.SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLASIER, PEOPLEREPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. WE ALSO HAVE MS. WITHEYPRESENT WITH US. MS. WITHEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THECOURT?*MS. WITHEY:* NO, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.*THE COURT:* THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVEANY WORD FOR THE RECORD AS TO THE STATUS OF MR. HODGMAN?*MS. CLARK:* NOT AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. AS FAR AS I KNOW AT THISPOINT, MR. HODGMAN HAS BEEN REMOVED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL. HE'S STILLDOING WELL. FINAL WORD AS TO HIS CONDITION?*THE COURT:* I UNDERSTAND HE'S BEEN MOVED TO A MAJOR CARDIAC UNIT.*MS. CLARK:* THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. WHEN DO YOU -- HAS YOUR OFFICE GIVEN YOU ANYINDICATION AS TO WHEN WE MIGHT BE GETTING AN UPDATE AS TO HIS CONDITIONAND WHEN HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REJOIN US?*MS. CLARK:* NO. I HAVE NO INDICATION OF THAT AT THIS TIME AND IPROBABLY WILL NOT EVEN BY THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.*THE COURT:* WHAT'S THE STATUS OF YOUR POSITION AS FAR AS PROCEEDING INHIS ABSENCE?
*MS. CLARK:* AFTER WE ADDRESS THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOVERYMATTERS AND THE MISCONDUCT ISSUES, I THINK WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITIONTO ASSESS THAT.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MS. CLARK:* MYSELF AND MR. DARDEN WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU ON THESEMATTERS, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE NUMEROUS, AND THE COURT'S REQUEST IS SOMEVERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS CONCERNING WHAT WE DESIRE WITH RESPECT TO EACHOF THE ITEMS, EACH OF THE WITNESSES AND EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WEREIMPROPERLY MADE BY COUNSEL. EXCUSE ME. I FIND IT -- I MUST SHARE WITHTHE COURT THAT I FEEL VERY OUTRAGED AT COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS EARLIER THISMORNING CONCERNING HIS REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT HIMFROM TELLING THE TRUTH, AND THAT IS SUCH A FALSEHOOD. IF MR. COCHRANWERE STANDING UP AND TELLING THE JURORS THE TRUTH AND HAD NOT HIDDEN HISWITNESSES FROM US WILLFULLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER, WE WOULDNOT BE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY AND OPENING STATEMENT WOULD HAVE BEENCONCLUDED AND THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND.UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS MISCONDUCT, WHICH ISEGREGIOUS AND FLAGRANT AND NOT THE MINOR VIOLATION THAT HE ATTEMPTS TOREPRESENT TO THIS COURT, HE'S ATTEMPTING TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG,CLAIM IGNORANCE AND USE MR. DOUGLAS AS A SACRIFICIAL LAMB, AND THAT ISABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. COUNSEL SHOULD BEAR THE BRUNT OF HIS OWNMISCONDUCT, WHICH IS WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL AND IT IS INEFFECT A THUMBING OF HIS NOSE AT THIS COURT'S ORDER. IT IS -- YES, IT'SCOUCHED IN NICE SMILES AND INGRATIATING REMARKS, BUT THAT SHOULD NOTDECEIVE THE COURT AND I'M SURE IT DOESN'T. WHAT LIES BEHIND IT IS AWILLFUL DESIRE TO FLOUT THE LAW, AND IT VIOLATES THE LAW AND IT VIOLATESUS BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY. LEGALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF 1054 IN BOTHSPIRIT AND LETTER OF THAT LAW. LEGALLY, IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THISCOURT'S DIRECT ORDER TO COUNSEL, AND MORALLY, IT'S A VIOLATION OF THEJURORS' RIGHT TO THE TRUTH. THEY'VE BEEN LIED TO, THEY'VE BEEN DECEIVED,THEY'VE GOTTEN HALF TRUTHS FROM COUNSEL. HE HAS DELIBERATELY SHOWN THEMITEMS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, GIVEN THEM HALF TRUTHS, GIVEN THEMACTUALLY PIECES OF STATEMENTS THAT LED TO A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSEDREPRESENTATION OF WHAT REALLY WHAT WAS BEING STATED. AND COUNSEL ISTELLING THE COURT, "OH, THAT'S NO BIG DEAL. IF I MISLEAD THEM, THEN THEPEOPLE CAN COME BACK IN CLOSING ARGUMENT AND READDRESS ALL THE WRONG."COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THAT WE CANNOT BECAUSE THIS IS -- OUR CLOSINGARGUMENTS ARE MONTHS DOWN THE LINE AND WELL HE KNOWS IT. COUNSEL HASVERY CAREFULLY AND VERY CYNICALLY WEIGHED THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS OFHIS MISCONDUCT AND HE HAS RIGHTFULLY ASSURED HIMSELF THAT THE RISKS, IFANY AT ALL, ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFIT. THESE JURORS HAVE NOWHEARD STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL ABOUT WITNESSES THAT THEPEOPLE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF, THAT THE PEOPLE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED INTHEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND EVEN COULD HAVE CALLED IN THEIR CASE INCHIEF IN ORDER TO SHOW THE JURORS THE KIND OF WITNESSES THAT WILL COMEFORWARD IN A CASE LIKE THIS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING CELEBRITY.AND MR. COCHRAN WILLFULLY WITHHELD THEIR NAMES KNOWING THAT WHAT HE WASGOING TO DO WAS CLOAK THEM WITH A FALSE AURA OF CREDIBILITY BEFORE THISJURY AND SANDBAG THE PEOPLE SO THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF THEM AND UNABLETO ADDRESS THEM IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. HE MADE STATEMENTS CONCERNINGWITNESSES THAT MIGHT NEVER APPEAR BECAUSE OF FEAR, THEREBY CLOAKING AWITNESS WITH CREDIBILITY WHO WOULD NEVER APPEAR PROBABLY BECAUSE OF FEAROF EXPOSURE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. INSTEAD, NOW HE'SCREATED IDEAS AND NOTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS THAT THERE AREPEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WILL NOT COME FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE HOLDING THETRUTH EXCEPT FOR THE FEAR OF HARASSMENT. AND THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE'S
NO EVIDENCE OF THAT WHATSOEVER. IN FACT, WE HAVE WITNESSES COMING OUT OFTHE WOODWORK WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE CLAIMING TO KNOW SOMETHINGJUST SO THEY CAN GET INVOLVED. SO COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED NUMEROUS ACTS OFMISCONDUCT. AND FOR HIM TO TURN TO US AND SAY WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTOHIS MIND AND WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT ISOUTRAGEOUS, IS DISGUSTING AND IS APPALLING TO ME AS AN OFFICER OF THECOURT. HE KNOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AND TO ALLOW THAT KIND OFSTATEMENT TO BE MADE -- AND IN ESSENCE, THAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT HEMADE TO THIS JURY -- IS WORSE THAN APPALLING. IT IS NO LONGER JUST AFEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS GOING TO BEDAMAGED. IT IS A REALITY. IT HAS BEEN DAMAGED. IT'S NOT DAMAGED BEYONDREPAIR BECAUSE IF CERTAIN ADMONITIONS ARE MADE, CERTAIN SANCTIONS AREUNDERTAKEN AND WE ARE ABLE TO PRESENT THE WITNESSES, THE TRUTH WILL COMEOUT BECAUSE OUR CASE IS STRONG. AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT OUR CASE. WHATI AM WORRIED ABOUT IS THE WAY THESE JURORS ARE BEING MANIPULATED SOCYNICALLY. THEY'RE BEING TOLD, FOR EXAMPLE, "WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELLYOU ABOUT THIS WITNESS? WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THATWITNESS?" THERE'S A REAL SIMPLE ANSWER FOR THAT. THEY HID THOSEWITNESSES. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT WITNESSES THEYNEVER TOLD US ABOUT, WITNESSES THAT THE COURT ORDERED THEM TIME AND TIMEAGAIN TO DIVULGE AND WILLFULLY THEY TOLD THIS COURT THEY HAD NO SUCHWITNESSES. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE STATEMENTS ARE. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESENAMES ARE. AND ONLY ON THE VERY DAY OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE JURY DO WEFIND THEM OUT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY NO LESS. MR. DARDEN WILLADDRESS THAT FURTHER. I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE COURT SOLELY ON ONEASPECT AT THIS POINT, AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE COURT ATFIRST BLUSH, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE RESUMED, TO ADMONISH THEJURY, TO TELL THE JURY THAT THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS MADENOT BY MR. COCHRAN CONCERNING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT -- THAT WEREIMPROPERLY WITHHELD FROM THE PROSECUTION AND TO ADMONISH THE JURY INEFFECT THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT INFORMATION WAS MISCONDUCT, WAS INVIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT REQUIRESBOTH SIDES TO EXCHANGE THEIR WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS. THE OTHERPROBLEM IS THAT, YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING, "WELL, WEGAVE THEM THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES." YES. THEY GAVE US NO ADDRESS,THEY GAVE US NO PHONE NUMBER AND THEY GAVE US NO STATEMENT. HAVING ABLANK NAME ON A LIST OF 200 GIVES US NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT PERSONMIGHT SAY AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE HIGH PRIORITY IN TERMS OFOUR INVESTIGATION. THEY STAND BEFORE THIS COURT REPEATEDLY SAYINGRIDICULOUS THINGS LIKE, OH, THERE IS 900 LAWYERS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE.YEAH. THERE'S ALSO 80,000 CASES IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT,THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON SIMPSON NOR CAN THEY. AND THERE MAY BE 9,000OFFICERS, BUT GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE NOT ALL WORKING ON THE SIMPSONINVESTIGATION EITHER. THEY CAN'T. EVERYBODY IS WAY OVERLOADED. WE HAVETO PRIORITIZE. AND FOR THEM TO GIVE US A NAME WITH NO ADDRESS, NO PHONENUMBER AND NO STATEMENT ON A LIST OF 200 THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF BUNKTHAT WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IS DISINGENUOUS AND A FRAUD UPONTHIS COURT. WE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE INVESTIGATED THESE PEOPLE. AND TOGIVE US THESE LATE STATEMENTS IS OUTRAGEOUS MISCONDUCT CONDUCT. SO WEASK THAT THE JURY BE INFORMED OF THAT FACT, THAT COUNSEL'S REMARKS THATRELATE TO THE MENTIONING OF THOSE WITNESSES EITHER BY NAME OR BY CONTENTOF THEIR STATEMENT, THAT THEY ARE ORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM BECAUSE THEYWERE MENTIONED IN DEROGATION OF A COURT ORDER. WE ARE ALSO ASKING THATTHE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSELABOUT WITNESSES THAT MAY NOT APPEAR DUE TO FEAR, THAT THERE'S -- THEREIS NO SUCH EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. SUCH REMARKS MADE BY COUNSEL WEREIMPROPER AND THEY ARE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND THE JURY SHOULD BEORDERED TO DISREGARD THEM. FURTHERMORE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE REQUESTINGSOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ON THE NUMEROUS WITNESSES
THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN AT THE CLOSE OF OPENING STATEMENT DAYYESTERDAY AS WELL AS THE DAY BEFORE. AND SHOULD THE COURT GRANT US THECONTINUANCE IN WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT DOES, WE WOULD ASK THATTHE COURT TO INFORM THE JURY AS TO THE REASON FOR THE NECESSITY OF THATCONTINUANCE, THAT IT WAS NECESSITATED BY COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT IN FAILINGTO TURN OVER THE INFORMATION THAT IT WAS ORDERED TO TURN OVER BY THECOURT. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THE COURT ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS WEHAVE PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO EACH WITNESS AND TO OUR REQUEST TOREOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.*THE COURT:* MR. DARDEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, GOOD AFTERNOON. MANY OF THE WITNESSESDISCLOSED TO US BY THE DEFENSE THE PAST TWO DAYS ARE WITNESSES WHOSESTATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO US ON ANY PRIOR OCCASION. AND THE FIRSTIS MARY ANNE GERCHAS. AND AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, MR. COCHRAN TOLD THEJURY THAT MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAW FOUR MEN RUNNING FROM THE SCENE OF THEKILLINGS ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY DISCOVERYRELATIVE TO THAT WITNESS, THAT IS UNTIL YESTERDAY, AND THAT WAS GIVEN TOUS AFTER MR. COCHRAN ALREADY MADE COMMENTS REGARDING THIS WITNESS BEFORETHE JURY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MATERIAL WITNESS ONE WOULD THINK. THAT ISIF ONE COULD BELIEVE HER TESTIMONY. MR. DOUGLAS HAD THIS STATEMENT INHIS POSSESSION. THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE STATEMENT IN THEIR POSSESSIONFOR SEVERAL MONTHS.*THE COURT:* SINCE JULY.*MR. DARDEN:* SINCE JULY. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN JULY.THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US BACK IN DECEMBER WHEN THEY WERE SQUAWKINGABOUT OUR DISCOVERY PROBLEMS AND WHILE THEY WERE ASKING THE COURT TOSANCTION US, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT THROUGHOUTTHAT FIVE-MONTH PERIOD IN 1994. AND IN DECEMBER, WHEN THE COURT BEGAN TOATTEMPT TO SET A DATE FOR OPENING STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENSEDIDN'T TURN OVER THIS STATEMENT. AND WHEN THEY LEARNED THE EXACT DAYTHAT OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD BEGIN, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. AND WHENMR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT WAS DELAYED A DAY, THEY DIDN'T TURN ITOVER. AND WHEN THEY CAME INTO COURT TO BEGIN MR. COCHRAN'S STATEMENT,PRIOR TO THAT STATEMENT THAT MORNING, THEY DIDN'T TURN IT OVER. ANDTHERE'S ONLY A FEW REASONS THAT THEY DIDN'T. FIRST, THEY KNEW THAT HADTHEY TURNED OVER THIS STATEMENT THIS LATE IN THE GAME, THE COURT WOULDHAVE PRECLUDED THEM FROM UTILIZING THE STATEMENT IN OPENING STATEMENT.THE COURT WOULD HAVE SANCTIONED THEM AS THEY DID US. AND THEY WERE ALSOAWARE THAT HAD THE PROSECUTION KNOWN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS, WEWOULD HAVE DISCREDITED HER. WE HAVE ONLY KNOWN OF THIS WITNESS 24 HOURS,AND ALREADY WE KNOW SHE HAS NINE LAWSUITS PENDING. AND THE D.A.'S OFFICEIN OUR BAD CHECK SECTION, THERE ARE $10,000 APPROXIMATELY IN BAD CHECKSTHAT RELATE TO THIS PERSON. SHE HAS DEFRAUDED THE J.W. MARRIOTTCORPORATION OF $23,000 BY STAYING IN THEIR HOTEL AND NOT PAYING FOR IT.AND THERE IS MUCH MORE, MUCH, MUCH MORE REGARDING THIS WITNESS, BUT WENEED TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* WHAT'S YOUR REASONABLE ESTIMATE AS TO HOW LONG YOU NEED TOINVESTIGATE INTO THE BACKGROUND OF MISS GERCHAS SINCE PEOPLE VERSUSJACKSON AT 15 CAL. APP. 4 1197, PAGE 1203 INDICATES THAT WHAT THE REMEDYIS, HAVING A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT OR IMPEACH? SO WHAT ARE WESPEAKING OF IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATION TO ADEQUATELY BE PREPARED TO REBUTAND/OR IMPEACH THAT TESTIMONY OR THAT PROFFER OF TESTIMONY? THAT'S THEISSUE.
*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS THIS WITNESS ISNOT THE PERSON SHE CLAIMS TO BE, THAT SHE IS NOT THE PERSON -- SHE ISNOT THE REAL MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THERE IS A HINT THAT PERHAPS SHE IS NOTTHAT PERSON, AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND SHE IS SUCH A CRITICALWITNESS APPARENTLY TO THE DEFENSE THAT I BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKEAPPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS TO CAREFULLY SEARCH OUT THE BACKGROUND OF THISINDIVIDUAL.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT AS TO THIS WITNESS?*MR. DARDEN:* WELL, IN ADDITION TO THE SANCTIONS MENTIONED BY MISS CLARKA MOMENT AGO AND IN ADDITION TO A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE TO CAREFULLYINVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT STRIKEANY REFERENCE TO THIS WITNESS FROM MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT ANDADVISE THE JURY THAT THE COURT IS DOING SO BECAUSE OF MR. COCHRAN'SWILLFUL AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF DISCOVERY. IN ADDITION, ITHINK THAT THE PREJUDICE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OFTHIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION, THIS WILLFUL VIOLATION, THIS EGREGIOUS CONDUCT,THAT THE PREJUDICE IS SO EXTREME, I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVEAN OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.*THE COURT:* DO YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THAT PROPOSITION?*MR. DARDEN:* THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT,YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, THE COURT DOES HAVE DISCRETION IN TERMS OF THEORDER OF PROOF; AND UNDER 1054.5(B), THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION ANDTHE RIGHT TO ORDER ANY LAWFUL REMEDY OR LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TORECTIFY THE HARM CAUSED US BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. BUT TO REOPENWOULD BE ONLY FAIR.*THE COURT:* HOW DOES THAT DOVETAIL THE 1093 SETTING THE ORDER OF TRIAL?DO I HAVE THE DISCRETION UNDER 1093 TO ALTER THAT TO ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN?*MR. DARDEN:* I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR. 1093 SAYS THAT:"THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL PROCEED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISEDIRECTED BY THE COURT." WE ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US A SECONDOPPORTUNITY. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE'REIN THIS POSITION. BACK IN DECEMBER, YOU ORDERED US TO PROVIDE THEDEFENSE WITH DISCOVERY. YOU LITERALLY FORCED US TO WORK 48 HOURSSTRAIGHT ALMOST TO COMPLY WITH THAT DISCOVERY ORDER. YOU TOLD US TO HAVEDISCOVERY TO THE DEFENSE BY 5:00 O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON, AND WEWORKED AND WE COMPLIED. HAD WE COME INTO COURT AND DID WHAT THEY DID ANDTRY TO PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS? OUR CONDUCT BACK IN DECEMBER, WHICH, ASI RECALL, THE COURT AGREED WAS NOTHING MORE THAN NEGLIGENT, WASN'TNEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. AND IN RESPONSETO OUR MISTAKE AND HONEST MISTAKE AT THAT, THE COURT GUTTED THE DOMESTICVIOLENCE EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF HOW IT COULD BE PRESENTED IN THE CASE. THECOURT PRECLUDED US FROM CALLING WITNESSES IN THE ORDER THAT WE WANTED TOCALL THOSE WITNESSES SO THAT NOW THE DEFENSE HAS A HAND SO DEEP IN OURPOCKET AT THIS POINT THAT THEY'RE LITERALLY DICTATING THE ORDER IN WHICHTHE WITNESSES WILL BE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION. SUCH SANCTIONS OUGHT TOFLOW BOTH WAYS, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* WELL, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY.*MR. DARDEN:* THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY AND THAT'S WHYIT'S A TWO-WAY STREET AND THE WATERS SHOULD FLOW BOTH WAYS AND IN BOTHDIRECTIONS. WE HAD TO DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT MY HAND IN MR.
