UNKNOWN SPEAKER: First, let me say, 228 is about to be famous. He is going to be the subject of apparently a portion of the Geraldo Rivera show today supposedly at 3 o'clock. He's also going to be subject of an article written in the Star.

MR. COCHRAN: Is this our discovery?

MR. SHAPIRO: Why do we get this now?

MR. DARDEN: I just got it now.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why do we get it now in chambers? Why don't we get it outside?

MS. CLARK: Because we were selecting a jury.

MR. SHAPIRO: We have enough lawyers, Judge. We can review documents and select a jury at the same time.

THE COURT: Do I get to see a copy of this?

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask one question, your Honor. Is this--does the Prosecution subscribe to this? Is this how you got this?

MR. DARDEN: No, Mr. Cochran. I had received the document from Deputy D.A. Craig Richman, who told me that he had been telephoned by a Defense attorney who said she had a client or it was my understanding she had a client who was in ****** at the time who had information regarding Juror No. 228. And so I went to ****** and I interviewed a witness, "H" I believe is her name. This is the same person who gave the clerk a copy of the Hertz newsletter. Now, I had no idea who the person was that I was going to see in ******. So of course, when I arrived and found out that it was who she was, I was surprised. She indicated to me that--a number of things. She indicated that many of the points contained in this article are true, and I believe she is the source of much of the information in the draft of this article. She gave me the names of other persons whom she said can attest to the fact that Juror 228 met Mr. Simpson on more than one occasion and that they believe that he, that Mr. Simpson might possibly have recognized 228 because of the number of contacts that they've had together. Apparently, Juror 228, while working at Hertz worked in the VIP section, and that section of Hertz is responsible for providing cars to VIP's and celebrities like Mr. Simpson. Apparently, Mr. Simpson was a frequent visitor to Hertz because of his relation to Hertz. He rented cars, was given cars, filmed commercials there on the same lot where Juror No. 228 worked. And there are persons who believe that if he has not exposed to the Court he is acquainted with Mr. Simpson, that he has misled the Court and counsel.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, Mr. Simpson does not know this man, has never met this man. He may just, like you may or Miss Clark may or Mr. Darden if he's not recused from this case, may be introduced to people, have their picture taken with people that are absolute and total strangers. In fact, the gentleman who attributed to this article, Mr. Tony Frost, walked up to me in a restaurant, sat down--I had no idea who the guy was--and just started talking and then left and sent over a bottle of champagne. The other thing is, Mr. Simpson has told me that he has many cars in the Los Angeles area, that to the best of his recollection, he has never rented a car or been given a car from Hertz in Los Angeles nor would he have any need to go in and get a rental car at LAX since he goes to or from the airport by limousine, has friends pick him up or has his own transportation.

MR. DARDEN: My concern isn't so much with Mr. Simpson of whether he recognized Juror 228, but my concern is that 228 may have misled the Court if he has indicated that he is not acquainted with Mr. Simpson. And there are other comments allegedly made by Juror 228 to other employees at Hertz; that he, 228, has hit the lottery, that he is going to make money off this case and that he does not believe that Mr. Simpson committed the offense.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, Mr. Darden wasn't here during voir dire, but that comment was made by many lawyers, including the Prosecution's office, to the jurors saying that, "Do you feel getting on this jury would be like hitting the lottery?" So that has no moment whatsoever, no evidence to inquire any further. This is nothing more than another attempt by the Prosecutors to conduct a witch-hunt against jurors to investigate people. This man disclosed he worked for Hertz. Miss Clark questioned him at great length. There is no showing by anybody that this man has lied or misled anyone. Now, without an affidavit under oath or a statement from somebody else coming in saying, "This man said these things to me," under oath, to require somebody to come in here and subject them