COCHRAN'S POCKET AT THIS POINT. IT'S ONLY FAIR. HE CREATED THISSITUATION. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THE NEXT WITNESS ISDR. KARY MULLIS, AN APPARENT DNA EXPERT ON PCR. PRIOR TO THE OPENINGSTATEMENT, WE RECEIVED NO STATEMENT OR REPORT REGARDING THIS WITNESS. IHAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF TIME TO SEARCH ALL THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN THE EVENTOF YESTERDAY EVENING.*THE COURT:* WAS DR. MULLIS ON ANY OF THE WITNESSES' LISTS FOR THE KELLYHEARING?*MS. CLARK:* I DON'T HAVE THE KELLY HEARING LIST WITH ME.*MR. DARDEN:* WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WITH REGARD TO THE DNAHEARING AND THE WITNESS LIST IS THIS. AFTER THEY ALLEGEDLY WAIVED THEIRKELLY-FRYE, WE UPDATED OUR WITNESS LIST TO INCLUDE THE PEOPLE WEINTENDED TO CALL ON THE DNA ISSUE. THIS DOCTOR IS NOT ON ANYNON-KELLY-FRYE WITNESS LIST. AND EVEN SO, WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANYREPORT OR ANY STATEMENT RELEVANT TO WHAT THIS DOCTOR WOULD TESTIFY TO.WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS WITNESS' BACKGROUND. I DON'T KNOWMUCH ABOUT HIM, BUT I UNDERSTAND HE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE INTHE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. WE NEED TIME TO GATHER TRANSCRIPTS OF HISPRIOR TESTIMONY. WE NEED TIME TO REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, TOREVIEW HIS BACKGROUND AND HIS TRAINING. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THAT CANBE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. NOT ANYONE AND NOT JUST EVERYONE CAN PERFORM ATASK LIKE THIS AS IT RELATES TO A SCIENTIST SUCH AS DR. MULLIS, AND ITIS GOING TO TAKE TIME. IT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 30 DAYS. WE WOULD ASKTHAT THE COURT IN ADDITION TO THE ADMONITION INSTRUCT THE JURY TODISREGARD ANY MENTION OF THIS WITNESS. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ALLOWUS TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT. AS TO DR. RON FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR,WE ARE SOMEWHAT ACQUAINTED WITH DR. FISCHMAN. IN FACT, I'VE MET DR.FISCHMAN. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T HAVE A SUBPOENA ON ME WHEN I METHIM. I DID, HOWEVER, CAUSE A SUBPOENA TO BE ISSUED FOR DR. FISCHMAN'SAPPEARANCE IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE DR. FISCHMANAND TO SPEAK WITH DR. FISCHMAN SINCE DECEMBER 14. WE BELIEVE THAT IF DR.FISCHMAN WERE HONEST AND CALLED TO TESTIFY AND TESTIFIED HONESTLY, WEBELIEVE THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY THAT AS NICOLE BROWN LEFT THE RECITAL ONJUNE 12, HE OVERHEARD THIS DEFENDANT SAYING, "I'M GOING TO GET HER. I'MGOING TO TEACH HER A LESSON," AND WORDS ALONG THOSE LINES. AND SO WEHAVE TELEPHONED HIM AND WE HAVE GONE TO VISIT HIM AND WE HAVE ATTEMPTEDTO SERVE HIM. AND ON JANUARY 19TH, 1995, OUR INVESTIGATORS WERE OUTSIDEDR. FISCHMAN'S HOME. THEY MET, THEY TOLD HIM THEY WERE THERE TO SERVEHIM WITH A SUBPOENA, AND HE TURNED AND HE RAN, AND HE RAN BACK INSIDEHIS HOUSE AND HE LOCKED THE DOOR AND HE WOULDN'T COME OUT. AND THEINVESTIGATORS PLACED A SUBPOENA IN THE MAILBOX AND SHOUTED THROUGH THEWINDOW, "DR. FISCHMAN, CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED." WELL, DR. FISCHMANSHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE YESTERDAY OR HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE PROSECUTIONTO BE PLACED ON CALL, AND HE HAS DONE NEITHER. THE DEFENSE HAS ASTATEMENT FROM DR. FISCHMAN. WE DON'T HAVE IT. WE SHOULD GET IT. WESHOULD BE ALLOWED TIME TO INVESTIGATE DR. FISCHMAN. AND THERE ARE OTHERPROBLEMS WITH DR. FISCHMAN. WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 17,THERE WAS A PRESCRIPTION OF XANAX, A DEPRESSANT, IN HIS BLACK BAG. THEMEDICATION APPARENTLY WAS PRESCRIBED TO DR. FISCHMAN'S MOTHER. I DON'TKNOW WHY IT'S IN THE DEFENDANT'S BAG. BUT IT'S ISSUES LIKE THAT AND THEISSUE OF THE RECITAL THAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND INVESTIGATED. IT'SGOING TO TAKE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF DR. RON FISCHMAN, AND IWOULD ASK FOR THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SAME SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED AS ITRELATES TO DR. FISCHMAN AS WE REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO MULLIS, GERCHASAND THE OTHER WITNESSES. DR. LENORE WALKER IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THEDEFENSE SERVED US WITH HER CV ON JANUARY 24, BUT THEY HAD NOT PROVIDED
US WITH ANY STATEMENTS OR ANY REPORTS AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDERTHE LAW.*THE COURT:* WELL, YOU HEARD MR. COCHRAN'S EXPLANATION THAT SHE HAD JUSTBEEN RETAINED, WAS IN THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING THE DEFENDANT,PREPARING A REPORT. SO I ASSUME IT'S NOT THERE YET.*MR. DARDEN:* NEVERTHELESS, MR. COCHRAN REPRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT DR.WALKER WAS GOING TO FORM A CERTAIN CONCLUSION AND TESTIFY TO THATCONCLUSION. SO APPARENTLY MR. COCHRAN IS AWARE OF WHAT MISS WALKER ISGOING TO SAY OR DR. WALKER -- I AM SORRY -- AS TO WHAT DR. WALKER ISGOING TO TESTIFY TO. BUT MR. COCHRAN ALSO INDICATED THAT DR. WALKER HADINTERVIEWED THE DEFENDANT AND THAT SHE HAD CONDUCTED PSYCHOLOGICALTESTS. WELL, THAT'S DISCOVERABLE. IT'S DISCOVERABLE UNDER WOODS VERSUSSUPERIOR COURT AT 25 CAL. APP. 4TH 178. THAT STUFF EXISTS. IF MR.COCHRAN KNOWS ENOUGH ABOUT DR. WALKER TO TELL THE JURY WHAT SHE'S GOINGTO TESTIFY TO AND IF TESTING RESULTS EXIST, IF ACTUAL TESTS EXIST, IFTHERE ARE INTERVIEWS WITH THE DEFENDANT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ALL OF THAT.AND THAT'S CLEAR I BELIEVE IN THE LAW. IN ADDITION, MR. COCHRAN HASPLACED THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL STATE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE AT ISSUE INTHIS TRIAL AND BEFORE THIS JURY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TOACCESS -- TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DEFENDANT FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING,AND THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'LL TAKE UP AGAIN IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. AT ANYEVENT, IT WILL TAKE TIME TO PREPARE FOR DR. WALKER. AND THE COURT MIGHTALSO RECALL THAT WHEN MR. COCHRAN WAS ARGUING TO THE JURY, THAT HEMENTIONED THAT DR. WALKER WAS WATCHING, WATCHING US ON TELEVISION. SO IASSUME DR. WALKER HAS SOME NOTES, AND APPARENTLY SHE COMMUNICATED HEROPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS TO MR. COCHRAN, WHICH MR. COCHRAN COMMUNICATEDTO THE JURY. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. WEMAKE THE SAME REQUEST WITH REGARD TO SANCTIONS. STRIKE IT, TELL THE JURYTO IGNORE IT, TELL THE JURY THAT MR. COCHRAN AND THE REST OF THE DREAMTEAM HAVE VIOLATED SOME VERY, VERY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERYRULES. THE NEXT WITNESS IS MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. SHE WAS MR. SIMPSON'S MAIDAPPARENTLY. AND ACCORDING TO MR. COCHRAN, NICOLE ONCE SLAPPED HER,NICOLE BROWN. AND I'VE HEARD OF THIS INCIDENT AND I BELIEVE THAT I'VESEEN REPORTS -- SOME REPORT THAT RELATES TO THIS INCIDENT. I KNOW I'VEREAD IT IN THE TABLOIDS. AND SO WE ARE SOMEWHAT AWARE OF THAT WITNESS.BUT OUR CONCERN HERE IS THAT PERHAPS MR. COCHRAN HAS ADDITIONALINFORMATION, ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. THIS IS HIS WITNESS. WE HAVE A RIGHTTO HER STATEMENT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THISWITNESS, AND IF THE COURT WOULD ORDER THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER THATSTATEMENT TO US IMMEDIATELY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE IT AT THISPOINT, DO WE?*THE COURT:* I THINK YESTERDAY, YOU WERE GIVEN A STATEMENT FROM JUNE OF'94 FROM THIS WITNESS. THAT'S ON THE RECORD AT PAGE 11921.*MR. DARDEN:* OKAY. YOUR HONOR, IT'S OUR RECOLLECTION THAT THAT ISMERELY A COPY OR IS IT A COPY OF A STATEMENT THE POLICE TOOK. BUT OURCONCERN IS THIS. IF THE DEFENSE HAS MORE INFORMATION, AN ADDITIONALSTATEMENT, ADDITIONAL NOTES AS THEY RELATE TO THIS WITNESS, WE WOULDLIKE TO HAVE THEM. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEM, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TOSTAND BEFORE THE COURT AND REPRESENT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THEM AND THATTHEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE THEM. IF THEY INTERVIEW THIS WITNESSSUBSEQUENT TO OUR INTERVIEW OF THE WITNESS, WE WANT THE NOTES. AND IFTHEY INTERVIEW THE WITNESS SUBSEQUENT TO OUR WITNESS AND IF THEY FAILEDTO TAKE NOTES, WE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THECONVERSATION TO WRITING. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE ORAL STATEMENTS,DECLINE TO COMMIT THEM TO WRITING AND THEN HIDE THEM FROM THE
PROSECUTION. WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED HERE ITHINK DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT OF ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT THIS WITNESSMAY HAVE PROVIDED THE DEFENSE. THEN THERE'S JOE STELLINI. THIS WITNESSAPPARENTLY WAS AT THE TRIST RESTAURANT. HE IS A DEFENSE WITNESS. WERECEIVED NO STATEMENT, NO REPORT, NO NOTICE, NO INFORMATION REGARDINGMR. STELLINI FROM THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT. WE MAKETHE SAME REQUEST, THAT THE COURT ORDER THE JURY TO DISREGARD ANYREFERENCE TO MR. STELLINI OR ANY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING MR. STELLINIMIGHT TESTIFY TO. HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE UNTILSUCH TIME THAT THE WITNESSES WHO WERE INCLUDED ON THE DEFENSE WITNESSLIST AND WHOSE STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED IN A TIMELY MANNER AND IN A LAWFULMANNER AND UNTIL THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE WITNESSES ARE EXHAUSTED. THE SAMESANCTION YOU IMPOSED ON US, YOUR HONOR, THAT SHOULD APPLY TO HIM, MR.STELLINI, AND IT SHOULD APPLY TO THE REST OF THEM.*THE COURT:* SO YOU ARE ASKING THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT HIS -- ANYTESTIMONY BY MR. STELLINI BE DELAYED UNTIL THE OTHER WITNESSES ON THEPREVIOUS AUGUST AND DECEMBER WITNESS LIST HAVE BEEN CALLED?*MR. DARDEN:* YES, YOUR HONOR. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EACH OFTHE WITNESSES WE WERE AMBUSHED BY YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE. THENTHERE'S DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE OF DR. BADEN. WE ARE AWARE THAT HE WASPRESENT ON JUNE 17TH. HE APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. WE ASKED HIMWHAT HAPPENED IN MR. KARDASHIAN'S HOUSE JUST BEFORE THE DEFENDANT FLED.HE TOLD US THAT THE DEFENDANT FLED AS SOON AS HE HEARD THAT THE POLICEWERE ON THEIR WAY TO ARREST HIM. BUT WE DIDN'T ASK DR. BADEN ABOUT ANYTESTING OR THE RESULTS OF ANY TEST. WE DID NOT ASK HIM ABOUT HIS EXPERTOPINION REGARDING BLOOD OR PATHOLOGY. AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO US THATSUCH TOPICS WERE OFF LIMITS, THAT HE WAS A DEFENSE EXPERT, AND THAT TOINQUIRE IN THOSE AREAS WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE, AND WE HONORED THAT. WHAT MR. COCHRAN HAS TOLD US THAT DR.BADEN WILL TESTIFY THAT THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRENCHED INBLOOD. IT WOULD SEEM TO US THAT DR. BADEN HAS REVIEWED CERTAIN ITEMS ANDOBJECTS, HE HAS PERHAPS CONDUCTED SOME TESTS, HE HAS RENDERED ANOPINION. WE WOULD LIKE THOSE REPORTS, WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPINION. ANDTHERE HAS TO BE ONE BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES IN OPENINGSTATEMENT, COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO INFORM THE JURY OF EVIDENCE ORINFORMATION THAT THEY DO NOT IN GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLY BELIEVE WILLBE HEARD FROM THE WITNESS STAND OR IN OPENING COURT OR RECEIVED INEVIDENCE. IF MR. COCHRAN OR THE REST OF THE DREAM TEAM HAVE HAD ORALCONVERSATIONS WITH DR. BADEN REGARDING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS,THEN I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE THESE CONVERSATIONSTO WRITING AND THAT THEY DO IT NOW IMMEDIATELY. WE WOULD ASK THAT THECOURT IMPOSE THE SAME SANCTIONS, THE SANCTIONS WE MENTIONED EARLIER;STRIKE IT FROM THE RECORD, TELL THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT AND IGNORE IT,TELL THE JURY THAT THE DEFENSE, THE DREAM TEAM, AMERICA'S FINEST DEFENSEATTORNEYS, TELL THE JURY THAT THESE LAWYERS HAVE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT,THEY HAVE DECEIVED THE COURT AND THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE BASIC ANDFUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY AND THAT THEY HAVE IMPINGED UPON THEPEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. NEXT IS CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. HE IS FAYERESNICK'S EX-FIANCE. SHE DUMPED HIM AND HE'S OUT TO GET HER. THAT'SFINE. I HAVE INTERVIEWED MR. RIECHARDT MYSELF WITH THE USE OF A COURTSTENOGRAPHER IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ATTORNEY, MR. DOMINIC RUBALCAVA, ANDWE HAVE TURNED THAT OVER TO THE DEFENSE. IF THERE IS AN ADDITIONALSTATEMENT OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT. IF THEREWERE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS NOT REDUCED TO WRITING, WE WOULD ASK THATTHE COURT ORDER THE DEFENSE TO REDUCE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO WRITING. IFTHE DEFENSE INTENDS ONLY TO RELY ON INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THEPROSECUTION AND BY THE LAPD, THEN THAT'S FINE. BUT THEY SHOULD STAND
BEFORE THE COURT AND INFORM THE COURT OF THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'REGOING TO DO, THEN THERE'S NO SURPRISE NECESSARILY AS TO MR. RIECHARDT.BUT I WILL SAY THIS. AND THAT IS THAT NO STATEMENT HAS EVER BEENRECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE AS IT RELATES TO MR. RIECHARDT. IN ADDITION,MR. RIECHARDT IS NOT ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST. SO MAYBE I JUMPED THEGUN ON THIS ONE, SHOULD STRIKE IT, AND HE SHOULD MOVE TO THE BACK OF THELINE. AND WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO AS THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TODO TO US IN THIS CASE. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEYCAN CALL THIS WITNESS. THERE IS DR. BARBARA WOLF AND DR. GERDES.*THE COURT:* TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.*MR. DARDEN:* AND DR. LEE. AND WE CAN SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT EACH OFTHESE EXPERTS; AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE NO REPORTS OR STATEMENTS FROMTHESE WITNESSES.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. DR. WOLF, DR. GERDES AND --*MR. DARDEN:* DR. LEE.*THE COURT:* LEE.*MR. DARDEN:* I THINK I ALREADY INDICATED THAT WE HAVE NOTHING FROM DR.BADEN.*THE COURT:* I THOUGHT YOU HAD ONE REPORT FROM DR. LEE ALREADY.*MS. CLARK:* ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ENVELOPE.*MR. DARDEN:* YES, ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ENVELOPE.*THE COURT:* WELL, THAT'S ONE.*MR. DARDEN:* WELL, WE HEARD YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS THE FOREMOST CRIMESCENE EXPERT, THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUTTHE CRIME SCENE. WHERE IS THE REPORT? WHERE IS THE OPINION? WE REQUIREIMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE OF THESE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS. WE WOULD ASK THATTHE SANCTIONS ALREADY MENTIONED REQUESTED BY US AS THEY RELATE TO OTHERWITNESSES APPLY TO THESE WITNESSES AS WELL. AND THEN THERE IS THEENVELOPE, YOUR HONOR, THE ENVELOPE THAT MR. COCHRAN WAIVED IN FRONT OFTHE JURY YESTERDAY, THE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINS AN UNSPECIFIED KNIFE ASI UNDERSTAND IT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT'S INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. I HAVESEEN THE REPORT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ITEM, BUT THE DEFENSE HAS SEEN THEITEM. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THE ITEM CAMEFROM, HOW IF IT WAS RECOVERED, WHO HANDLED IT, WHO HANDED IT WHERE ANDWHEN, HOW IT GOT THERE. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS ITEM EXCEPT WHAT WEKNOW FROM DR. LEE'S REPORT. BUT THE DEFENSE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ITAND THEY APPARENTLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE IT AS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL. IFTHAT IS THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUECIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR OBJECT. WE HAVE A RIGHT TOKNOW HOW IT WAS RECOVERED, HOW THE COURT WAS CONTACTED. WE HAVE A RIGHTI BELIEVE TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, ANDWE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO THIS ITEM. AND I WOULDSUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THE DISPLAY OF THAT OBJECT YESTERDAY WAS JUSTONE OF MANY FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT'S RULES AND ORDERS. THISCOURT ORDERED US TO GIVE EACH SIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW ANY EXHIBITSTHAT MIGHT BE INTRODUCED BEFORE THIS JURY DURING OPENING STATEMENT. WEDIDN'T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. MR. COCHRAN JUST PULLS IT OUT, WAVES IT INFRONT OF THE JURY.
*THE COURT:* THAT WAS NOT EXHIBITED TO YOU DURING OUR TWO SHOW AND TELLSESSIONS?*MR. DARDEN:* I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* THANK YOU.*MR. DARDEN:* AND I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS ABOUT TO BE PRESENTEDTO THE JURY. BY THE TIME I SAW IT, IT WAS IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE INTHE ROOM AS I RECALL. THE JURY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO DISREGARD ANYVIEWING OF THAT ITEM. THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO THECONTENT OF THAT ITEM OR THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT. THE JURY SHOULDBE INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A LOW BLOW AND A CHEAP SHOT AND THAT IT ISGROSS MISCONDUCT, A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S DIRECTIVES ANDORDERS. MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED YESTERDAY THAT CERTAIN WITNESSES WILLTESTIFY ABOUT THE DEFENDANT PLAYING CARDS ON JUNE 12 AND THAT HESUFFERED SOME ACUTE ATTACK OF ARTHRITIS I BELIEVE, SOME FORM OFARTHRITIS. WELL, IT IS APPARENT THAT MR. COCHRAN INTENDS TO CALL THESEWITNESSES TO TESTIFY. WELL, WHO ARE THESE WITNESSES? WHERE ARE THEIRSTATEMENTS? WHERE DO THEY LIVE? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE NAMES. WE WOULDLIKE THAT INFORMATION. WE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY AND THE JURYSHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENSE IS UP TO CHEAP TRICKS AND THATTHEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S RULES AND THAT THE DISPLAY OR RATHERTHE MENTION OF THIS CARD GAME, THE MENTION OF THESE WITNESSES IS AFLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER. THE DEFENSE ALSO REFERRED TOTWO DOCTORS WHO THEY SAY EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT. WHO? WHERE ARE THEREPORTS? WHERE ARE THE STATEMENTS? WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS? WE DIDN'TGET ANY OF THAT. WE DIDN'T GET NOTICE.*THE COURT:* DO YOU HAVE THE CITE TO THE RECORD, WHERE THAT IS IN THETRANSCRIPT?*MS. CLARK:* I'LL GET IT.*MR. DARDEN:* MISS CLARK WILL SEARCH THE TRANSCRIPT.*THE COURT:* I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD IT.*MS. CLARK:* I DID.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. MOVE ON, MR. DARDEN.*MR. DARDEN:* THANK YOU. AS IT RELATES TO THOSE TWO DOCTORS, YOUR HONOR,UNTIL WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, HOW THEY SPECIALIZE OR IN WHAT AREAS THEYSPECIALIZE IN, UNTIL WE GET THE DISCOVERY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEEK APARTICULAR SANCTION. BUT I'LL SAY THIS. I CAN NOT IMAGINE, I CAN NOTUNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SUPPOSEDQUALITY AND ABILITIES OF THESE DEFENSE LAWYERS, WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TOHIDE AN EXPERT WITNESS IN A CASE LIKE THIS. IT'S JUST UNFAIR, IS MINDBOGGLING. HOWARD WEITZMAN AND SKIP TAFT WERE MENTIONED YESTERDAY. IFTHERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. TAFT, WE WOULDLIKE THAT STATEMENT. WE WOULD LIKE THAT CONVERSATION REDUCED TO WRITING.WE WOULD LIKE DISCOVERY. ANY MENTION OF THESE TWO GENTLEMEN SHOULD BESTRICKEN, THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED, THEY SHOULD BE ADVISED TODISREGARD COUNSEL'S COMMENTS REGARDING THESE TWO WITNESSES. NEXT --*THE COURT:* HOW DO YOU SUGGEST I DEAL WITH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT ISSUETHAT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE RAISED IN RESPONSE?
*MR. DARDEN:* I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGEISSUE IN THIS SITUATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MR. DARDEN:* WE KNOW THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. AND WHATEVER MR.COCHRAN HAS SAID SO FAR CERTAINLY OUGHT TO OPERATE AS SOME FORM OFWAIVER AS TO SOME OR ALL OF ANY CONVERSATIONS.*THE COURT:* JUST A FEW LEGAL ISSUES HERE.*MR. DARDEN:* JUST A FEW.*THE COURT:* GO AHEAD.*MR. DARDEN:* MR. COCHRAN REFERRED YESTERDAY TO AN UNSPECIFIED DOCTORWHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CUT, ONE OF THE CUTS OR MAYBEBOTH ON HIS LEFT HAND IS CONSISTENT WITH A KNIFE CUT.*THE COURT:* I THINK HE SAID INCONSISTENT.*MR. DARDEN:* INCONSISTENT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WELL, WEWOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIS REPORT.WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT QUALIFICATIONS HE HAS TO FORM SUCH ANOPINION. THAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AS WELL. THAT'S ANEXPERT WITNESS. COUNSEL KNEW THAT THIS PERSON WOULD BE TESTIFYING. AND,YOU KNOW, AS I SAT THERE YESTERDAY, DAY BEFORE WATCHING MR. COCHRAN, INOTICED THAT HIS OPENING STATEMENT, MOST OF IT WAS TYPED. HE HAD TIME TOTYPE IT, TO TYPE OUT THAT OPENING STATEMENT, AND IT WAS A VERY FINEOPENING STATEMENT. AND I'M ALWAYS PROUD OF MR. COCHRAN WHENEVER I SEEHIM IN COURT, YOUR HONOR. I LOVE HIM. I JUST DON'T LIKE TO GO UP AGAINSTHIM. BUT IF HE HAD TIME TO TYPE HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THEN HE HAD TIMETO TURN IT OVER. AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I'M DISAPPOINTEDTHAT HE HASN'T TURNED OVER THAT INFORMATION TO US BECAUSE JUST THIS PASTWEEKEND, MR. COCHRAN AND I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON SUNDAYEVENING, AND WE DISCUSSED DISCOVERY ISSUES. I DISCUSSED WITH HIM ISSUESAND INFORMATION WHICH HE COULD NOT OTHERWISE LEARN OR OBTAIN UNTIL THEFOLLOWING MONDAY OR TUESDAY. AND I ADVISED HIM OF THESE THINGS SO THATHE WOULD KNOW THAT THEY WERE IN EXISTENCE SO THAT HE WOULDN'T BESURPRISED. AND SO I'M SURPRISED TO STAND HERE TODAY BEFORE THE COURT,YOUR HONOR, AND I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MR. COCHRAN. I WOULD THINK THAT HEWOULD RETURN TO ME THE SAME PROFESSIONAL COURTESY. AND THE COURT WILLRECALL THAT WE HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE LITERALLYWITHIN 24 HOURS OR ONE BUSINESS DAY THE NAME OF ANY POTENTIAL WITNESS ASWELL AS THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS THE TAPE OF THAT STATEMENT AS WELL AS ATRANSCRIPT IF A TRANSCRIPT EXISTS. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT THE COURTHAS SET FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, BUT NO RULES HAVE BEEN SETAPPARENTLY FOR THE DEFENSE. OR IF RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THEDEFENSE FOR SOME REASON -- AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT THAT REASON IS --THEY DON'T FEEL AS IF THEY HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THOSE RULES OR TO FOLLOWTHOSE RULES. APPARENTLY THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE ABOVE THE RULES. THISCONDUCT IS OUTRAGEOUS. MR. COCHRAN NEXT DESCRIBED AN UNSPECIFIEDGENTLEMAN WHO WOULD TESTIFY TO HAVING HAD AN AFFAIR WITH NICOLE BROWN. IDON'T KNOW WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT IT WON'T BE MR.MARCUS ALLEN BECAUSE I TRAVELED TO KANSAS CITY AND I WAS PRESENT WITHTHREE POLICE DETECTIVES WHEN MR. ALLEN TOLD US HE NEVER HAD AN AFFAIRWITH DENISE -- RATHER WITH NICOLE BROWN. AND SO IF IT IS MR. MARCUSALLEN OR IF IT IS SOME OTHER PERSON, WE WOULD LIKE THE DISCOVERY, YOUR
HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON. MIND YOU THATWE DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO PROVE TO BE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE ANYWAY.BUT IN THE EVENT THAT IT DOES, COUNSEL HAS DRAGGED THIS INFORMATION INFRONT OF THE JURY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOIL THE REPUTATION OF THE DECEASEDVICTIM. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT HAPPENS IN COURT. BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TOTHAT INFORMATION, TO THE NAME OF THAT INDIVIDUAL AND TO THAT STATEMENT,THAT INDIVIDUAL'S STATEMENT. AND IF THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST SIT THEREAND TALK TO THESE PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON AND NOT REDUCETHEIR CONVERSATIONS TO NOTES OR THEY THINK THEY CAN REDUCE THISINTERVIEW TO NOTES AND THEN NOT TURN THEM OVER, WELL, THAT'S NOT THELAW. THAT'S NOT THE LAW IN THIS STATE. AND YOU CAN'T SANDBAG THEOPPOSITION THAT WAY. AND I UNDERSTAND MR. COCHRAN WHEN HE STANDS HEREAND TELLS US HOW HE'S THE ONLY ONE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE.AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THISCONDUCT AS IT RELATES TO THE DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE IS COMPLETELYINCONSISTENT, COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY DESIRE TO DETERMINE THETRUTH OR TO HAVE THE JURY DETERMINE THE TRUTH. AND I WOULD LIKE THE JURYTO KNOW THE TRUTH REGARDING THE MURDER OF THESE TWO PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR,WIN OR LOSE, AS LONG AS THE TRUTH COMES OUT. BUT THE TYPE OF CONDUCTEXHIBITED BY THE DEFENSE THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS AND OVER THE PASTSEVERAL MONTHS -- I MEAN THEY HAD THE AUDACITY TO STAND HERE AND DEMANDTHAT YOU SANCTION US ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT THEY HAD STATEMENTS,STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY TOOK FOUR, FIVE AND SIXMONTHS PRIOR, AND THEY KNEW THEY HAD THEM, THEY KNEW THEY HADN'T TURNEDTHEM OVER AND THEY STOOD HERE AND ASKED YOU TO SANCTION US. THE GALL.THE COURT SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE DEFENSE THAT THE RULES APPLY TO THEM.IT DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO THE POOR CIVIL SERVANT LAWYERS ON THE OTHERSIDE. IT APPLIES TO THE DREAM TEAM TOO AND TO THE DREAM DEFENDANT. ITISN'T FAIR. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THIS COURTROOM THE PAST COUPLE DAYS ISNOT FAIR. I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MR. COCHRAN NEXTMADE REFERENCE TO TIRE TRACKS AND ANOTHER TRAIL OF FOOTPRINTS.*THE COURT:* LET'S TAKE THOSE ONE AT A TIME.*MR. DARDEN:* IT IS APPARENT TO US BASED ON HIS COMMENTS YESTERDAY THATTHEY HAVE AN EXPERT. AND MAYBE THAT EXPERT IS DR. LEE OR MAYBE IT'S SOMEOTHER PERSON WHO HAS REVIEWED THIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE. WHOEVERTHAT PERSON IS, MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY BETESTIFYING IN THIS TRIAL OR THAT THEY WILL BE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOWWHO THEY ARE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY STATEMENTS THEY'VE MADE, ANY TESTSTHAT THEY'VE CONDUCTED, ANY CONCLUSIONS THAT THEY'VE DRAWN. WE HAVE THATRIGHT. AND THIS ISN'T JUST SOME RIGHT THAT JUST CAME TO US MONDAY OR ONJANUARY 1, 1995. THIS IS A RIGHT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS AND YEARS ANDYEARS. AND MR. DOUGLAS AND MR. UELMEN AND MR. COCHRAN HAVE STOOD BEFORETHE COURT AND TOLD THE COURT THAT, "WE UNDERSTAND --" THIS IS WHAT THEYSAID. "WE UNDERSTAND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE RULES AND LAWS OFDISCOVERY." AND YET, THEY'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE RULES AND THOSE LAWSAND THE COURT'S ORDER. IF THEY HAVE EXPERTS, REPORTS OR STUDIES ORANYTHING NOT GIVEN BY THEM TO US, ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, ANYTHING RELIED UPONTHE EXPERT THEY INTEND TO CALL, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. AND THISEXPERT, IF THERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY INTHESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE END, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE END, AND THE JURYSHOULD BE ADMONISHED, INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD. MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTSREGARDING THIS WITNESS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT --*THE COURT:* SO YOU HAVE THE SAME COMMENT AS FAR AS THE TIRE TRACKS ANDTHE FOOTPRINTS?*MR. DARDEN:* YES, YOUR HONOR.
*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MR. DARDEN:* NEXT, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED DINO -- AND I APOLOGIZE IF IMISPRONOUNCE THE LAST NAME -- BUCOLLA, B-U-C-O-L-L-A. AND THIS RELATESTO HIS OBSERVATIONS AT THE RED ONION, AN INCIDENT WHICH WAS DESCRIBED INOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOTION.*THE COURT:* IS THIS ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE CAR?*MR. DARDEN:* YES. WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT I BELIEVE YESTERDAY REGARDINGTHIS GENTLEMAN.*THE COURT:* THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THE STATEMENTS YESTERDAY.*MS. CLARK:* YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* IT'S NOT ON MY LIST OF ITEMS TURNED OVER.*MR. DOUGLAS:* I COULD EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* MR. DOUGLAS.*MS. CLARK:* IT WAS RECEIVED AFTER COURT SESSION LIKE 5:00 O'CLOCK.*MR. DARDEN:* YES. AS THEY WERE RUNNING TO THE ELEVATOR, "HERE, HAVESOME MORE DISCOVERY." THEY GAVE US TWO REPORTS JUST THAT WAY YESTERDAY.*MR. DOUGLAS:* THAT'S NOT CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.*MR. DARDEN:* WAIT YOUR TURN, MR. DOUGLAS.*THE COURT:* WE'LL GET THERE. MR. DARDEN, WHAT IS THE DATE ON THISWITNESS STATEMENT?*MR. DARDEN:* I BELIEVE IT IS -- WELL, WHY DON'T THE COURT INQUIRE OFMR. DOUGLAS IF YOU DON'T MIND. I DON'T HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.*THE COURT:* BUT YOU HAVE NOW A STATEMENT FROM MR. BUCOLLA --*MR. DARDEN:* YES.*THE COURT:* -- REGARDING THAT INCIDENT?*MR. DARDEN:* YES. I BELIEVE IT'S DATED, IF YOU WOULD INQUIRE.*THE COURT:* NO. I'LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH.*MR. DARDEN:* WELL, IT'S ABOUT JANUARY 25 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND ITRAISES A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE I THINK. AS WE PROCEEDED WITH OURINVESTIGATION, WE INTERVIEWED WITNESSES ON JANUARY 1 AND JANUARY 2 ANDJANUARY 3 AND DATES LIKE THAT AND JANUARY 10. AND AS WE TURNED THOSEWITNESSES OVER TO THE DEFENSE WITHIN ONE BUSINESS DAY AND IN COMPLIANCEWITH THE COURT'S ORDER, WE WERE NEVERTHELESS PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONINGTHOSE WITNESSES IN OPENING STATEMENT AND WE WERE PRECLUDED FROM CALLINGTHOSE WITNESSES UNTIL THE END OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. AND IT WAS NOFAULT OF OURS THAT WE DISCOVERED THESE WITNESSES ON JANUARY 1 AND TURNEDTHEM OVER THE NEXT DAY. IT WAS NO FAULT OF OURS, AND STILL WE HAD TOSUFFER SOME FORM OF SANCTION. WE SUFFERED A SANCTION FOR BEING DILIGENT.
THEY'VE GIVEN US THIS GENTLEMAN'S STATEMENT TAKEN JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.HE SHOULD MOVE TO THE BACK JUST LIKE OURS.*THE COURT:* NO, I DON'T RECALL THIS PERSON BEING MENTIONED IN OPENINGSTATEMENT OR ANY ISSUE.*MR. COCHRAN:* IT WAS NOT.*MR. DARDEN:* THEN HE SHOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO MOVE TO THE BACK THEN,AND I THINK MR. COCHRAN SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM MENTIONING HIM IN THEEVENT THAT HE INTENDS TO. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?*THE COURT:* CERTAINLY. MADAM REPORTER, HOW ARE YOU DOING?*THE COURT REPORTER:* FINE.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO ANOTHER 15.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MR. DARDEN:* WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS ON JANUARY 25, YOURHONOR. MR. BUCOLLA'S STATEMENT WAS ONE. WE RECEIVED A STATEMENTREGARDING MR. JASON WOOD, AND WE WILL SEEK NO SANCTION AS IT RELATES TOJASON WOOD. WE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE'RE ACQUAINTED WITH HIM. AND THEREPORT WE RECEIVED WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, AND SO WEWILL SEEK NO SANCTION. BUT WE WILL ASK THE COURT, HOWEVER, TO ASK THEDEFENSE DO THEY HAVE INFORMATION IN ADDITION. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT,YOUR HONOR?*THE COURT:* CERTAINLY.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, THE PAGE NUMBER FOR THE CARD PLAYING THAT YOUWANTED IS 11890.*THE COURT:* THANK YOU.*MR. DARDEN:* NEXT, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S RONALD TAYLOR. WE RECEIVED THISSTATEMENT ON JANUARY 25TH. HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST.HOWEVER, THEY WAITED UNTIL JANUARY 25TH TO GIVE US A STATEMENT. THEREWAS PAUL SOLENSHINE, S-O-L-E-N-S-H-I-N-E.*THE COURT:* HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. PAUL SOLENSHINE, THE RHEUBAN'S EMPLOYEE.*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, I STAND CORRECTED. WE DID RECEIVE AN EARLIERSTATEMENT ON TAYLOR. DON'T TALK TO ME, OKAY? WE DID NOT RECEIVE ASTATEMENT ON PAUL SOLENSHINE UNTIL JANUARY 25. AS I INDICATED, HE WAS ONTHE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. HOWEVER, NO STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED. THE SAMEAPPLIES TO ROSITA RHEUBAN, R-H-E-U-B-A-N. WE REQUIRE TIME TO INVESTIGATETHE CONTENT OF THEIR STATEMENTS AND DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE INFORMATIONRELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL THESEWITNESSES.*THE COURT:* ARE THE PEOPLE INTENDING ON PRESENTING ANY OF THE ITEMSSEIZED FROM MR. COWLING'S AUTOMOBILE?*MR. DARDEN:* WE HAVE NOT YET MADE THAT DECISION, YOUR HONOR.
*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MR. DARDEN:* THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM CALLING MR. SOLENSHINE ANDMISS RHEUBAN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR CASE AND UNTIL WE HAVE BEENGIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THEIR BACKGROUNDS AND THECONTENT OF ANY STATEMENT THEY MIGHT GIVE. NEXT, THERE IS THE STATEMENTOF TONY PARKER GIVEN TO US ON JANUARY 25. WE HAD NO PRIOR DISCOVERYREGARDING THIS WITNESS. WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO INVESTIGATE THECONTENT OF HIS STATEMENT AS WELL AS HIS BACKGROUND. WE WERE GIVEN ASTATEMENT OR RATHER KEVIN WHELAN'S STATEMENT, AND HE CLAIMED TO HAVEGOTTEN THE DEFENDANT'S AUTOGRAPH ON JUNE 12, 1994 AT 11:20. YOU WOULDTHINK THAT HE MIGHT BE A MATERIAL WITNESS TO THE DEFENSE. AND I'M SURETHEY SAW IT THAT WAY, AND HE WAS ON THEIR AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUTTHEY DIDN'T TURN THAT STATEMENT OVER TO US UNTIL JANUARY 25TH, SIXMONTHS AFTER THE HOMICIDES. YESTERDAY, MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED -- ORSTRIKE THAT. ON JANUARY 25, WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT FROM NARINDEN SINGHREGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A TAPE OF SOME KIND AT THE MEZZALUNARESTAURANT. THIS PERSON WAS ON THE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST. WE RECEIVEDTHAT PERSON'S STATEMENT ON JANUARY 25, 1995. AND NEXT IS ALEX CASTILLO.HE HAS SOME INFORMATION REGARDING A BEEPER OR PAGER, AND HE WAS ON THEDEFENSE AUGUST 31 WITNESS LIST, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1995THAT WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT OR A REPORT. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOURHONOR?*THE COURT:* CERTAINLY.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE PROSECUTION STOODBEFORE THE COURT, ADVISED THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE WAS PLAYING FASTAND LOOSE WITH THE DISCOVERY RULES, WITH THE EVIDENCE. EACH TIME AMEMBER OF THE DREAM TEAM STEPPED TO THE PODIUM AND ADVISED THE COURT TOWHAT THEY THOUGHT THE LAW REQUIRED, THEY ADVISED THE COURT THAT THEY HADNO DISCOVERY, THEY HAD NO REPORTS OR THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO CALL THEWITNESS OR THAT THEY HAD NO DUTY TO TURN OVER RELEVANT AND MATERIALINFORMATION, STATEMENTS FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT THEY KNEW FROM DAYONE THEY WOULD WANT TO CALL IN THIS TRIAL, AND THEY DID THAT TIME ANDTIME AGAIN. MR. DOUGLAS DID IT JUST LAST WEEK ON JANUARY 20. THE COURTMAY RECALL -- AND THIS IS AT VOLUME 73 AT PAGE 11319 WHERE MR. DOUGLASINFORMED THE COURT:"CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT UNDERSTANDS OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THEDISCOVERY ACT AND CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH THIS FINE COLLECTION OFLAWYERS, WE UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DISCOVERY ACT." AND ITHINK THEIR UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, WAS PROBABLY CORRECT; AND THAT ISTHAT THEY HAD A DUTY TO TURN OVER THE STATEMENTS OF THESE MATERIALWITNESSES. AND I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT. I THINK THE LAW IS PRETTYCLEAR THERE. I THINK MR. UELMEN STATED IT RATHER SUCCINCTLY AND CLEARLYWHEN HE SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE WHERE TRIAL HAS ALREADY BEGUN,EACH PARTY HAS A DUTY TO TURN OVER TO THE OTHER PARTY DISCOVERABLEMATERIAL IMMEDIATELY. AND MR. UELMEN SAID TO THE COURT:"YOUR HONOR, IMMEDIATE MEANS IMMEDIATE. IT MEANS NOW. IT MEANS AS SOONAS POSSIBLE." AND THAT, AS I RECALL, WAS THE COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OFTHE TERM. WELL, WE'VE BEEN IN TRIAL SINCE SEPTEMBER AS I UNDERSTAND IT.WELL, IT IS THAT SECTION OF THE DISCOVERY RULES THAT APPLIES TO THESEDEFENDANTS OR TO THIS DEFENDANT AND THESE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THEY SHOULDHAVE TURNED OVER THIS INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY, BUT THEY DIDN'T.THEY WANTED TO SANDBAG US. HAD THEY TURNED THE INFORMATION OVER TO US
LAST WEEK OR AT CHRISTMAS OR ON DECEMBER 14, AS WE DID -- THE COURT WILLRECALL THAT ON DECEMBER 14, WE TURNED OVER DISCOVERY TO DEFENSE AND YOUHAD TO PULL THEM OFF THE CEILING. IT'S SIX WEEKS LATER NOW. THESANCTIONS THE COURT IMPOSED ON US BACK ON SEPTEMBER 23RD AND EARLIER ARESTILL IN EFFECT. THEY'VE HAD SIX WEEKS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION; ANDIN THAT SIX WEEKS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID IN TERMS OF ANINVESTIGATION. BUT IN THAT SIX WEEKS, THEY CERTAINLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITYTO THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY. I MEAN THEY FILED A 40-PAGE BRIEFON THE SUBJECT. THEY ARGUED IT TO THE COURT DAY AFTER DAY. THEYUNDERSTAND THE LAW AND THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES. THEY KNOW THAT THEYARE NOT ALLOWED TO TURN OVER DISCOVERY TO US AFTER MR. COCHRAN HASMENTIONED THE CONTENT OF THAT DISCOVERY BEFORE THE JURY ALREADY. THEYKNOW THAT THEY HAVE A DUTY TO TURN OVER INFORMATION TO US IMMEDIATELY.BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T DO IT LAST YEAR, THEY DIDN'T DO ITLAST MONTH, THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO IT THE MORNING BEFORE MR. COCHRAN BEGANHIS OPENING STATEMENT. AND THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. ANDTHEY DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT HAD THEY DONE IT, YOU WOULD NOTHAVE ALLOWED MR. COCHRAN TO POISON THE MINDS OF THESE JURORS WITHHEARSAY ON TOP OF HEARSAY WITH THE CONTENT OF STATEMENTS GIVEN HIM BYWITNESSES WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND WHOSE BACKGROUND I AM SURETHAT IF MR. COCHRAN KNEW OR WAS AWARE, HE WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN MENTIONEDTHEM. WHEN THE VOTERS IN THIS STATE PASSED PROPOSITION 115, THERE WAS ACLEAR MANDATE, AND THAT MANDATE WAS, NO MORE SANDBAGGING, NO MORE SLEAZYTRIAL TACTICS, NO MORE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OR OF THE SYSTEM OR OF THECOURTS. AS THE COURT ALREADY ALLUDED TO EARLIER, DISCOVERY BECAME ATWO-WAY STREET. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DREAM TEAM CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTANDTHAT OR GRASP THAT OR WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES. IUNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A CELEBRITY CLIENT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THISIS ALLEGEDLY THE BIGGEST MURDER CASE EVER. BUT THE RULES DON'T STOP JUSTFOR THIS CASE. THE RULES APPLY TO THIS CASE. HAD WE DONE WHAT THEY DID,I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE DONE TO OUR CASE, BECAUSEEVEN DESPITE OUR INNOCENT AND NEGLIGENT MISTAKES IN TERMS OF DISCOVERY,YOU'VE GUTTED OUR CASE TO SOME EXTENT. YOU'VE DISMANTLED IT IN MANYRESPECTS.*THE COURT:* REARRANGED IT.*MR. DARDEN:* YOU REARRANGED IT ALL RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'SFAIR. BUT THE BELL HAS ALREADY BEEN RUNG, YOUR HONOR, AND THE SHOT HASALREADY BEEN FIRED. AND ONCE THE SHOT IS FIRED -- AS MR. DE BLANC STATEDLAST NIGHT ON TELEVISION, ONCE THE BULLET IS OUT THE GUN, YOU CAN'T GETIT BACK.*THE COURT:* YOU HAD TIME TO WATCH TELEVISION LAST NIGHT?*MR. DARDEN:* I HEARD ABOUT IT. I HEARD ABOUT IT, YOUR HONOR. I MISSEDTHE ENTIRE NBA SEASON UP TO THIS POINT, AND I AM UPSET ABOUT THAT. BUTTHE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL JUST LIKE MR. SIMPSON DOES, ANDWE HAVE A RIGHT TO PLAY ON A LEVEL FIELD; AND THAT FIELD IS SUPPOSED TOBE LEVEL AND SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED. WELL, THERE IS A TERRIBLEINBALANCE NOW, AND THIS INBALANCE IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DREAM TEAM'SREFUSAL, THEIR INTENTIONAL AND WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR SOME VERY BASIC ANDFUNDAMENTAL RULES OF DISCOVERY. THIS IS THEIR FAULT THAT THE FIELD IS NOLONGER A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IT'S THEIR FAULT THAT THINGS ARE OUT OFBALANCE. AND I WANT THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, SOMUCH MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT THE OTHER DAY. HE DID WHAT IFIGURED HE WOULD DO. HE'S A GOOD LAWYER. THEY SAY HE'S THE BEST. HE'S AFRIEND OF MINE. I'M PROUD TO HAVE HIM AS A FRIEND OF MINE. BUT I'MDISAPPOINTED IN HIM. BUT I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO KNOW, MR. SIMPSON TOO TO
KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT JUST HERE PLAYING GAMES EITHER. WE MAY JUST BE CIVILSERVANTS AND BLUE COLLAR LAWYERS, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE INTEND TO WIN THISCASE. BUT THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO WIN AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FULLYAND FAIRLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS WOULD BE IF THE COURT RECTIFIEDTHIS INBALANCE. AND I BELIEVE THE COURT MUST, BECAUSE THIS PROBLEM ANDTHIS ISSUE, IT'S MORE THAN JUST AN AFFRONT TO THE PROSECUTION. IT IS ANATTACK ON THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT. THEY VIOLATED YOUR RULES, NOTJUST MINE, NOT JUST THE LEGISLATURE'S. NOT JUST THE RULES OF COURT, BUTYOUR RULES, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, MR. DARDEN.YOU KNOW THAT.*MR. DARDEN:* THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO ME, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULDASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY AND WE WOULD ASK AS WELL THAT WE BEGRANTED A BRIEF CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN FULLY ASSESS WHAT HASHAPPENED, SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUNDS AND THE INFORMATIONPROVIDED TO US IN COURT THESE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS. AND WE THINK WE HAVEA RIGHT TO THAT. I THINK WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THAT. THE CODESECTION SPEAKS TO THE REMEDIES THE COURT CAN PROVIDE IN A SITUATION LIKETHIS WHERE THERE EXISTS SUCH A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE CODE, AND WEWOULD ASK THAT THE COURT ALLOW US TO REOPEN OUR OPENING STATEMENT --(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MR. DARDEN:* -- AND TO CORRECT THE INBALANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYING FIELDLEVEL AGAIN. I'M SURE MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T PLAY ON LOPSIDED PLAYING FIELDSBACK WHEN HE WAS IN THE NFL. I MEAN THERE WERE 11 GUYS ON EACH SIDE. ITWAS FAIR. OF COURSE, THEY HAD MR. SIMPSON ON THEIR TEAM. I JUST WANT AFAIR SHOT. WE JUST WANT A FAIR TRIAL. THIS AIN'T ALL ABOUT JUST WINNINGAND LOSING. IT'S ABOUT FAIRNESS. IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE. I'M STARTING TOSOUND LIKE COCHRAN, AREN'T I? ALTHOUGH THERE IS LITTLE CASE LAW OR NOCASE LAW ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AN OPENING STATEMENT, THERE IS CASELAW ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF REOPENING CLOSING ARGUMENTS.*THE COURT:* I'M FAMILIAR WITH THOSE CASES. I WAS LOOKING FOR ONE THATDEALT WITH OPENING STATEMENTS.*MR. DARDEN:* SO WAS I, AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT CASE UNTIL 2:15 THISMORNING, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* I KNOW ALL ABOUT REOPENING ARGUMENT, COUNSEL.*MR. DARDEN:* AND I WOULD THIS AS WELL.*THE COURT:* LET ME REPHRASE THAT. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT.*MR. DARDEN:* AND I KNOW THAT THE COURT KNOWS THE COURT HAS DISCRETIONIN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROOF, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PROCESSES HEREIN THIS CASE. AND I WOULD SAY SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, ABOUT WHAT HASHAPPENED HERE. WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALLED THERULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. IT'S ETHICS. AND I'M NOT HERE TO ACCUSEMY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES OF BEING UNETHICAL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TOPOINT OUT IF I MAY TO THE COURT THAT THERE EXISTS IN THE STATE BAR RULESOF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SECTION 65220 ENTITLED SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE.AND THAT SECTION INDICATES THAT:"A MEMBER OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THAT THE MEMBER OR THEMEMBER'S CLIENT HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REVEAL OR TO PRODUCE." AND
THERE'S ALSO SECTION 5-200, SUBSECTION B, WHICH STATES THAT:"MEMBERS OF THE BAR SHALL NOT SEEK TO MISLEAD THE JUDGE OR THE TRIER OFFACT." WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE OVER THESE PAST MONTHS HAS BEENMISLEADING. WE'VE BEEN MISLED. I BELIEVE THE COURT HAS BEEN MISLED.THERE'S CLEAR INDICATION, A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE SUPPRESSEDEVIDENCE, INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED OVER TO THEPROSECUTION. AND I'M NOT SAYING, HEY, YOU SHOULD CALL THE STATE BAR ORSOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT. THESE ARE MY FRIENDS. BUT I DOTHINK THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERYRULES AND THEY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO SUFFER EXTREME PREJUDICE. HOWARE YOU GOING TO UNRING THE BELL? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET BACK THEBULLET ONCE IT'S ALREADY FIRED? THEY BROUGHT THIS ON THEMSELVES. WEDIDN'T DO IT TO THEM. WE WOULD LIKE A FAIR TRIAL, A FAIR SHOT ATPRESENTING TO THIS JURY THE TRUTH. WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT AND WE WON'TGET IT AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THERULES. MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?*THE COURT:* MR. DARDEN, MAYBE THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO TAKEA COURT REPORTER RECESS.*MR. DARDEN:* FINE, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE 15.(RECESS.)*THE COURT:* BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES AREAGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO CONCLUDE YOURCOMMENTS?*MR. DARDEN:* YES, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* YOU HAD GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS.*MR. DARDEN:* YES.*THE COURT:* DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS? AND I WANT TO THANKYOU FOR THE SPECIFICITY OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT.*MR. DARDEN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I JUST HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS,IF I MAY. WE WOULD JUST LIKE THE COURT TO KNOW THAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVEA RIGHT AND WE FEEL OUR POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, BUT WE FEELTHAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE WITNESSESWHOSE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO US JUST RECENTLY OR WHOSE STATEMENTSHAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN TO US BUT WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS MENTIONED IN FRONT OFTHIS JURY. AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR PRECLUSION AND WE ARE NOT ASKINGFOR PRECLUSION BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WANT THE TRUTH TOCOME OUT IN THIS TRIAL. WE COULD ASK FOR CONTEMPT, WE COULD ASK THECOURT TO HOLD THE DEFENSE IN CONTEMPT, BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT. WEARE NOT ASKING THAT AT ALL. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REPORT ANYBODY TO THEBAR. WE ARE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT. ALL WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY IS ASKINGTHE COURT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. NOW, JUST BEFORE I LEFT OUT OFHERE FOR THE BREAK MR. BAILEY MENTIONED TO ME THAT PERHAPS WHAT I REALLYWANT IS A MISTRIAL. I DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL. I LIKE THE TWELVE JURORS WEHAVE. I LIKE OUR CASE. I LIKE OUR CHANCES. WE DON'T WANT A MISTRIAL,YOUR HONOR. WE WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESEPROCEEDINGS CONTINUE. AND MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, MR. BAILEY, ALSOASKED ME BEFORE WE BROKE IF I FELT A NEED TO RUN AWAY, AND I WANT MR.
BAILEY TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, WE ARE NOT GOINGANYWHERE. WE ARE IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH AND WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT. WEHAVE FOUND IT. WE WANT THE JURY TO FIND IT. WE ARE GOING TO STAY RIGHTHERE, MR. BAILEY. WE ARE GOING TO FINISH THIS TRIAL. WE JUST NEED ALITTLE TIME TO REPAIR SOME OF THE HARM CAUSED BY THE MISCONDUCT OF YOURCOLLEAGUES AND YOURSELF. WE JUST WANT A FAIR SHOT AT IT, YOUR HONOR;NOTHING MORE.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ONE OF THEREMEDIES THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS FOR THE COURT TO ADVISE THE JURYTHAT I AM STRIKING FROM THE RECORD MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS CONCERNINGCERTAIN WITNESSES WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN ISSUES, THEN YOU WERE ALSOASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN. ARE THOSE IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR INTHE CONJUNCTIVE?*MR. DARDEN:* IN THE CONJUNCTIVE.*THE COURT:* BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE IF I'M GOING TOSTRIKE IT AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. SORT OF DEFEATINGTHE PURPOSE. SEEMS TO ME TO BE MILDLY ILLOGICAL. THEY SEEM TO BE INCONFLICT.*MS. CLARK:* UH-HUH. IF THE COURT -- I'M SORRY.*THE COURT:* JUST AN OBSERVATION.*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, THAT IS WHY I HAD --*THE COURT:* EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL, ONE --*MS. CLARK:* WE INDICATED TO THE COURT WE WERE GOING TO PRESENT ON THISBECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO FUNNEL IT TO ONE.*THE COURT:* THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. JUST AN OBSERVATION. ALL RIGHT. MR.DARDEN, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS?*MR. DARDEN:* YES, I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.*THE COURT:* THEN I HAVE BEFORE ME 27 SPECIFIC ITEMS.*MR. DARDEN:* IF I COULD INDICATE, BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE MORE, IDON'T KNOW IF THE COURT DID A SEARCH OF THE TRANSCRIPT ON ITS OWN, BUTTHAT IS ALL THAT WE COULD PULL OUT IN THE SHORT TIME THAT WE HAD.*THE COURT:* I THINK 27 IS PLENTY FOR TODAY.*MR. DARDEN:* OKAY. WE WILL GET ANOTHER 27 FOR TOMORROW, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.*MR. DOUGLAS:* GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TOBEGIN DEALING WITH SOME OF THE DISCOVERY CONCERNS RAISED AND MR. COCHRANWOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE SANCTIONING ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED.YOUR HONOR, AT THE OUTSET OF THIS TRIAL THE COURT REMINDED ALL COUNSELTHAT THE EYES AND THE EARS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE WATCHING US TODAY. ITIS MY SINCERE HOPE, YOUR HONOR, TO BRING DIGNITY TO THE PROFESSION THATI LOVE, SO I WILL NOT DIGNIFY THE OFTEN VILE, INSIDIOUS AND LONG-WINDEDCOMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUE BY RESPONDING IN KIND. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE KNOWNCHRISTOPHER DARDEN FOR WELL OVER TEN YEARS AND HE HAS REFERRED IN FACT
TO ME AND TO MY OFFICE THE PARENTS OF A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS ONCE SHOT ANDKILLED WHILE GOING HOME FROM SCHOOL, SO I CANNOT FATHOM THAT HE WOULDHAVE ENTRUSTED THAT FAMILY IN MY CARE IF HE BELIEVED THAT I OR MYCOLLEAGUES WERE AS DISHONEST AND AS UNETHICAL AS HE HAS INFERRED. YOURHONOR, HE COMES TO YOU SEEKING EQUITY. HE COMES TO YOU ASKING ABOUTBASIC FAIRNESS. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THERE IS A CONCEPT IN EQUITYCALLED CLEAN HANDS AND THAT CONCEPT SAYS THAT ONE CANNOT SEEK EQUITYWITHOUT DOING EQUITY IN KIND. AND I SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT BEFORE MR.DARDEN COMES AND SEEKS EQUITY THE TRUE RECORD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SOTHAT THE COURT CAN WEIGH AND PROPERLY BALANCE A RESPONSE, GIVEN THECURRENT STATE OF THE FULL RECORD. YOUR HONOR, IN SEPTEMBER OF 1994 THEPROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS A LIST OF 214 NAMES. ON JANUARY THE 6THOF 1995 THE PROSECUTORS GAVE THE DEFENDANTS 207 ADDITIONAL NAMES. FIVEMORE WERE ADDED THE FOLLOWING WEEK; THREE MORE WERE ADDED AFTER THAT;TWO MORE WERE ADDED SINCE THEN. THE FIRST OF HIS COMPLAINTS WERE BASEDON THE THOUGHT THAT THE DEFENSE HAD SOMEHOW DUMPED NAMES WITHOUTADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS ON THE PROSECUTION AND HOW UNFAIR THAT WAS TOTHE PROSECUTION. I GIVE THIS COURT AT THIS TIME THE NAMES OF ARTSHAFFMAN, BHARAT SHAW, JOSEPH PERULLI, ELISA PEREZ, CINDY PATTERSON,BRET LOBNER, MARK LEON, RAY KILDUFF, BO JACKSON, CARLOS HERNANDEZ,RICHARD GONZALEZ, DON DETZLER, CAROL DIPRIMA, JAY SWELL, VITO BOFFA,NICOLAS BOLLAS, DONNA ESTES, GARY KAWAKAWI, AMANDA DARLING, PATRICK --PATRICIA FOY, DAVID PRESTHOLT, CRUZ PRIEGO, R. RINCH, RODNEY SHELTON,NORMAN SMITH, JOHN STEWART, MARK STORFER, JAN VAN POBEL, PHILLIP VANSAUN, TONY WAYBRIGHT, CHRISTINE WOLFORD AND CHARLOTTE WORD AS JUST SOMEEXAMPLES OF NAMES GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE WITHOUT ADDRESSES OR PHONENUMBERS. THAT COMMENT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE DEFENSE HAD TO TRY TO FINDOUT WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE, TRY TO LOCATE THEM AND TRY TO IDENTIFY THEM.THEY WERE NAMES THAT WERE ON THE PEOPLE'S PROSECUTION LIST.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, IF YOU WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OFTODAY'S PROCEEDINGS GIVE A COPY OF THE LIST THAT YOU JUST READ TO THECOURT REPORTER.*MR. DOUGLAS:* IT HAS BEEN DONE, YOUR HONOR, ALREADY, THANK YOU.*MR. DARDEN:* YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT DO THIS AS WELL, ASK MR. --*THE COURT:* NO, THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN. I WILL HEAR COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT.*MR. DOUGLAS:* YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARETALKING ABOUT WHEN WE MAY OBLIQUELY INFER THAT THERE IS A CERTAINWITNESS THAT MIGHT SAY CERTAIN THINGS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVECOMMITTED MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NO CASE AUTHORITY THAT THEY CAN CITE,BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE TO SUGGEST THAT ATTORNEYS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TOCREATE DISCOVERABLE NOTES OR MEMOS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIRCLIENT OR BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH RETAINED EXPERTS. YOUR HONOR, THEDISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS RETAINED MANY EXPERTS TO TALK ABOUT DNAISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT BLOOD ISSUES, TO TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES, BUTAMONG THE 22,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THIS CASETHERE IS NOT ONE HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM MARCIA CLARK, FROM CHRISTOPHERDARDEN, FROM WILLIAM HODGMAN.*MS. CLARK:* OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY TOLD US THAT HEWAS NOT INTERESTED IN OUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES. SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS ANAGREEMENT HE HAD WITH MR. HODGMAN. HE IS NOW MISREPRESENTING TO THECOURT THE AGREEMENT.*THE COURT:* MISS CLARK, I WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL. THANK
YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.*MR. DOUGLAS:* FROM JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH, FROM SCOTT GORDON, FROM LYDIABODIN OR FROM ANY OTHER ATTORNEY, CHERI LEWIS, MISS KAHN OR ANYONE ELSEWHO HAS OBVIOUSLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WITNESSES. AS WELL, YOURHONOR, THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWELVE DNA EXPERTS THAT HAVE BEENNOTICED BY BOTH SIDES, KARY MULLIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE WAS ONE OF THENAMES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OUR LIST OF EXPERTS THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF,AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE DNA REPORT FROM ANY OF THESE EXPERTS BASEDON TESTIMONY THAT THEY INTEND TO OFFER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO WEARE TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS, BUT WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT BOTH SIDESMUST HAVE CLEAN HANDS. THE CASE, YOUR HONOR, BEGAN BACK IN JUNE OF THISYEAR. WE HAVE ENLISTED SEVERAL ATTORNEYS WHO WORK OUT OF DIFFERENTOFFICES. AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER WE HAVE USED SEVEN DIFFERENT -- SIXDIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT PIECES OFINVESTIGATION. THEY DID NOT ALWAYS WORK IN CONCERT, THEY DID NOT ALWAYSSHARE THEIR WORK PRODUCT WITH EACH OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATORS OR WITHEACH OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE TURNED OVERYESTERDAY WAS A WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. THAT WITNESSSTATEMENT WAS OBTAINED BY AN INVESTIGATOR WITH WHOM I PERSONALLY HAVENEVER SPOKE. THAT IS AN INVESTIGATOR WHO BASICALLY HAS DONE LIMITED WORKON THIS CASE, AND UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, ONE OF THE JOBS THAT HE PERFORMEDWAS TO INTERVIEW AND TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS. IREPRESENT AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT THAT THE FIRST DAY THAT IPERSONALLY BECAME AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF HIS STATEMENT BETWEEN OFMISS GERCHAS WAS MOMENTS BEFORE I TOOK THE PODIUM YESTERDAY WHEN MR.COCHRAN GAVE ME A COPY AND I ASKED YOUR CLERK TO MAKE COPIES SO THAT ICAN READ MYSELF. CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZED, IF YOU WILL,YESTERDAY THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION TO HAVE NOT TURNED THAT STATEMENTOVER, BUT IF THE COURT WERE TO READ THAT STATEMENT, THE COURT WOULD SEETHAT MISS GERCHAS HAD CONTACTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SPOKETO PATTY FAIRBANKS IN THAT OFFICE, THAT MISS FAIRBANKS TOLD MISS GERCHASTHAT I'M TALKING LONG DISTANCE TO A PSYCHIC SO THAT I WILL HAVE TO CALLYOU BACK, THAT IN HER DESPAIR MISS GERCHAS CONTACTED THE POLICEDEPARTMENT GIVING THEM INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURYYESTERDAY, THAT MISS GERCHAS' NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER WEREINCLUDED ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT WE PROVIDED IN AUGUST OF 1994. SOCERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WITH OURPHYSICALLY TURNING OVER HER STATEMENT, THE SURPRISE, THE ABSOLUTE SHOCKAND AMAZEMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED HERE IS SOMEWHAT OVERBLOWN. FOREXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR, NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE THE NAME OF ROSA LOPEZ, WEGAVE HER ADDRESS AS BEING A LOCATION DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO WHERE MR.SIMPSON LIVED. NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE HER NAME AND HER ADDRESS, BUT WEGAVE HER STATEMENT AS WELL. DESPITE HAVING HER NAME, HER ADDRESS, HERTELEPHONE NUMBER AND A STATEMENT, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIVE FROMEITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR THE LOS ANGELES POLICEDEPARTMENT TO INTERVIEW ROSA LOPEZ --*THE COURT:* SHE IS NOT ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS UNDER DISPUTE HERE.*MR. DOUGLAS:* YOUR HONOR, I AM SIMPLY, BY ANALOGY, HOPING TO OFFER TOTHE COURT THAT THE PROTESTATIONS OF PREJUDICE ARE PERHAPS NOT IN GOODFAITH, BECAUSE THOUGH THEY HAD THE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, ROSALOPEZ, THEY NEVER SAW FIT TO GO AND INTERVIEW HER UNTIL MONDAY EVENINGWHEN MR. BAILEY STOOD UP AND EXPLAINED TO THIS COURT THE SIGNIFICANCE OFHER TESTIMONY. I OFFER THAT TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT YES, THERE MAY HAVEBEEN SOME FACIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE; HOWEVER, BEFORE THE COURTBELIEVES THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIRE PREJUDICE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THEEQUITY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CLEAN HANDS AND THAT IS WHAT I SEEK TO
OFFER TO THE COURT. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS IN FACT BEEN A LIST GIVENYESTERDAY BECAUSE THE COURT MADE IT VERY CLEAR ON MONDAY THAT I WOULDHAVE TO GO THROUGH -- I'M SORRY, ON TUESDAY -- MONDAY WHEN I GAVE THENAMES OF SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESSES I TOLD THE COURT THAT THESE WERE THESTATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED AND THERE WERE, I BELIEVE, SEVERAL NAMESAND SIX STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED. THERE WAS ONE NAME IN PARTICULAR,SCOTT MATSUDA THAT THE PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT AND THAT THEY KNEW THAT THEREHAD BEEN A STATEMENT OF AND THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELYFORTHCOMING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ATTACHED IN THAT PACKET. I THEN MADE ACALL AND THE NEXT DAY THAT NAME AND THAT STATEMENT WAS GIVEN TO THEPEOPLE. IT WAS ON TUESDAY THAT THE COURT DIRECTED ME SPECIFICALLY TO GOTHROUGH MY ENTIRE RECORDS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE COMPLETELYSATISFIED MYSELF, THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH AND FOUND OUT EVERYTHING THATHAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER AND WE DID AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS, YOUR HONOR,AND WE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE COURT'S WARNINGS AND THE COURT'SDIRECTIONS AND THAT WAS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT THERE WERETWELVE STATEMENTS THAT HAD FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACK. TWELVE STATEMENTSOUT OF HUNDREDS OF NAMES THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION AND HUNDREDSOF NAMES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE. NOW, YOUR HONOR, OF THESETWELVE INDIVIDUALS, WHOM STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED, THERE ARE FIVEWHOM I REASONABLY EXPECT THAT I WILL BE OFFERING TESTIMONY AT TRIAL.THEREFORE, YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS THE PROPRIETY OF ASANCTION, THE COURT SHOULD DO SO WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF REALITY. ITDOESN'T MAKE MUCH JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS TO CRY OUT NUMBERS OR TO CALL OUTNAMES WITHOUT KNOWING IN ACTUALITY THE IMPACT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE ONTHIS TRIAL. AND YOUR HONOR, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT THIS IS JANUARY26, THE START OF THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE. IT IS A DAY WHEN TYPICALLYIN PREPARATION FOR THE TRIAL THE LAWYERS HUDDLE TOGETHER, THE LAWYERSREVIEW THE STATE OF THE RECORD, THE LAWYERS REVIEW THE STATE OF ALL OFTHE PRETRIAL ARGUMENTS AND RULINGS AND GET TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHOM WENOW REASONABLY EXPECT TO CALL, AND WE DID THAT. AND EVEN ON DOING THAT,YOUR HONOR, WE OMITTED THE NAME OF RON FISCHMAN, WE OMIT THE NAMES OFCHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, AND THOSE NAMES WILL BE SOON ADDED, BUT THE PEOPLEHAVE ADDED NAMES THIS VERY WEEK AND WE ARE ALREADY BEGINNING. THEIR CASESHOULD HAVE BEEN TODAY, PERHAPS WILL BE TOMORROW, BUT THEY, TOO, HAVESTILL ADDED NAMES. YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE INDIVIDUALSWHOM WE REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO CALL, IT IS MYOPINION THAT ONLY TWO OF THOSE NAMES ARE NAMES THAT ARE UNKNOWN TO THEPROSECUTION. AND YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE BEENSANDBAGGED, YET IN 24 HOURS THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ASSASSINATE THECHARACTER OF MARY ANNE GERCHAS, ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, BY SUGGESTINGALLEGATIONS THAT ARE TOTALLY UNTRUE. AND YOUR HONOR, MR. COCHRAN WILLDEAL WITH THAT MORE WHEN HE COMES UP, BUT YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ATREMENDOUSLY AFFECTIVE WHEEL THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE CALLED THE LOSANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THERE IS ANOTHER COG IN THAT WHEEL CALLEDTHE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVEBEEN GIVEN SHORT TIME TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE SOME OF THE NAMES, THEYHAVE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN 24 HOURS, AND I DARE SAY THEY WILL BEABLE TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB IN THE TWO MONTHS' TIME IT IS GOING TO TAKEAT A MINIMUM BEFORE WE BEGIN CALLING ANY WITNESSES ON THE DEFENSE. YOURHONOR, IF THIS WERE THE FIRST DAY OF THE DEFENDANT'S CASE AND WE WERETHEN INTENDING TO CALL MARY ANNE GERCHAS OR RON FISCHMAN OR CHRISTIANRIECHARDT I WOULD NOT BE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO THIS COURT BECAUSEI WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WOULD REALLY BE A CLEAR PREJUDICE. BUT WHENWE HAVE 400 NAMES ON A WITNESS LIST AND WHEN WE HAVE A SIX-MONTH TRIALESTIMATE AND WHEN WE HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE DOZENS ANDSCORES OF WITNESSES CALLED, I ALSO BELIEVE THIS COURT MAY FASHION A MOREEQUITABLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, A MORE EQUITABLE RESPONSE TO OURMISTAKES, RECOGNIZING THAT THESE LAWYERS WHOM YOU ALSO KNOW, WHOM YOU
ALSO HAVE SOME ADMIRATION FOR AND RESPECT FOR, WHOM YOU ALSO BELIEVE,WOULD NOT MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO SANDBAG OR DO ALL OFTHE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED. I THINK CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR, YOUDON'T COME INTO THIS POSITION IN A VACUUM AND CERTAINLY I THINK YOU CANUNDERSTAND, GIVEN THE MASSIVE SIZE OF THIS CASE, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OFISSUES, GIVEN ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO WILL BE CALLED, THAT IT IS LIKELYTHAT THINGS FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE STOODUP HERE IN DECEMBER AND TRIED TO TELL YOU ALL OF THE REASONS WHY THEYMADE CERTAIN MISTAKES AND THE COURT SAID THAT THE CODE REQUIRED THATTHEY IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE AND THAT THEY HADN'T DONE SO IMMEDIATELY ANDTHAT THE COURT THEN ISSUED A SANCTION WHICH THE COURT FELT WASAPPROPRIATE. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD DO THE SAME SORT OF BALANCINGTODAY, BECAUSE ON DECEMBER THE 14TH, OR WHENEVER THAT HEARING WAS,OPENING STATEMENTS WERE DUE TO BEGIN THE FOLLOWING MONTH. WE HAVE ATLEAST TWO MONTHS NOW BEFORE WE ARE EVEN GOING TO CALL ANY OF THEDEFENDANT'S WITNESSES. YOUR HONOR, MARY ANNE GERCHAS IS A NAME, AS ISUGGEST, THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY KNEW OF. HER STATEMENT TAKEN IN JULYGIVES THE NAME OF PATTY FAIRBANKS OR PATTY FAIR SOMETHING, CLEARLYSUGGESTING THAT SHE HAD HAD CONTACT WITH SOMEONE IN THE DISTRICTATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MICHELLE ABUDRAHM, WHO IS ANOTHER NAME ON OUR LISTWITH A STATEMENT TURNED OVER YESTERDAY, IS ALSO A PERSON WITH WHOM THEYARE AWARE. THEY HAVE INTERVIEWED OTHER WITNESSES ABOUT THE FAIR -- ABOUTMISS ABUDRAHM AND ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON STRUCKHER PRIOR TO HER LEAVING THE SIMPSON HOME. JOEL PITCOFF, WHO WAS ANEMPLOYEE OF FORD, IS A WITNESS WHO WE INTEND TO CALL WHO IS PROBABLYUNKNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION, AND ON THAT ONE I WOULD ACCEPT THE SANCTIONOF ALLOWING THEM TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE OR PERFORM BACKGROUNDINVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND TRY TO CHALLENGE THE STRENGTHOF THE NUMBERS THAT HE IS GOING TO OFFER AND REQUIRE US TO WAIT ANDRECEIVE PERMISSION FROM THIS COURT BEFORE WE MENTION HIS NAME OR BEFOREWE CALL MR. PITCOFF AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. KEVIN WHELAN, THECOURIER, IS ANOTHER PERSON WHO WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE WAS IN FACTUNKNOWN TO THE PEOPLE AND SIMILARLY IT WOULD BE MEASURED AND PROPER FORTHE COURT TO IMPOSE THAT SORT OF A SANCTION.MARK PARTRIDGE IS THE FIFTH OF THE NAMES THAT I GAVE WITNESS STATEMENTSFOR YESTERDAY WHOM WE DO INTEND TO CALL, BUT YOUR HONOR, WHEN I REVIEWEDMY LIST THIS MORNING, I SAW THAT THERE WAS A ONE-PAGE STATEMENT OF MR.PARTRIDGE THAT WAS TURNED OVER IN AUGUST. WHAT I TURNED OVER YESTERDAYWAS TWO ADDITIONAL PAGES, SO THEREFORE THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THISCOURT THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW MR. PARTRIDGE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT AWAREOF WHAT EVIDENCE HE WOULD OFFER IN THIS CASE. SO IT WOULD NOT BE PROPEROR FAIR TO INCLUDE HIM WITH THE OTHER FOUR NAMES. RON FISCHMAN, YOURHONOR, IS A FRIEND OF MR. SIMPSON. WHEN WE GO DOWN TO LOOK UP OR GO DOWNTO COUNTY JAIL AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON AND WE TAKE NOTESDURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE WILL ASK HIM ABOUT WHAT WOULD RONFISCHMAN SAY AND RON FISCHMAN MAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS OR MR. SIMPSONMAY MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES RON FISCHMAN WILL SAYOR JOE STELLINI WILL SAY OR LOUIS MARKS WILL SAY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WEARE THINKING ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES WEEKS OR MONTHS IN ADVANCE, WE DONOT HAVE TIME TO SPEND ON LIMITED RESOURCES, AND THEY ARE IN FACTLIMITED, FOR INVESTIGATOR TIME. AND THERE ARE TWO INVESTIGATORS NOW ONLYWORKING ON MR. SIMPSON'S BEHALF ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO TRY TO TRACKDOWN FRIENDLY FAVORABLE WITNESSES WHOM WE WILL NOT CALL FOR AT LEAST THENEXT TWO MONTHS OR SO. AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO BESANCTIONED BY PRECLUSION, WE THEN PUT THEIR NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST,AND SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR, WE PUT THE NAMES ON THE WITNESS LIST BEFOREWE EVEN HAVE A COPY OF THE ADDRESS OR THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BECAUSE WEEXPECT REASONABLY AND FAIRLY THAT THEY WILL BE CALLED AS WITNESSES AND
THAT BY THE TIME IT IS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDECONTINUING DISCOVERY, BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT A CONTINUING PROCESS. YOURHONOR, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN WE HAVE INTERVIEWED OR SPOKEN WITH --MR. COCHRAN WOULD SPEAK TO, FOR EXAMPLE, HENRY LEE, BARBARA WOLF,MICHAEL BADEN. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, THEYARE AWARE OF THE NAMES, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE CITEDA CASE THAT ARGUES THAT WHEN A LAWYER SPEAKS TO AN EXPERT ABOUTSOMETHING THAT THE LAWYER MAY SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT OR ABOUT APROPER RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE PEOPLE'S OPENING THAT BY THATCONVERSATION ALONE HE IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE THAT CONVERSATION TO ADISCOVERABLE DOCUMENT AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHERSIDE. THAT IS NOT THE OBLIGATIONS EVEN UNDER PROP 115 OR THE U.S.CONSTITUTION OR THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THISMAN STILL HAS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT STILL SURVIVE EVEN PROP 115.YOUR HONOR, THEY TALK ABOUT NOT KNOWING ABOUT DR. KARY MULLIS, THE NOBELPRIZE WINNER. I REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT DR. MULLIS WAS A WITNESS INTHE WINN CASE, A CASE WHERE MR. ROBERT BLASIER WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEYIN, A CASE WITH SOME OF THE SAME DNA ISSUES AND A CASE WHICH MR. BLASIERWON AND THE COURT DECIDED THAT DNA WAS NOT ADEQUATELY RELIABLE TO BEADMITTED INTO A CRIMINAL CASE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS AWAREOF THAT, AND YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT IF MR. DARDEN WERE TO CHECK WITHMR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCK HARMON, THAT HE WOULD LEARN THAT THEY HAVEATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN MR. MULLIS' TESTIMONY IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THATINDEED MR. HARMON SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED AS A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYIN THAT CASE TO HELP CROSS-EXAMINE SOME OF THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS, SOFOR THEM TO SAY THAT LO AND BEHOLD THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT, THEY ARESURPRISED, I SUGGEST TO THE COURT IS NOT TOTALLY WITH GOOD FAITH.*THE COURT:* MR. DOUGLAS, IS DR. MULLIS ON YOUR WITNESS LIST?*MR. DOUGLAS:* YOUR HONOR, I HAVE JUST LOOKED FOR TODAY AND HE WAS ONTHE LIST THAT WE GAVE IN OCTOBER OF COMPLYING BACK AND FORTH WITH WHOOUR DNA EXPERTS OUR. HE WAS NOT PLACED ON OUR SUPPLEMENTAL LIST, BUT HEWILL, BUT THAT LIST, YOUR HONOR, OF DNA EXPERTS RESPONDED TO THEIR LISTOF DNA EXPERTS. IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. MR. CLARK,MR. HARMON AND MISS KAHN ARE AWARE OF EACH OF THEM.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. WAS HIS CV EXCHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OURAGREEMENT?*MS. CLARK:* NO.*MR. DOUGLAS:* MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOUR HONOR, AND MR. SCHECK IS NOLONGER HERE IN COURT, HOPEFULLY HE IS WATCHING ON A TELEVISION WITH HISFAMILY IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THATBOTH SIDES HAVE NOW MUTUALLY EXCHANGED RESUMES OF EACH OF THE DNAEXPERTS BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING SECONDHAND FROM MR. SCHECK. THEREIS A SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT BARBARA WOLF WAS A SURPRISE. MISSWOLF'S NAME, HER ADDRESS, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER, WERE PROVIDED IN AUGUSTOF 1994. AGAIN WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WOLF. WE DO NOT REDUCETHOSE CONVERSATIONS DOWN IN WRITTEN FORM. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROMBARBARA WOLF CONCERNING HER TESTIMONY OR HER CONCLUSIONS OR HER FINDINGSIN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO REPORTS FROM DR. MICHAEL BADEN CONCERNING HISTESTIMONY, HIS CONCLUSIONS OR FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NOREPORTS FROM DR. HENRY LEE WHO IS IN FACT THE PREEMINENT BLOOD SPLATTEREXPERT IN AMERICA, CONCERNING HIS CONCLUSIONS, HIS FINDINGS OR HISIMPRESSIONS IN THIS CASE.WE ARE AWARE, IF ANY SUCH REPORT IS GENERATED, THAT IT IS DISCOVERABLE
AND WE WILL DO SO. YOUR HONOR, MR. WEITZMAN IS AN ATTORNEY THAT MR.COCHRAN HAS KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS. I HAVE ENJOYED THE PLEASURE OF HISCOMPANY FOR TEN AND I CALL HIM ON THE PHONE AT HOME IF I NEED TO. WHEN ISAY, "HOWIE, TELL ME ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE JAIL" AND HE SAYS, "THEYTOLD ME I HAD TO LEAVE," I DO NOT THINK LAW OR THE CODE REQUIRES THAT IPUT THAT IN A WRITING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. SKIP TAFT HASBEEN MR. SIMPSON'S PERSONAL BUSINESS ATTORNEY FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS.WHEN HE TELLS ME THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD TOLEAVE WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS BEING INTERVIEWED, THAT IS NOT A CONVERSATIONTHAT I WOULD PUT DOWN IN WRITING. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCLOSURE OF THEENVELOPE WAS A PROPER FUNCTION TO PRESENT TO THE JURY IS NOT REALLY ADISCOVERY ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IS NOT REALLY A DISCOVERY ISSUE THAT ISPROPERLY A 402 ISSUE, BUT REMEMBER, WHAT HAPPENED WAS MR. HODGMAN STOODUP, MR. COCHRAN WALKED OVER, TOLD HIM WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO, GIVINGHIM THE BENEFIT OF HIS INFORMATION, ALLOWING HIM TO LODGE AN OBJECTION.IT WAS LODGED. SIDE BAR WAS APPROACHED. THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED AND HEMOVED ON.THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF DINO BUCCOLLA. YOUR HONOR,MR. BUCCOLLA'S NAME WAS GIVEN ON MONDAY AND THE COURT ASKED ME DO I --DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO REPORT? AND I SAID "YES"AND THERE WAS NO REPORT. BUT ON JANUARY 24, IN PART BECAUSE HIS HONORGAVE THOSE WORDS TO ME, I HAD MY INVESTIGATOR INTERVIEW MR. BUCCOLLA.THAT INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 24TH AND THE DOCUMENT WAS FAXED TOOUR COURTROOM FAX AT 4:16 P.M. THAT DAY. WHEN I RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENT,YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN LEAVING THE COURTROOM, I WENT UPSTAIRS MYSELF TOTHE 18TH FLOOR AND HANDED THAT DOCUMENT TO CHERI LEWIS, MAKING SURE THATI COULD DO EVERYTHING THAT I COULD, IN THE FACE OF THE SLINGS AND ARROWSTHAT WERE SLUNG MY WAY, TO SHOW MY GOOD FAITH, TO SHOW THAT I'M TRYINGTO PLAY FAIR, AND TO OBVIATE ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT I HEARD THISAFTERNOON. THE PREJUDICE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED ISJUST NOT TRUE. BEFORE 1992, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS NO RECIPROCALDISCOVERY, YET THERE WERE MURDER CASES, THERE WERE ROBBERY CASES, THEREWERE SHOPLIFTING CASES, THERE WERE DRUNK DRIVING CASES WHERE THE PEOPLEWOULD OPEN UP THEIR ENTIRE FILE AND THE DEFENDANTS WOULD GIVE ABSOLUTELYNOTHING.SO FOR THESE HISTRIONICS TO GO ON AND FOR THERE TO BE THE SUGGESTIONTHAT THIS IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS WRONG IN THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE ISLAUGHABLE, CLEARLY LAUGHABLE. ONLY SINCE 1992 WHEN THE PEOPLE OF THISSTATE, NOT THE LEGISLATURE, THOUGHT IN THEIR WISDOM TO IMPOSE ON THEDEFENDANTS THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROP 51 (SIC) HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTSBEEN IN PLACE. AND DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THIS STATE ARE CONTINUING TOWRESTLE WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT LAW. WE ARE CONTINUING TO WEIGHAND TO BALANCE OUR OBLIGATIONS TO A LAW THAT WE FEEL IS UNJUST AND OURPRIMARILY OBLIGATIONS TO OUR CLIENT WHO HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AGAINSTSELF-INCRIMINATION, AND YOUR HONOR, IF IT MEANS THAT WE WEIGH IN FAVOROF SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE MORE PROFOUND ANDTHAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE THE STRONGEST AND AS A RESULT WE MUST BEPRECLUDED FROM OFFERING THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES UNTIL THE ENDOF THE DEFENSE CASE, SO BE IT.*THE COURT:* MR. DOUGLAS, AS A FORMER LONG-TIME FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,THIS SCHEME OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY IS NOT UNKNOWN TO YOU AND IT ISWELL-SETTLED IN THE LAW GIVEN TO US BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,THAT THESE SCHEMES ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.*MR. DOUGLAS:* YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SCHEMES AREUNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT I ARGUE THAT AS A DEFENSE LAWYER I MUST CONSTANTLY
DAILY WRESTLE WITH THE INTERNAL CONFLICT WITHIN ME OF RESOLVING A LAWTHAT I FEEL IS UNFAIR, A LAW THAT I FEEL IS UNJUST, BUT A LAW THAT I AMCOMPELLED TO FOLLOW. AND THERE ARE CONFLICTS, YOUR HONOR, THAT AREOCCURRING ACROSS THE DEFENSE OFFICES IN THIS STATE, IN PUBLIC DEFENDEROFFICES EVERYWHERE. NO ONE WHO REPRESENTS A MAN ACCUSED OF A CRIME,PARTICULARLY A MURDER CASE, ENJOYS COMPLYING WITH THAT LAW, BUT WE MUSTAND WE TRY TO. YOUR HONOR, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALISSUE SOLELY. I RECOGNIZE THE WISDOM OF THE COURTS. I DO NOT ARGUE THATI SHOULD NOT OR MUST NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE, EVEN THOUGH I FEEL ITUNJUST, AND I DO COMPLY, YOUR HONOR, BUT I OFFER TO THE COURT THAT WHENTHE COURT MEASURES AND BALANCES AND WEIGHS EVERYTHING, WHEN THE COURTDOES EQUITY, WHICH IS INDEED ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLES OF A JUDGE,THAT THE COURT BALANCE THE EQUITY OF THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS ANDTHE REAL PREJUDICE, NOT JUST THE PUFFED UP SOUFFLE OF PREJUDICE THAT WEHAVE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THE REAL PREJUDICE AGAINST REASONABLESOLUTIONS TO A CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE.*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.*MR. COCHRAN:* GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. OF ALL THE LAWYERS WHO HAVEADDRESSED YOUR HONOR THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GOING TO TRY AND BE THESHORTEST, IF I CAN. I'M SURE YOU WILL BE VERY PATIENT AND LISTEN TO USAS ALWAYS. I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO RAISE MY VOICE, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE ITHINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALWAYS TRY TO CONDUCT OURSELVES ASPROFESSIONALS, EVEN IN THE FACE OF SOME RATHER UNTOWARD ATTACKS. BUT IASK THE COURT TO REMEMBER THAT IN THE PROSECUTION'S PRESENTATION MR.DARDEN, MY GOOD FRIEND MR. DARDEN -- AND I AM REMINDED THAT MY WIFE ISPRESENT IN COURT HERE TODAY, AS THE COURT KNOWS, AND DURING THE BREAK --I SAID -- INTRODUCED HER TO CHRIS DARDEN AND CHRIS SAYS, "I AM YOURHUSBAND'S GOOD FRIEND." AND I TELL MY WIFE, "I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOUDON'T LOVE ME LIKE HE DOES, BECAUSE I THINK I MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE." BUTI WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WITH REGARD TO MR. DARDEN AND SOMEOF THIS HISTRIONICS WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, MR.DARDEN IS THE SAME PERSON THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU AND TOLD YOU THAT IF WEINTERROGATED ANY POLICE OFFICER LIKE MARK FUHRMAN WITH ANY RACIAL SLURSIT WOULD SO POLLUTE -- WE COULD NOT PURSUE RACIAL ANIMUS. IT WOULD SOPOLLUTE THIS JURY THAT THEY COULDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL. THEIR WHOLE CASEWOULD FALL APART. REMEMBER THAT? THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND TO PUTIT IN PERSPECTIVE. THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THAT WHICH-- WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE TRUE AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT.COUNSEL MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND ITHINK WE SHOULD PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS, YOURHONOR. YOU HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND I SAID -- WE ALL SAIDWHEN WE GOT UP, OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, WHAT WE EXPECT TOPROVE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO PROVE IN GOOD FAITH. IF YOU DON'T PROVE THAT,THEN YOU SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THAT OCCURS WITH THAT. FOR THEM TOSTAND HERE AND TALK ABOUT THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED, THERE IS AN UNEVENPLAYING FIELD, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SEVEN MONTHS YESTERDAYSOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO GET UP AND SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF MR. SIMPSON.AND THAT IS ALL THAT TOOK PLACE. ALL I DID WAS TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT THEYHAD SAID, YOUR HONOR AND--*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MATTERBEFORE THIS COURT AND MR. COCHRAN HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THE COURT.
*THE COURT:* MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK, PLEASE, I HAVE -- WHEN WE ARE HEREOUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, I WILL HEAR THE COMPLETE COMMENT OFCOUNSEL, PLEASE, WITHOUT OBJECTION. YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TORESPOND TO MR. COCHRAN.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN. WITH REGARD TO THIS -- ITRIED TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THEY SAID IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, AND IFELT THEY SAID A NUMBER OF OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THAT THEY COULDN'T PROVE BYANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, BUT I DIDN'T STAND UP -- I DIDN'T COMECRYING TO YOU THAT NIGHT AND SAID, LOOK, JUDGE, HE KNOW, HE CAN'T PROVETHOSE THINGS, HE CAN'T PROVE THOSE THINGS OF DOMESTIC DISCORD HE TALKEDABOUT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- BECAUSE WE DON'T TRY CASES THAT WAY,JUDGE. I WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET MY CHANCE TO TELL THE JURY WHAT ITHINK AND THEN I WILL DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE. IT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WEWILL BE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CASE. NOW, CERTAINLY FOR ANYONE TO STANDHERE AND SAY THAT AFTER 32 YEARS OF PRACTICE THAT I WOULD IN ANY WAYJEOPARDIZE MY REPUTATION OR DO SOMETHING UNTOWARD IN A CASE, I WOULDNEVER DO THAT. I WOULD NEVER EVER DO THAT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUTHERE -- AND I WOULDN'T STAND UP AS MISS CLARK DID AND TELL THE JURY THATALLAN PARK SAYS HE SAW A BRONCO PARKED THERE. I DIDN'T JUMP ON THAT. IJUST CAME BACK AND READ WHAT HE SAID. I DON'T HAVE TO CALL ANYBODY ALIAR. I THINK IN THIS CASE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THEM. THEY ALWAYSWANT TO LABEL EVERYBODY. I WOULD MUCH PREFER READING THE TESTIMONY ANDTHEN I THINK IT MAKES IT CLEAR. THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE WILL BE DOING ORTRYING TO DO. NOW, THEY MAKE A BIG THING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT ISAID AND IT TURNS OUT, JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUTYESTERDAY, THAT DAN MANDEL AND ELLEN ARRONSON, VERY WELL-KNOWN TO THEM,THEY HAVE ALL THE REPORTS. THEY TALKED TO THEM, WE HAD TALKED TO THEM.TOM LANG, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLAS POINTSOUT ROSA LOPEZ, THEY TALKED TO HIM, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM. MR. DOUGLASHAS EXPLAINED THE SITUATION WITH MARY ANNE GERCHAS, AND I APOLOGIZE TOTHE COURT FOR THAT. CERTAINLY I HAD THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER.THE LAST THING IN MY MIND TO TRY TO DO THAT. BUT I WANT TO TELL THECOURT SOMETHING ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL AND WHY WE NEED TOBE PROFESSIONAL. DURING THE BREAK WE RECEIVED A CALL IN THIS COURTROOMFROM MARY ANNE GERCHAS' LAWYER. SHE WAS SO DISTRAUGHT, SHE IS TOTALLYDISTRAUGHT AT HAVING BEEN CALLED A THIEF ON TELEVISION BY MR. DARDEN --HE SHOULD BE REAL HAPPY THAT HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS WITHIN THISCOURTROOM. HER LAWYERS ARE INCENSED. THIS WOMAN IS VERY, VERY, VERYUPSET. SHE SAYS IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE AND WHAT SHE SAID IS THE TRUTH. IMEAN, IT IS IRONIC AND OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT. IT SEEMS TOME THEN THAT WHENEVER THEY STAND UP TO TALK, JUDGE, IT HAS TO BECHARACTER ASSASSINATION, WHETHER IT IS O.J. SIMPSON, WHETHER IT IS MARYANNE GERCHAS, WHETHER IT IS AT THE END OF THIS MORNING WHERE HE STANDSUP AND SAYS EVERYBODY ON OUR LIST IS A LIAR, A THIEF OR A FELON. ISN'TTHAT INTERESTING, JUDGE, THAT ANYBODY THAT THEY DON'T CALL, YOU KNOW,BECOMES SOME VERY BAD PERSON. I DON'T THINK YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF THATWAY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WEAPPEAR AND HOW THIS SYSTEM APPEARS AROUND THE COUNTRY. NOW, MORESPECIFICALLY, I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT ABOUT MARY ANNE GERCHAS ANDTHE COURT -- MR. DOUGLAS HAS TALKED ABOUT KARY MULLIS. THERE IS NOCONFUSION THERE. THERE IS NO CONFUSION WITH THE PEOPLE REGARDING CORAAND RON FISCHMAN. THEY KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ALL RAN AROUNDTOGETHER, YOUR HONOR. AND IF WE INADVERTENTLY LEFT THEIR NAME OFF, WEAPOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I ASSUMED THOSE NAMES HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. MY JOBHAS NOT BEEN THAT ASPECT OF IT. I AM NOT TRYING TO SHY AWAY FROM IT, BUTEVERYBODY HAS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES, AND SO CAN'T DO EVERYTHING,BUT WE WANT TO ADHERE TO THAT. CERTAINLY IT IS OUTRAGEOUS FOR ANYONE TOSAY THAT WE THINK WE ARE ABOVE ANYTHING. I PRACTICED LAW IN THE COURTS
OF THIS COUNTY FOR 32 OR 33 YEARS. I AM THE BLUE COLLAR LAWYER THAT HEIS TALKING ABOUT, EXCEPT YOU SEE I WAS ON THAT SIDE FOR ALMOST HALF THETIME AND I'VE BEEN OUT HERE EARNING A LIVING THE REST OF THE TIME. ANDSO I UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES. I UNDERSTAND. NOW, ONE OF THESE DAYS WHENTHEY GET UP ENOUGH NERVE AND COME ON THIS SIDE, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND,JUDGE, THAT IT IS TOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE TO RUN YOUR OWN PRACTICE.*MS. CLARK:* I WAS THERE.*MR. COCHRAN:* AND MARCIA WAS THERE FOR A SHORT TIME, YES, SHE WAS, TOHER CREDIT, BUT NOT AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN HERE AND SHE'D UNDERSTAND WHATMR. DOUGLAS WAS TRYING TO SAY -- AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IS -- ASBEING A LITTLE OLDER AND LITTLE CALMER, THAT THERE IS THIS PHILOSOPHICALTHING, AND I WANT TO POINT IT OUT TO YOUR HONOR, AND YOU -- THE OTHERDAY WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION -- WE TALKED ABOUT DEFENSE LAWYERS ANDTHEIR ROLE AND YOU SAID YOU HAVE BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER. WHEN I GO TO THEJAIL AND I TALK TO MY CLIENT, AND HE TELLS ME SOMETHING, I DON'T HAVEANY OBLIGATION TO TELL THEM THAT, JUDGE. IF I KNOW THAT HE HASRHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, IF I KNOW THAT HE HAD TROUBLE SHUFFLING CARDS ONJUNE 12, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT, JUDGE. AS MR. DOUGLAS SAYS, IF ITALKED TO HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHOM I HAVE KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS, WEREPRESENTED MICHAEL JACKSON TOGETHER, IF I TALK TO HIM AND I KNOW WHATHE AND SKIP TAFT WILL SAY, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THAT. I DON'T THINKYOU'D REQUIRE THAT, IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING ELSE, TO SIT DOWN ANDWRITE A REPORT REGARDING THAT. NOW, THEY KNOW HOWARD WEITZMAN WAS DOWNTHERE. THEY KNOW SKIP TAFT WAS THERE. THIS IS NO SURPRISE, JUDGE. WHATHAPPENED, JUDGE, YESTERDAY -- AND I WANT YOU TO PUT THIS IN -- INPERSPECTIVE, WAS FINALLY SOMEBODY FROM THE DEFENSE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TOSTAND UP AND TELL THE FACTS AS WE UNDERSTOOD THEM. IF THEY DON'T LIKETHOSE FACTS, THEY SAY THEY FEEL IT'S -- IT IS UNFAIR. JUDGE, IF WE DON'TPROVE THOSE FACTS, THEN THEY ARE ALL THE BETTER FOR IT. THEY BENEFITFROM THAT. NOBODY IS TRYING TO SANDBAG THEM. FOR MONTHS THEY TALKED ANDTRIED THIS MAN IN THE PRESS. YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT UNCLEAN HANDS, TOVILIFY SOMEBODY LIKE THIS MAN AND EVEN TO STAND HERE TODAY, YOUR HONOR,AND REFER TO HIM AS A DREAM DEFENDANT. YOUR HONOR, WHO WOULD EVER WANTTO BE A DEFENDANT? THAT'S A -- THAT'S A -- IS IF EVER THERE WAS ANOXYMORON, YOUR HONOR, THAT MAY BE IT, ISN'T IT? A DREAM DEFENDANT? IMEAN, WHO WANTS TO BE A DEFENDANT? BUT THAT'S TO MALIGN ALL OF US AND WEDON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY BECAUSE MR. DARDEN SAYS HE LOVES ME, SO SINCEHE LOVES ME --*MR. DARDEN:* AND I DO.*MR. COCHRAN:* -- I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY. BUT JUDGE, GO ONAND LOOK AT THE REST OF THE LIST. JOE STELLINI IS A FRIEND OF THEDEFENDANT. THERE IS NO REPORT, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED JOE STELLINI. WEDON'T HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES LIKE THEY HAVE, YOUR HONOR. MICHAELBADEN. MICHAEL BADEN AND BARBARA WOLF CAME OUT HERE THE WEEK OF THESEMURDERS, IF THE COURT PLEASE. THEY WENT OVER -- AND THERE IS A LETTERWHERE MR. SHAPIRO OFFERED -- THEY OFFERED TO HELP THE LAPD AND THECORONER'S OFFICE HELP SOLVE THIS CRIME WHICH WAS -- WHICH WAS REJECTED.THEY WENT OVER TO THE LAB. THEY WENT OVER AND LOOKED AT THESE EXHIBITS.THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM FROM THE BEGINNING, JUDGE. THEY WERE THERE LIKEJUNE 15. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE ONE REPORT FROM HENRY LEE THAT YOU KNOWABOUT, WE TURNED THAT OVER. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTS.NOW, I MEAN, I CAN'T MAKE -- THESE ARE BUSY MEN. HENRY LEE IS THEFOREMOST BLOOD SPLATTER CRIME SCENE FORENSIC EXPERT IN THE COUNTRY. ANDSO THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE WE HAVE HENRY LEE ON THE SIDE, BUT THAT'S NOT THEREASON TO BAR US. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. THE SAME THING WITH KARY MULLIS.
IF HE WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AND THEY DON'T HAVE HIM, THEY MAY NOTLIKE THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, JUDGE. THEY KNOWABOUT IT.*THE COURT:* I DON'T THINK HE WON THE PEACE PRIZE. I THINK THAT WAS --*MR. COCHRAN:* YOU KNOW, JUDGE, I SAID THAT. I'M GOING TO MAKE THATCLEAR. THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. I HAD DR. KING ON THE MINDYESTERDAY WHEN I WAS SAYING THAT WHO DID WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.*THE COURT:* LINUS PAULING WON THOSE. NEVER MIND. NEVER MIND.*MR. COCHRAN:* NOW, YOU WOULD KNOW THOSE FACTS, TOO. I'M NOT SURPRISED,JUDGE. IS HE ON OUR WITNESS LIST YET?*MR. DOUGLAS:* NOT YET.*MR. COCHRAN:* OKAY. WE PUT HIM ON OUR LIST. I WILL LET YOU KNOW -- IFWE PUT HIM ON YOUR LIST, JUDGE, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.*THE COURT:* IF HE APPEARS, I WILL BE AMAZED.*MR. COCHRAN:* THEN YOU WILL BE AMAZED. I THINK SO, JUDGE. YOUR HONOR --TO CONTINUE, YOUR HONOR, IN A SERIOUS VEIN, SO -- SO WITH REGARD TOMICHAEL BADEN, HENRY LEE AND BARBARA WOLF, THEY ARE ALL OUT HERE THEFIRST WEEK, JUDGE. WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THERE ARE NO REPORTS.I'M TELLING YOU THERE ARE NO REPORTS. THESE ARE OUR EXPERTS. I DON'THAVE ANY REPORTS. WHEN WE GET REPORTS, I WILL MAKE SURE AND MR. DOUGLASWILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THOSE REPORTS.*THE COURT:* HOW ABOUT THE ENVELOPE?*MR. COCHRAN:* I WALKED OVER TO YOUR HONOR'S CLERK AND I SAID MAY I HAVE-- MAY I GET THIS ENVELOPE -- THE ENVELOPE EARLIER, AND THEN I ASKED MR.DOUGLAS TO GET IT. BEFORE I FINISHED DOING ANYTHING, I WAS OVER HERE, IWALKED OVER TO MR. HODGMAN AND I SAID LET ME MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TOYOU. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO OPEN THIS. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY TO DO-- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ON THIS -- I AM A TRIAL LAWYER,AND THIS IS A COURT'S EXHIBIT, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING I HAD. I WASCONCERNED ABOUT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND I MADE THE OFFER OF PROOFTHERE. WHAT I WAS SEEKING TO TRY AND DO WAS USE THIS AS ANOTHER EXAMPLEOF THE PEOPLE'S RUSH TO JUDGMENT. NOW, I KNOW THEY WOULDN'T LIKE ME TOUSE THOSE WORDS, JUDGE, BUT THEY CAN'T STOP ME FROM USING THOSE WORDS,AND THAT WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, AS I TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THEFINGERNAILS AND WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T BOTHER CHECKINGUP ON. WHEN MR. HODGMAN SAID, WELL, I LIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH, WEAPPROACHED THE BENCH. YOU AT FIRST, AS YOU RECALL -- I WILL TELL YOUWHAT YOU DID -- YOU AT FIRST FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. WHEN YOU INQUIREDFURTHER AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD SOME REPORT, WHICH APPARENTLY MR. HODGMANSAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE, WHICH I DIDN'T HAVE EITHER AND I THOUGHT THEYPROBABLY HAD IT, YOU SAID, WELL, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT, MR.COCHRAN, YOU CAN'T DO IT, AND WE HAVE PUT IT BACK. WE NEVER TALKED ABOUTIT. NOW, THAT GETS BLOWN ALL OUT OF PROPORTIONS AND WE STILL DON'T KNOWUNTIL -- HIS SPECULATION. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THAT ENVELOPE. LETME MAKE THAT CLEAR. I DON'T THINK HE KNOWS. IF HE DOES, THAT ISSOMETHING ELSE THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T -- THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T KNOW,BUT WE HAVE NEVER SAID WHAT'S IN THAT ENVELOPE, NEVER, AND WE DIDN'TYESTERDAY AT ALL AND THE JURORS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. SO WITHREGARD TO THIS MAN'S PHYSICAL CONDITION, HE'S OUR CLIENT. I KNOW ABOUT
HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION. DOCTOR HUIZENGA IS ON THE LIST. WHEN WE GET AREPORT FROM DR. HUIZENGA OR FROM HIS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SPECIALIST,RHEUMATOLOGIST, I GUESS HE'S CALLED, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL BE THE FIRST TOBRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU. MR. DARDEN GETS UP HERE AND SAYS I MENTIONEDDINO BUCCOLLA. I NEVER MENTIONED DINO BUCCOLLA ONE TIME. NEVER MENTIONEDHIM IN OPENING STATEMENT AT ALL. YOU HAD TO POINT THAT OUT AND I NEVERDID THAT. SO LET ME JUST END MY REMARKS BY SAYING AND ASKING YOUR HONORTO DO THE RIGHT THING WITH REGARD TO THIS. BILL HODGMAN IS SOMEBODY THATI HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR, AS I HAVE INDICATED, AND I AM VERYCONCERNED ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION AND I HOPE THAT HE WILL GET WELLSOON AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITHOUR CLIENT. BUT TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CASE,JUDGE, WHERE FIRST OF ALL THEY GET UP AND MAKE AN UNFETTERED OPENINGSTATEMENT TO OUR JURY. BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE PROFESSIONAL WE DIDN'TOBJECT UNTIL THE VERY END WHEN IT BECAME ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. BECAUSEOF EVENTS BEYOND OUR CONTROL, I COULDN'T START THAT DAY. WE HAD TOLEAVE. THE JURORS GOT TO GO HOME THAT NIGHT. WE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAYAND I GOT MY CHANCE TO MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT, IN WHICH THE THINGSTHAT I SAID I EXPECT TO PROVE, THINGS THAT I KNOW FROM MY CLIENT. IDON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT OR TALK ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYINGFIELD. BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY FELT THE JOB THAT I DID MADE THEM NERVOUSAND UPSET THE NEXT DAY WE SAW -- SAW THESE HISTRIONICS AND SO THEY NOWWANT YOU TO CARVE OUT SOME NEW LAW. THEY HAVE NO CASES THAT CITE THIS,AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION, JUDGE. THEY WANT TO CARVE OUTSOMETHING TO GIVE THEM LIKE ANOTHER OPENING SO THAT THEY CAN GET BACK UPAND TALK. WELL, THEN DO I GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT? I MEAN, THATDOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. EVERYTHING THAT WE DID, WE HAVE DONE IN GOODFAITH. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE AS MUCH AS THEY DO. AND IN FACT YOURECALL I HAVE SAID FOR THE LAST TEN DAYS, LET'S STOP ALL THIS POSTURINGAND LET'S GET THIS CASE ON THE WAY. THE FINAL THING I WANT TO SAY ISTHIS: THAT IT IS RARELY PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD TO MALIGN CITIZENS. AS YOUKNOW, I'M -- I AM A BIG FIGHTER FOR JURORS AND FOR WITNESSES. AND FORMR. DARDEN TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT -- REINHART --RIECHARDT, RATHER, WAS DUMPED BY FAYE RESNICK IS PERHAPS THE GREATESTBIT OF HYPERBOLE I HAVE EVER HEARD. THAT IS SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH. ITSTRAINS CREDULITY. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. HE PUT HER OUT BECAUSE SHE WASUSING DRUGS AND AFTER SHE USED DRUGS SO BADLY, AND IN THAT FIVE ORSIX-DAY PERIOD, HE WAS THE ONE WHO HELP PUT HER IN A DRUG TREATMENT PLACE.*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, AS INTERESTING AS THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THATPROBABLY IS AND PROBABLY WILL BE LATER --*MR. COCHRAN:* SURE.*THE COURT:* -- MY INTEREST IS IN THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO TELL THE JURY THAT I'M STRIKING FROM YOUR COMMENTSAND FOR THEM TO IGNORE YOUR REFERENCES TO THESE VARIOUS WITNESSES ANDITEMS THAT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO ADMONISH THEM THATTHE MENTION OF THOSE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION WASENTITLED TO KNOW OF THOSE WITNESS STATEMENTS OR THE IDENTITY OF THOSEWITNESSES BEFORE THE OPENING STATEMENT WAS MADE, AND THEY ARE ASKING FORA THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE. SO I WOULD LIKE YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON THEVARIOUS SANCTIONS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS REQUESTED.*MR. COCHRAN:* LET ME DO THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND THE ONLYREASON I WAS TALKING ABOUT RIECHARDT, I JUST FELT YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVETO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SOMETIME. THERE IS A MAN -- HE IS A DOCTOR,JUDGE. HE IS OUT THERE HAVING THE SLINGS AND ARROWS -- WE CAN TAKE IT,BUT IT IS NOT FAIR TO THESE OTHER PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH CHRISTOPHER
DARDEN'S -- I KNOW HE LOVES THEM, TOO, BUT WE CAN TAKE IT BETTER. JUDGE,WITH REGARD YOUR -- TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I THINK AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, IT ISALMOST LIKE THEY ARE KIDDING ABOUT THIRTY DAYS. YOUR HONOR, WE WERE ATTHE -- THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CALLED THEIR FIRST WITNESS.YOU KNOW, YOU ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC AND SO AM I GENERALLY. I WOULD LIKE TOTHINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO START WITHIN TWO MONTHS, PROBABLY MORELIKE THREE MONTHS. JUDGE, BY THAT TIME THEY WILL HAVE TIME TOINVESTIGATE EVERYTHING. THEY'VE GOT THE LAPD, THEY'VE GOT THE D.A.'SOFFICE, THEY'VE GOT EVERYTHING. THEY GOT ALL THIS INFORMATION THEYSUPPOSEDLY GOT ON MARY ANNE GERCHAS, SUPPOSEDLY, WHICH APPARENTLY ISN'TTRUE, AND THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE TIME THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE IT, AND ASMR. DOUGLAS SAYS, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PLAYING ANY GAMES, AND TO SHOWTHAT, THEY CAN HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS THEY WANT. I DON'T MIND IF WE CANCALL HER AS A WITNESS, CALLING HER WHATEVER TIME YOU SAY. PLAY BY THERULES. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. WE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO HER.WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER WITNESSES, JUDGE, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE -- I DON'TTHINK THEY CAN SHOW THERE WERE ANY MISTAKES. I THINK THAT THEY KNEWABOUT KARY MULLIS. THEY KNEW -- I MEAN, THEY SAY TO ME THAT I SAY THATHE HAS, UMM -- THAT THIS MAN SUFFERS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. THOSEARE THE FACTS AND I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT. WHAT DO WE STRIKE BASEDON THAN THAT? THEY DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH AND THEY WANT TO TRY TO CHANGEIT AROUND. TALKING ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SO AS I LISTEN TO IT, IDIDN'T SEE -- AND I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WITNESSES, UMM --UMM, I MENTIONED RON FISCHMAN AND THEY KNEW -- THEY KNOW ABOUT RONFISCHMAN. WE HADN'T TURNED THAT REPORT OVER. THEY -- WE -- CHRISRIECHARDT, THEY KNEW ABOUT CHRIS RIECHARDT, JUDGE, BECAUSE THEY'VEINTERVIEWED HIM. THEY'VE INTERVIEWED HIM. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT, IDON'T THINK, FROM CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. AND WEDON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM FISCHMAN SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO TURN OVER. THEYKNOW ABOUT LENORE WALKER, JUDGE. IN FACT, LET ME RESPOND TO THAT ONLENORE WALKER. WITH REGARD TO LENORE WALKER, WE GOT A SPECIAL ORDER, SHEWENT TO THE JAIL OVER TWO WEEKENDS. SHE HAS NOT FINISHED HEREXAMINATION, AS I INDICATED TO THE JURORS. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROMHER AND WE DON'T HAVE ONE EITHER FROM GERALDINE BUTTS STAHLY EITHER WHOIS HER ASSOCIATE BECAUSE THEY WERE DUE TO GO TO THE JAIL LAST WEEKEND TOFINISH THEIRS REPORTS. THEY HAVEN'T FINISHED THEM, OR FINISHED THETESTING. SO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING. WE TRIED TO GIVE THEM THE CV ANDWE HAVE DONE WHAT WE COULD ON THAT. WITH REGARD TO MICHELLE ABUDRAHM,THEY KNEW ABOUT MICHELLE ABUDRAHM. JOE STELLINI THERE IS NO REPORT.SO JUDGE, THE SANCTIONS THEY ARE ASKING ARE FAR OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT --WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE. I THINK WE ARE IN A SIMILAR POSITION THAN WHATTHEY WERE. AND WHAT I AM TRYING TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT WE HAVE NOT DONEANYTHING INTENTIONALLY, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GETWHAT WE KNOW WE CAN PROVE BEFORE THIS JURY AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIMEAND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD TO DO THAT. AND SO I WOULD ASK THECOURT NOT TO TRY TO COME BACK AND THEN GUT MY OPENING STATEMENT BYTRYING TO PICK OUT THINGS THAT WE SAID. IT IS THE SAME SITUATION. IF WEDON'T PROVE THOSE THINGS, THE PROBLEM COMES WITH THAT. WHERE DOES IT SAYTHAT BECAUSE IN AN OPENING STATEMENT I MAKE A STATEMENT BELIEVING THATTHEY HAVE MARY ANNE GERCHAS' TESTIMONY AND THEY DON'T HAVE IT, WHEN THEYSHOULD HAVE, BECAUSE OF -- OF THE STATEMENT OF ITSELF, IN THAT STATEMENTIF YOU LOOK AT IT, HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER. MARY ANNE GERCHAS SAYSSHE HAS THE D.A.'S PHONE NUMBER FROM PATTY FAIRBANKS WHO SHE PUTS ONHOLD AND SHE ELLS ABOUT CALLING THE THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. AND THISIS AN INVESTIGATOR I NEVER MET IT AND I RECEIVED THAT REPORT WITHIN THELAST COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE THE ARGUMENT.
SO I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHAT I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IS PUT IS INTHE SAME POSITION THAT YOU PUT THE PROSECUTION IN WHEN THEY WERE FACEDWITH THIS SAME SITUATION IN DECEMBER AND WHAT'S IS FAIR FOR THEM IS FAIRFOR US. WE WOULDN'T ASK ANY MORE OR ANY LESS. IT DOESN'T GO TO MYOPENING STATEMENT. JUDGE, MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OVER THE LASTCOUPLE DAYS, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, IS TO TRY TO KEEP ME FROM GETTINGBACK UP BEFORE THAT JURY. THERE IS AN ULTIMATE SANCTION TODAY. NOW, IBELIEVE THAT BILL HODGMAN IS SICK, BUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED WHENMR. HODGMAN -- WHEN MR. DARDEN KEPT TALKING AND SAYING THE SAME THINGSIX OR SEVEN TIMES, I THOUGH HE WAS FILIBUSTERING AND OBVIOUSLY IT WASSO I COULDN'T TALK TO THIS JURY TODAY. BUT ULTIMATELY, JUDGE, NO MATTERWHAT THEY DO, I GET TO FINISH TALKING TO THIS JURY. THAT IS NOT ASANCTION THEY CAN IMPOSE. I GET TO GET BACK UP THERE AND THEY ARE NOTGOING TO LIKE THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, SO I ASK YOU TO BEFAIR IN THAT AND BE FAIR LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN POSING TO THEM. IFWE SLIPPED UP TELLING YOU, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT.AND IF WE SLIPPED UP, THE SAME SANCTIONS THEY GOT IN DECEMBER SHOULDPERTAIN TO US, AND IF THAT HAPPENS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEOPENING STATEMENT. I HAVEN'T MISLED ANYBODY. IF CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT --*THE COURT:* WELL, THE PROBLEM IS I CAN'T REALLY IMPOSE THE SAMESANCTION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE PART OF THE SANCTION WAS I TOLD THEM THEYCOULD NOT USE CERTAIN WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF UNTIL THEY HADCOMPLETED THEIR ORIGINAL WITNESS LIST AND THEY COULD NOT MENTION IT INOPENING STATEMENT, WHICH AS FAR AS MR. DARDEN IS CONCERNED, IESSENTIALLY TOOK THE HEART OUT OF HIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARGUMENT BECAUSEHE WAS NOT ABLE TO MENTION THREE OR FOUR OTHER INCIDENTS THAT FILL INCERTAIN TIME GAPS. I ASSUME THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HE IS ABOUT TO JUMP UPAND MAKE.*MR. COCHRAN:* WHEN YOU SAY "TAKE THE HEART OUT OF IT," I --*THE COURT:* WELL, THAT IS HIS ARGUMENT.*MR. COCHRAN:* YES.*THE COURT:* I AM ASKING YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT.*MR. COCHRAN:* YES, WELL, I WILL. I THINK, THAT YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARDTO THAT --*THE COURT:* SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU OR I CAN'T IMPOSE UPON YOU THE SAMESANCTION.*MR. COCHRAN:* WELL, YOU CAN -- I THINK THE THRUST OF IT, THOUGH, JUDGE,ISN'T IT, IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND CHECK THESETHINGS OUT. I THINK -- FOR INSTANCE, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, THEY ALREADYKNOW ABOUT IT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A REPORT. THAT IS MAYBE A BAD EXAMPLE.THEY KNOW ABOUT HIM, THEY ALREADY HAVE A REPORT AND MAYBE THAT'S A BADEXAMPLE. THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN REALLY FIX ON, BECAUSE THEY KNOW ABOUTRON FISCHMAN, IS MAYBE MARY ANNE GERCHAS AND I'M JUST SAYING TO YOURHONOR THAT IN 24 HOURS THEY'VE DONE ALL THIS WORK SUPPOSEDLY ON HER. THEREST OF THE PEOPLE, JUDGE, THEY KNEW ABOUT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTSON THEM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- WHERE WE GO FROM THERE TO SAYING --ADMONISHING THIS JURY REGARDING THIS. YOU ADMONISHED THEM. EVEN AFTER IDIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM FOR A WHOLE EVENING, WHEN THEY CAMEIN YESTERDAY YOU STARTED OFF BY SAYING "WHAT COUNSEL SAYS IS NOTEVIDENCE" AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS; IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. SO YOUKNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EVIDENCE. THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE -- WHY
ARE THEY SO AFRAID? THE CASE WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED. WE WANT TOUPHOLD ALL THE RULES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, BUT WHY ARE THEY SO WORRIEDABOUT THAT, JUDGE? ULTIMATELY IT IS GOING TO BE THE EVIDENCE THAT THISCASE IS DECIDED UPON AND THAT IS ALL THAT I WANTED US TO GET BACK TO.THE REST OF THESE WITNESSES, IN SUMMARY, THEN IS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUTTHEM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MARY ANNEGERCHAS, THAT I CAN SEE AS I LOOK AT THE LIST, AND I THINK THAT THESANCTIONS ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH WHERE WE ARE AND HAVING UNDERSTOODWHAT YOUR SANCTIONS WERE BACK THEN, BUT TO DEAL WITH WHERE WE ARE ATTHIS POINT. WITH REGARD TO MARY ANNE GERCHAS, THIS IS A WITNESS THATGAVE A STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW HER. I HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HER. THEINVESTIGATORS TALKED TO HER AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME TO ME. I ASSUME THEYHAD IT AND I WASN'T AWARE THEY DIDN'T, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT,BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY REASON THAT MR. SIMPSON SHOULD HAVE TOSUFFER OR THESE JURORS WOULD HAVE TO BE TOLD, OH, GEE, IT'S NOTEVIDENCE, BUT JUST DISREGARD THAT, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND YOU KNOW --JUDGE, IF WE DO IT BASED UPON THAT, I COULD COME BACK TOMORROW AND SAYTO YOU, JUDGE, I WANT YOU -- I WANT TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ALLTHE TIMES MISS CLARK WAS ARGUMENTATIVE THAT I DIDN'T OBJECT, BECAUSE ASAN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND A GENTLEMAN I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. THATIS LIKE RUNNING BACK -- DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T WANT TO DOTHAT. I WANT TO GET THIS TRIAL ON. I WANT TO FINISH MY OPENING STATEMENTSO THAT THEY CAN CALL THEIR FIRST WITNESSES. AND SO WHAT I'M GOING TOASK YOU TO DO IS FASHION SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE. YOU ARE WISE ANDTHESE SITUATIONS IT CALLS FOR A WISE DECISION. WHERE WE HAVE DONESOMETHING IN GOOD FAITH, AND I WILL CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS, JUDGE, WHATI CERTAINLY DON'T REFER TO OURSELVES AS THE DREAM TEAM, JUST ACOLLECTION OF LAWYERS WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN FOR OURCLIENT, AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE DOING. AND MR. DARDEN CAN REFER TO THISDERISIVELY OR ANYWAY HE WANTS TO, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR JOBAND IN THAT, JUDGE, WE ARE TRYING TO REPRESENT OUR CLIENT TO THE BEST OFOUR ABILITY AND I THINK YOU KNOW WE WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY MISLEADTHIS COURT. WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. I WOULD NOT DO THAT. I KNOW MYREPUTATION MEANS FAR TOO MUCH TO ME AND THIS CASE IS NOT THE LAST CASEOF MY CAREER AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE OBSESSION THAT SOME SEEM TO HAVEABOUT THIS CASE. WE WANT TO TRY THIS CASE. WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO WINTHIS CASE, BUT WE ARE NOT OUT HERE TRYING TO WIN THIS CASE AT ALL COSTS.WE ARE TRYING TO DO IT METHODICALLY AND DO THE JOB THAT WE ARE PAID TODO, AND THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY, YOUR HONOR.AND ALL I ASK YOU TO DO IS TO ALLOW US -- REMEMBER THAT PART OF THESANCTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE DELAYS, THE INTERMINABLE DELAYS IN MYOPENING STATEMENT IN GETTING BACK TO THAT JURY. ALLOW ME TO GET BACK TOTHAT JURY WITHOUT ANY REAL UNNECESSARY DELAY. IF THE COURT FELT THATTHERE WAS SOME PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO BILL HODGMAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TOLISTEN TO THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I AM SENSITIVE TO AND IHAVE TALKED TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THAT. HE WANTS TO PROCEED AS FAST AS HECAN. I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER THINGS,JUDGE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT WHEN IT IS REDUCED DOWN, YOU KNOW THINGS THAT IKNEW BECAUSE MY CLIENT TOLD ME, I DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT,AND I HOPE I PUT THE ENVELOPE AND THE ANOTHER THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE, SOI WOULD ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS FOR ME AT THISPOINT.*THE COURT:* WELL, YOU ARE OBJECTING TO THE THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE THATMR. DARDEN HAS SUGGESTED?*MR. COCHRAN:* YES.*THE COURT:* OKAY.
*MR. COCHRAN:* YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS -- THAT IS FAR, FAR TOOLONG. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR THIRTY DAYS? JUDGE, WE HAVE A JURYTHAT HAS BEEN SEQUESTERED. THEY HAVE WASTED ANOTHER WHOLE DAY TODAY. IDON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTS.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK,BRIEFLY, PLEASE, AND LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE WELAUNCH INTO THIS. DO YOU CONCEDE THAT DR. MULLIS WAS ON THE DNA LIST FORTHE DEFENSE?*MS. CLARK:* YES, I DO. HE WAS ON THE KELLY-FRYE LIST AND HIS DELETIONIN THE TRIAL LIST LED US TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE CALLEDAT TRIAL AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT IS POSED, IS THAT WE WERE JUSTBEGINNING TO PREPARE FOR THE KELLY-FRYE AND THEN MATTERS WERETRANSPIRING AT A RAPID PACE. WE CEASED PREPARATION WHEN IT APPEARED THATTHERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A KELLY-FRYE HEARING AND THAT IS THE PROBLEMWITH HIM, BUT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS EGREGIOUS AS THE OTHERS BECAUSE WE DIDHAVE SOME NOTICE OF HIS EXISTENCE FOR THE DEFENSE. LET ME INDICATE TOTHE COURT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRTY DAYS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THEDEFENSE WHO INDICATED AT THE COURT'S REQUEST PRIOR TO THIS WHEN THEYWANTED TIME TO INVESTIGATE WITNESSES THAT THEY CLAIMED THEY WERE GIVENLATE NOTICE OF, ALTHOUGH THEY GOT THEM FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE LAST HOUROF OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ASKED FOR SIX WEEKS. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS AREASONABLE TIME FOR INVESTIGATION, AS DID THE COURT. WE ARE ASKING FORLESS, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE, UNDER A PARITY OF REASONING, ENTITLED TOTHE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REASONABLE INVESTIGATION.WE ARE NOT OBSESSED WITH THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, BUT I WONDER ABOUT THEDEFENSE OBSESSION BECAUSE THEIR DESPERATE TACTICS IN THROWING ETHICS OUTTHE WINDOW AND BEHAVING AS THEY HAVE IS EVIDENCE OF CLEARLY THE OPPOSITEOF WANTING THE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO IN THISCASE. THERE SHOULD BE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THIS CONDUCT SHOULD NOT BEMINIMIZED THIS WAY. MR. COCHRAN IS VERY PERSUASIVE, VERY TALENTED, VERYCHARISMATIC, BUT I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS CASE HE IS WRONG. HE HASDONE WRONG. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BEHAVE. THIS IS NOT ETHICAL CONDUCTOR BEHAVIOR. AND AS I TOLD THE COURT, HE GLIBLY STANDS UP TO SAY, WELL,THE PEOPLE CAN ADDRESS IT ALL IN CLOSING ARGUMENT. NO, NO. SEE, IT'S TOOLATE, BECAUSE BY THEN, YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL HAVE BEEN MONTHS OF TIMEFOR WHATEVER THAT JURY HAS PICKED UP THAT WILL NEVER BE ADDRESSED INTRIAL. THOSE WITNESSES THAT MR. COCHRAN REFERRED TO THAT MAY NEVER BECALLED OUT OF SOME KIND OF FEAR THAT HE'S THINKING OF OR WITNESSES THATNEVER APPEAR AT ALL, THAT AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED IN FRONT OFTHIS JURY, THEY WILL HAVE THAT WITNESS IN THE BACK OF THEIR MIND ANDTHAT MAY BE ENOUGH TO PERSUADE THE ONE. ANY KIND OF RELIEF THAT THECOURT GRANTS US AT THIS POINT MAY STILL NOT BE ENOUGH, BECAUSE THEDAMAGE MAY BE INDELIBLE AT THIS POINT AFTER HAVING MENTIONED ALL THESEPEOPLE THAT HE HIMSELF KNOWS HE IS IN DANGER OF NOT ULTIMATELY BEINGCALLED BECAUSE ONCE THEY ARE INVESTIGATED IT IS DETERMINED THEY HAVERECORDS, THEY HAVE FELONY RECORDS. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT REALLY WILL NOTWITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY, THEY KNOW IT. THE DEFENSE KNOWS IT. AND THEWILFULNESS OF THEIR TACTIC IN DELAYING THE DISCOVERY IS SHOWN BY VIRTUEOF ONE SIMPLE FACT. EARLY ON IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT THROWSUP THE NAME OF FRANK CHIUCHIOLO FROM HAPPY CAMP. THIS WAS A MAN WHO CAMEFORWARD TO SAY HE SAW TWO WHITE BURGLARS LEAVING THE HOME OF NICOLEBROWN. IT WAS THEN DISCOVERED THAT HE HAD COME FORWARD TO OFFER FALSEINFORMATION ON OTHER FAMOUS CASES AND HIS CREDIBILITY WAS EXPLODED, ASIT DESERVED TO BE. AND THE DEFENSE REALIZED THAT THEN THEY ARE GOING TOHAVE TO SHIELD, HIDE THEIR WITNESSES TO PREVENT THE EXPOSURE THAT WOULD
SHOW THEM TO BE AS INCREDIBLE AS THEY ARE, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVEDONE IN THIS CASE, SO IT IS A VERY WILLFUL THING, AND IT IS NOT A MINORTHING. THIS IS A MAJOR FORM OF MISCONDUCT THAT HAS OCCURRED AND I DON'TWANT MR. COCHRAN TO MINIMIZE IT THIS WAY. IT IS MAJOR. AND IF WE LACK --LET ME JUST CONTRAST IT FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE COURT ISGOING TO SAY, OKAY? THEIR STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN FOUR, FIVE --*THE COURT:* HOW AM I GOING TO RULE?*MS. CLARK:* WHAT?*THE COURT:* NEVER MIND.*MS. CLARK:* COUNSEL WANTS TO COMPARE THE GRAVITY OF THEIR MISCONDUCT TOWHAT OCCURRED WITH THE PEOPLE, AND LET ME CONTRAST THE TWO. THESTATEMENT TURNED OVER BY THE PEOPLE WERE TWO AND THREE WEEKS LATE. THESTATEMENTS TURNED OVER BY THE DEFENSE WERE FOUR, FIVE AND EVEN SEVENMONTHS LATE. WE WERE SANCTIONED FOR THAT FOR JUST TWO OR THREE WEEKS ANDNOW THEY ARE FIGHTING THE SANCTION FOR FOUR, FIVE, EVEN SEVEN MONTHS FORMATERIAL WITNESSES, OBVIOUSLY WITNESSES THEY THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANTBECAUSE MR. COCHRAN IS OUTLINING THEIR TESTIMONY TO THE JURY. AND WHENYOU ALSO LOOK AT IT IN THIS CONTEXT, YOUR HONOR, OUT OF THE TENS OFTHOUSANDS OF PAGES THAT WE HAVE TURNED OVER, DOZENS OF VIDEOTAPES,DOZENS OF AUDIOTAPES, WE HAVE -- WE WERE SLOW TO TURN OVER -- BY THAT IMEAN TWO TO THREE WEEKS, A FEW PAGES OF DISCOVERY, COMPARED TO WHAT THEYDID. WE HAD SEVENTY PAGES OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL THE LAST TWOOR THREE DAYS. NOW, THEY HAVE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF DISCOVERY IN THELAST TWO OR THREE DAYS. WHAT THAT SHOWS THIS COURT IS NOT ONLY THAT THEGRAVITY IS VERY SEVERE, THAT THE MISCONDUCT IS VERY SERIOUS, BUT THAT ITIS NOT INADVERTENT AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE. YOU DON'T OVERLOOK OVERHALF YOUR CASE AND THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE DOABLE. I DON'T BELIEVEIT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. MR. COCHRAN IS AN EXCELLENT LAWYER. HE KNOWSWHAT THEY INTEND TO USE. HE KNOWS WHAT HE INTENDS TO TELL THIS JURY. HISSTATEMENT WAS TYPED AND IT WAS PREPARED, AND HE CANNOT COME BEFORE THECOURT AND TELL US THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE WITNESSES BEFORE ORWAS UNAWARE OF THEIR STATEMENTS. AND THE FACT THAT MR. JONES -- EXCUSEME -- MR. DOUGLAS CAN STAND UP BEFORE THIS COURT AND SAY -- AND TRY TOEXCUSE THE MISCONDUCT BY SAYING, WELL, THIS WASN'T ALWAYS THE LAW, THATMAKES IT EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS, BECAUSE WHAT HE IS INDICATING IS A DESIRETO THWART THE LAW, A DESIRE BASED UPON HIS OWN BELIEF AS TO WHAT HESHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. UNFORTUNATELY THE VOTERS OFTHIS STATE HAVE SPOKEN. THEY SAY WE WILL NOT COUNTENANCE ANY MORE OFTHIS HIDE THE BALL STUFF, THIS SHELL GAME DURING THE COURSE OF ACRIMINAL TRIAL. WE WANT BOTH SIDES TO AIR THEIR WITNESSES SO EVERYBODYCAN HAVE FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITHWHAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS DONE. THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT US FROM DOINGOUR JOB. I WANT MR. COCHRAN TO GET UP TO SPEAK TO THIS JURY AS LONG ASHE WANTS TO. I DON'T WANT TO STOP HIM FROM TALKING. I WANT THIS OPENINGSTATEMENT TO GET GOING AND TO GET COMPLETED. I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TOPUT ON EVERY WITNESS HE DESIRES. ALL I ASK IS THE ABILITY FOR THE PEOPLETO INVESTIGATE THESE WITNESSES SO THAT THE JURY GETS THE WHOLE TRUTH, SOTHAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE JURY WHO THESE PEOPLE REALLYARE, AND WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HIDDEN FROM OUR INVESTIGATORS, WE CANNOTLET THE JURY DOES NOT GET THE TRUE PICTURE WHO HAVE THEY REALLY ARE. IWOULD NOT BE DOING MY JOB IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE PERMITTED TO TROT APARADE OF WITNESS UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND, AND WERE I TO SIT BACK ANDSAY WHAT IS YOUR NAME, WHAT TIME IS IT TODAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ISHOULD BE FIRED FOR THAT. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND ITIS OUR JOB TO SHOW THIS JURY THE REAL CREDIBILITY OF WHO THESE PEOPLE
ARE, WHAT THESE WITNESSES REALLY ARE, AND IF THIS JURY DOESN'T GET TOSEE THAT THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH, AND IF THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THETRUTH THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE ARE DEPRIVED OF JUSTICE, AND I CANNOTALLOW THAT. THAT IS NOT MY JOB. MY JOB AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLEIS TO SEE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, THAT ANY WITNESS WHO IS CALLED ISGIVEN THOROUGH AND COMPLETE EXAMINATION. AND WHAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TODO HERE IS PREVENT MARY ANNE GERCHAS -- WHO NOW CLAIMS THAT SHE CALLEDOUR OFFICE -- THIS IS NOT A WOMAN WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS UNSULLIED, AND IFSHE DID CALL THE OFFICE, WHICH COUNSEL KNOWS BECAUSE COUNSEL HAD THESAME PROBLEM, WE HAVE ALL GOTTEN THOUSANDS OF CALLS FROM EVERY TOM, DICKAND HARRY THAT WANTS TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. IF THE PERSON DOESN'TPURSUE IT, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET REACHED AGAIN, BUT I THINK IT ISVERY INTERESTING THAT THEY SAY THAT. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOW SAY THAT THELAWYERS CAN RELY ON THE WITNESSES TO GIVE DISCOVERY? IS SHE SUPPOSED TOGIVE HER DISCOVERY TO US? SOMEHOW HE IS PUTTING THE OBLIGATION ON HER TOCOME FORWARD. NO, THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE WITNESS TO TURN THEIRSTATEMENTS IN. THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE D.A.'S OFFICE TO GO BEGGINGFOR THE DEFENSE WITNESSES TO COME AND TALK TO US. THE OBLIGATION IS FORTHE DEFENSE TO GIVE US WHAT THEY'VE GOT, THE SAME AS IT IS FOR TO USGIVE THEM WHAT WE HAVE GOT. AND WE HAVE DONE SO DILIGENTLY AT EVERY BENDAND TURN. WE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO AVOID IT IN ANY WAY. NOW, I THINKTHAT WHAT THE COURT SHOULD KNOW IS THAT MR. DOUGLAS' POSITION VIS-A-VISTHE LAW, VIS-A-VIS HIS REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF TURNING OVER DISCOVERY,TAKING REPORTS AND REDUCING STATEMENTS TO WRITING IS WRONG, A HUNDREDPERCENT WRONG. IT IS SO WRONG THAT PREVIOUS COURTS HAVE FOUND THATCONDUCT TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS. I CITE THE COURT TO THE CASE OF IN RE SERRA,S-E-R-R-A, 484 FED.2D 948. THE COURT HELD THAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY SHOULDBE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR ASKING AN EXPERT TO REFRAIN FROM WRITING AREPORT IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCOVERY. ALSO CITE THE COURT TO SANDEFFERVERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, 18 CAL.APP. 4TH 672. IT CAUTIONED AGAIN THEATTORNEY NOT TO DIRECT AN EXPERT TO AVOID WRITING A REPORT IN ORDER TOAVOID DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY DONE AN END RUN AROUND THEDISCOVERY LAWS BASICALLY BY TRYING TO GET THEIR DISCOVERY FROM THE MOUTHOF THEIR CLIENT. HERE, MR. SIMPSON, GO CALL RON FISCHMAN. TELL US WHATHE SAID, AND THEN THEY GO AND ASK MR. SIMPSON. I MEAN, THAT IS A VERYCLEAR GAME, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ITDOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER 1054.WE LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HENRY LEE FOR AN EXPERT, BUT IF HE ISSUCH A GREAT EXPERT, HE IS SO WELL RENOWN, AND I UNDERSTAND HE IS, HOWCOULD HE NOT -- HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE WRITTEN A REPORT WITH RESPECT TOALL OF THE WORK THAT COUNSEL HAS TOLD US HE HAS PERFORMED IN THIS CASEAND WILL TESTIFY TO HERE? NO REPORT. HE HAS BEEN ON THE CASE SINCE DAYONE, WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THAT, AND TO TELL US NOW THAT HE HAS NO REPORTTO OFFER US, THAT DR. BADEN HAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THAT SYLVIA WOLFHAS NO REPORT TO OFFER US, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. YOU KNOW, THISCONDUCTING NOT BE MINIMIZED, SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED. WE HAVE -- WE HAVEBEEN PLACED IN A VERY -- IT IS A VERY UNFAIR POSITION THAT WE ARE PLACEDIN. I THINK THAT THE GOAL OF A TRIAL IS FOR THE TRUTH TO EMERGE AND ITIS NOT FOR A LAWYER TO HOLD IN HIS HEAD INFORMATION THAT HE OR SHE MAYUSE TO AMBUSH THE CASE WITH, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT IS ATRIAL BY AMBUSH. THAT IS THE STRATEGY. THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST, NO. 1,THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT,AS I HAVE INDICATED EARLIER. NO. 2, IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TOSTRIKE THE COMMENTS, THE OFFENSIVE COMMENTS BY MR. COCHRAN -- AND LET MEINDICATE ABOUT THAT ENVELOPE, HE WAVED IT IN FRONT OF THAT JURY ANDEVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAW IT, AND WE ALL KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT AFTERTHE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHAT OCCURRED THERE. EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THEENVELOPE. EVERYONE ON THE JURY SAID SO. MR. COCHRAN KNEW WHAT HE WASDOING. THAT JURY SAW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT WAS A SET-UP, AS SURE AS
I'M STANDING HERE, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO SURPRISE US WITHTHAT, A SURPRISE TACTIC THAT WE WOULD OBJECT TO AND THAT THE JURY WOULDTHEN SEE THE OBJECTION AND MAYBE CONCLUDE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO HIDEEVIDENCE WHEN IN FACT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS WE HAVE BEEN HIDDEN FROM. WEDON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE ENVELOPE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT. COUNSELKNOWS BETTER THAN WE DO. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE WAVING AROUND. WE DON'TEVEN KNOW. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS LET US KNOW. WE WANT TO KNOW. WE WANT TOKNOW WHAT THEIR WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCEIS. IS THAT ASKING SO MUCH? UNDER 1054 IT IS NOT ASKING ANYTHING THAT WEARE NOT ENTITLED TO. THAT IS ALL WE ASK FOR. AND UNDER 1054 THERE ARE ACERTAIN NUMBER OF SANCTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW, AND MR.COCHRAN IS AWARE OF THAT. AND IF THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO STRIKE THEOFFENSIVE COMMENTS, THEN THE PEOPLE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE ALLOWED TOREOPEN TO ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS, BUT THAT IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEADMONITION, AND THAT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENT THAT WEBE PERMITTED TO A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF THESEWITNESS THAT WERE JUST RECENTLY THROWN AT US AT THE CONCLUSION OF MR.COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT REMARKS YESTERDAY. I THINK IT IS ONLY -- THEALTERNATIVES THAT I HAVE POSED TO THE COURT I THINK ARE THE ONLY WAYTHAT THE PEOPLE CAN BE MADE WHOLE. WE ARE NOT BEING HYSTERICAL HERE. WEARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO OUR JOB. THAT IS ALL WE AREASKING.*THE COURT:* HOW WOULD I JUSTIFY GRANTING YOU A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCEIF WE ALL AGREE THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKEBETWEEN TWO AND THREE MONTHS TO PRESENT? DOESN'T THAT GIVE YOU ADEQUATETIME TO GO OUT AND PREPARE TO REBUT OR TO IMPEACH THESE WITNESSES, THESETWELVE OR FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO HAVE JUST BEEN DISCLOSED?*MS. CLARK:* WELL, WE ARE TIED UP IN TRIAL. WE CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN THEINVESTIGATION. THAT IS THE SAME GAME THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED THROUGHOUTTHIS CASE. WE ARE TIED UP IN COURT WITH DAYS AND DAYS OF JURY SELECTION.WE HAVE TO BE OUT THERE, TOO. WE CAN'T JUST SEND PEOPLE OUT TO DO THINGSFOR US WITHOUT GUIDING THE INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARELOOKING FOR. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* YES. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE'S CASE IS GOING TO TAKETWO OR THREE MONTHS, NOT EVEN CLOSE.*THE COURT:* PROMISE?*MS. CLARK:* YEAH. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK ITIS GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG, YOUR HONOR, SERIOUSLY. I THINK THAT THEPEOPLE'S CASE MIGHT WELL BE WRAPPED UP IN FOUR TO SIX WEEKS.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT?*MS. CLARK:* IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I THINK I HAVE OTHER CASEAUTHORITY CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO GRANT US THE OPENING --THE REOPENING OF THE STATEMENT.*THE COURT:* THAT IS KIND OF AN ESOTERIC QUESTION. I THINK THERE ARE TWOOTHER CASES THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN LEXIS, BUT IN OTHER STATES.*MS. CLARK:* I HAVE A CALIFORNIA CASE.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT IS REALLY
AN ESOTERIC ISSUE ABOUT REOPENING. WHAT KIND --*MS. CLARK:* THIS CASE IS RIGHT ON POINT.*THE COURT:* WELL, AFTER AN ABUSE OF DISCOVERY IT IS RIGHT ON POINT,REOPENING?*MS. CLARK:* IT IS NOT TO ADDRESS ABUSE OF DISCOVERY, IT IS TO ADDRESSSOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT DOES INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSIBLEERROR TO DENY THE ABILITY TO REOPEN THE OPENING STATEMENT.*THE COURT:* THAT IS A THING A TRIAL COURT NEVER WANTS TO HEAR. MISSCLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH: WHAT KIND OF ADMONITION WOULD BEAPPROPRIATE HERE?*MS. CLARK:* I THINK I INDICATED EARLIER WHAT --*THE COURT:* I'M TALKING SPECIFICS, WORDS.*MS. CLARK:* DIDN'T I?*THE COURT:* JUST TO PICK OUT EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL THINGS ANDTELL THEM DISREGARD THESE COMMENTS? TO SAY DURING THE COURSE OF THEOPENING STATEMENT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THIS WITNESS WAS LISTED, THISPERSON WAS MENTIONED, THIS PERSON, DISREGARD ALL THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOUARE ASKING ME TO DO?*MS. CLARK:* THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE --*THE COURT:* AND THEN SAY THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE RULESOF DISCOVERY, THAT IS DISCLOSURE OF WITNESSES, BECAUSE THEY WEREDISCLOSED AND IT WAS A SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION, THEY DON'T GET TOTALK ABOUT IT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THEDELAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO?*MS. CLARK:* I WOULD LIKE -- MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? WE HAVE TO --*THE COURT:* YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO THINGS. I WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICS.WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME TO DO?*MS. CLARK:* IF THE COURT WOULD ACTUALLY FRAME THE LANGUAGE OF THEADMONITION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, IF THE COURT COULD GIVE US --WELL, IT IS KIND OF LATE ALREADY.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. WELL, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, LET MEASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT IS MORE PRESSING ON MY MIND, IS WHAT IS THECONDITION OF MR. HODGMAN THIS AFTERNOON?*MS. CLARK:* WE DON'T HAVE FINAL WORD AND WE WILL NOT HAVE FINAL WORD ASTO WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO COME BACK. WE WON'T HAVE THAT TODAY.*THE COURT:* DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN HE IS GOING TO BE RELEASED? I SAWCOLLEEN WILLIAMS REPORTING A PRESS COVERAGE DOWN AT THE HOSPITAL.*MS. CLARK:* I BELIEVE THE DOCTORS HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE, BUT I HAVENO IDEA.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
*MS. CLARK:* WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMONITION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE PEOPLEWOULD REQUEST IS THAT THE JURY BE ADMONISHED AS FOLLOWS: THAT DEFENSECOUNSEL HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT, THAT THEY ARE TO VIEWVERY CAREFULLY THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND THAT TOTHE EXTENT THAT THEY FAIL TO FULFILL THE PROMISES MADE IN AN OPENINGSTATEMENT, ANY STATEMENTS MADE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOTCONSTITUTE EVIDENCE.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* THEY SHOULD BE --*THE COURT:* THAT INVITES THEM TO SPECULATE THAT THE WHOLE THING WAS BAD.*MS. CLARK:* THAT WHAT WHOLE THING WAS BAD?*THE COURT:* DON'T I HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT? BECAUSECERTAINLY NOT ALL OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT IS IN DISPUTE ORTHE PROPRIETY OF IT.*MS. CLARK:* WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- WE ARE GOINGTO HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK SO THAT I CAN FRAME THEN SOMETHING MORESPECIFIC. I CAN'T AT THIS TIME. BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE ADMONISHEDCONCERNING COUNSEL'S MISCONDUCT. THEY NEED TO BE ADMONISHED TO DISREGARDCOUNSEL'S STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WITNESSES WHO WILL NOT APPEAR OUT OFFEAR. THAT WAS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT, VERY IMPROPER AND THEVERY -- VERY PREJUDICIAL, AND THE PEOPLE SHOULD -- THE JURORS SHOULD BEADMONISHED TO TOTALLY DISREGARD THAT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THATEFFECT. AND THEN WE SHOULD ASK COUNSEL AT THIS TIME --*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, I AM AWARE OF YOUR 1335 REQUEST.*MR. COCHRAN:* YES.*MS. CLARK:* WE ARE ENTITLED -- WE CAN LITIGATE THAT LATER.*THE COURT:* AS SOON AS I RECEIVE A MOTION AND APPLICATION.*MS. CLARK:* UH-HUH. WE ALSO WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEFENSE SIT DOWNWITH MR. COCHRAN AND REVIEW THE BALANCE OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT TODETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE WITNESSES HE INTENDS TO MENTION THATTHEY HAVE SOMEHOW MAGICALLY FORGOTTEN TO GIVE US DISCOVERY OF, AND WEALSO ASK THAT THE CONSIDER TO ORDER THEM TO REDUCE TO WRITING ALL OFTHESE REPORTS THEY CARRY AROUND IN THEIR HEAD WITH RESPECT TO THEWITNESSES THAT ARE CIVILIAN, AS WELL AS THE EXPERTS WHO THEY INTEND TOCALL. AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESUMPTION OF OPENING STATEMENT,PROVIDED IT BEGINS WITH THE COURT'S ADMONITION TO THEM.*THE COURT:* DO YOU WANT MR. HODGMAN TO BE HERE?*MS. CLARK:* I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER THAT MR. HODGMAN BE HERE, YOURHONOR. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIND OUT HOW LONG IT IS GOING TO BE.THAT I DON'T KNOW.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MS. CLARK:* I FEEL LIKE IT IS UNFAIR OF ME TO MAKE A REQUEST TO WAITFOR HIS RETURN IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, AND SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TOASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE I MAKE ANY
REQUEST ALONG THOSE LINES, EITHER WAY.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MS. CLARK:* I MEAN, IF HE DOESN'T COME BACK FOR TWO WEEKS, IS THATFAIR? THAT IS NOT FAIR TO DEFENSE. AND SO I SHOULD REALLY FIND OUT HOWLONG WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE I ASK FOR ANYTHING.*THE COURT:* MR. COCHRAN, YOU HAVE A PLAINTIVE LOOK ON YOUR FACE.*MR. COCHRAN:* NOT LIKE THE PLAINTIVE WAIL. IF THE PRESS IS BEING TOLDON MR. HODGMAN'S CONDITION THROUGH PRESS CONFERENCES AND THINGS AND WHYDON'T THEY TAKE A BREAK AND THEN THEY CAN CALL AND FIND OUT.*MS. CLARK:* BECAUSE THE PRESS ISN'T BEING TOLD WHEN HE IS GOING TO BERELEASED.*MR. COCHRAN:* I THINK SHE SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO TRY AND FIND OUT.*MS. CLARK:* WELL, WE WILL.*THE COURT:* WHY DON'T YOU TAKE FIVE MINUTES. MY COURT REPORTER TELLS MESHE IS OUT OF PAPER, SO LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE APHONE CALL UPSTAIRS, AND THIS IS NOT A RECESS, SO EVERYBODY STAY IN PLACE.*MS. CLARK:* I HAVE ASKED TO BE BEEPED AS SOON AS THEY FIND OUT.*THE COURT:* WE DON'T TURN ON BEEPERS IN THE COURTROOM, DO WE?*MS. CLARK:* MY BEEPER ISN'T WITH ME, SO THAT IS OKAY. MY BEEPER ISUPSTAIRS. THEY WERE GOING TO CALL ME, SO I'M SUPPOSED TO GET A CALL THEMINUTE THEY FIND OUT.*THE COURT:* MISS ROBERTSON, WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THEEVERY PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS.*THE CLERK:* SHE INDICATED THAT MR. -- SHE INDICATED THAT HE WAS HEALTHYAND HIS DOCTOR ANTICIPATED HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOME TIME NEXT WEEK,THAT HIS WIFE WAS REQUESTING THAT HE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TIME OFF PERIOD.BASICALLY THAT WAS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS RELATED TO ME ON THE PHONE.*MS. CLARK:* SO HE IS GOING TO REMAIN IN THE HOSPITAL UNTIL NEXT WEEK?*THE CLERK:* BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT MISS FAIRBANKS INDICATED OVER THEPHONE. SHE DIDN'T GIVE ME --*MS. CLARK:* I HAD ASKED AS SOON AS WE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WE BE CALLEDAND THEY DID. THANK YOU, GUYS. SO THAT IS ALL WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, IS THATHE WILL BE BACK SOME TIME NEXT WEEK, AT LEAST RELEASED, BUT WE DON'TKNOW WHEN HE WILL COME BACK YET.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. IN LIGHT OF THAT --*DEPUTY MAGNERA:* YOUR HONOR, ONE MOMENT. MISS CLARK.(BRIEF PAUSE.)*THE COURT:* MISS CLARK?
*MS. CLARK:* YES, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, MISS FAIRBANKS ASKED ME TOINFORM YOU THAT THE EVER PRESENT MISS FAIRBANKS IS HERE. SHE HAS GOTTENWORD FROM THE PRESS COVERAGE THAT THEY WILL NOT STATE EXACTLY WHEN MR.HODGMAN IS GOING TO BE RELEASED. THE DOCTORS WOULD NOT GIVE A DEFINITEDATE. AND AS FOR HIS RETURN, IT IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER IT WILL BETHE BEGINNING PART OF NEXT WEEK OR THE END OF NEXT WEEK.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. IN LIGHT OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE, WHEN WILL YOUBE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE? CAN YOU BE PREPARED TOMORROWTO GO FORWARD?(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* WITH OPENING STATEMENTS OR WITH EVIDENCE?*THE COURT:* THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. I ASSUME MR. COCHRAN -- HE INDICATEDHE HAD ONE OTHER SEGMENT OF THE CASE THAT HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AND IASSUME, ALTHOUGH THAT IT WILL BE A RATHER LARGE PART, I ASSUME IT IS NOTTHE WHOLE DAY, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE WOULD CONCLUDE HIS OPENINGSTATEMENT IN THE MORNING AND THAT WE WOULD PROCEED TO WITNESSES IN THEAFTERNOON, ASSUMING WE STARTED AT A NORMAL HOUR.(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)*MS. CLARK:* YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTOOD -- THE COURT HAS NOT INDICATED ANYRULING SO FAR ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO DEAL WITH THEDISCOVERY THAT WAS JUST DUMPED ON US OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS.*THE COURT:* I'M ASKING YOU WHEN WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT? I'MMINDFUL OF MR. HODGMAN'S ABSENCE. I'M MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT HE IS ACRITICAL MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM. I FRANKLY WILL NEED TIME TO GOTHROUGH MY NOTES, TO COMPARE THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,AS I INDICATED, MY RECOLLECTION IS WE TALKED ABOUT 26 SPECIFIC ITEMS OFDISCOVERY AND/OR WITNESSES, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I FEEL COMFORTABLERULING FROM THE BENCH UPON, SO I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE PREPARED TO RULEUPON YOUR REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNTIL PROBABLY LATE TOMORROW IS MYPROBLEM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO DRAG THE JURY DOWN TO SITAROUND AND WAIT ALL DAY AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.*MS. CLARK:* WHAT WE COULD DO IS LET -- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT MR.HODGMAN WILL RETURN ON MONDAY. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING HIM PRESENTFOR OPENING STATEMENT WE COULD DO THAT ON MONDAY, BUT THEN -- WHAT ITHOUGHT WE COULD DO IS SEVER THE ISSUES OF THE OPENING STATEMENT BEINGCOMPLETED AND THEN THE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.*THE COURT:* WELL, YOU HAVE DUMPED A RATHER LARGE NUMBER OF THINGS IN MYLAP. IT ALSO IS GOING TO REQUIRE ME TO GO BACK THROUGH AND READ MR.COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT AGAIN.*MS. CLARK:* UH-HUH.*THE COURT:* TO GO THROUGH THE RECORD TO SEE WHAT IS MENTIONED ANDWHERE, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISHBETWEEN NOW AND FIVE O'CLOCK.
*MS. CLARK:* NO, AND YOUR HONOR, THIS IS FROM THE DEFENSE. THIS IS NOTFROM THE PEOPLE, BUT --*THE COURT:* YOUR REQUEST, THOUGH.*MS. CLARK:* WELL, IT IS OUR REQUEST.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT.*MS. CLARK:* NECESSITATED BY. ANYWAY, WHY NOT -- IF WE COULD HAVE IT GOOVER TO MONDAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING OPENING STATEMENTS AND ATTHE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENTS WOULD THAT GIVE THE COURT TIME TORULE ON THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST AND THAT WAY WE WOULD KNOW WERE WE STAND?*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST ASK MR. COCHRAN ONE QUESTION.*MR. COCHRAN:* YES.*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. I'M CONTEMPLATING GOING OVER UNTIL MONDAY. THATWILL GIVE ME TIME TO REVIEW THIS, MAKE MY RULING, AND WE CAN FIND OUTDEFINITIVELY WHEN MR. HODGMAN WILL BE BACK. MY INCLINATION, THOUGH, ISTO DIRECT THE PEOPLE TO BE READY TO PROCEED. IF I RULE THAT CERTAINSANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONCLUDE THE OPENINGSTATEMENTS, THAT YOU BE READY TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY, MR. COCHRAN, ANDASSUMING THAT WE PROCEED ON MONDAY, THAT THE PROSECUTION ALSO BE READYTO CALL WITNESSES MONDAY AFTERNOON.*MR. COCHRAN:* I WILL BE READY. I AM READY NOW, YOUR HONOR.*THE COURT:* I UNDERSTAND THAT. I AM READY, TOO.*MR. COCHRAN:* THAT WILL BE FINE AND I AM READY, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, ITIS THE PEOPLE'S MOTION, NOT OURS. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY,YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO --*THE COURT:* WELL, THE SITUATION -- THE CREATION OF THE SITUATION,THOUGH, I THINK RESTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, AS MR. DOUGLAS CONCEDEDTHAT THESE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.*MR. COCHRAN:* YES, WE HAVE SAID THAT. WE JUST SAID THAT IT WASINADVERTENT. THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR --*THE COURT:* I COMPLIMENTED MR. DOUGLAS FOR BEING UP FRONT.*MR. COCHRAN:* THAT IS THE KIND OF LAWYER THAT HE IS, YOUR HONOR, AND WEWOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE.*THE COURT:* THE CREATION OF THE PROBLEM --*MR. COCHRAN:* YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THIS, THOUGH. IWOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE COURT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE MARCIA CLARKDRAFTING -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME. I WOULD RATHER NOTHAVE HER DRAFTING ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO US.*THE COURT:* I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT BOTH SIDES SUBMIT BY TEN O'CLOCKTOMORROW MORNING ANY ADMONITION TO THE JURY THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE.*MR. COCHRAN:* THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS FAIR.
*THE COURT:* ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. 9:00 A.M. MONDAY. BEPREPARED TO GO.*MS. CLARK:* SUBMIT THE ADMONITION TOMORROW?*THE COURT:* 10:00 A.M.(AT 4:55 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1995,9:00 A.M.)SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESDEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGETHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ))PLAINTIFF, ))) VS. ) NO. BA097211)ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )))DEFENDANT. )REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1995VOLUME 76PAGES 11941 THROUGH 12109, INCLUSIVEAPPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERSAPPEARANCES:FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEYBY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDONLYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,AND DARRELL S. MAVIS, DEPUTIES18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING210 WEST TEMPLE STREETLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRESARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS19TH FLOORLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIREBY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 1010LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIREROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIREALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIREF. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIREBARRY SCHECK, ESQUIREROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIREI N D E XINDEX FOR VOLUME 76 PAGES 11941 - 12109-----------------------------------------------------DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.THURSDAY JANUARY 26, 1995 A.M. 11941 76P.M. 11990 76-----------------------------------------------------PROCEEDINGSMOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON DEFENSE FOR 11941 76 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHDISCOVERYEXHIBITS(NONE THIS VOLUME)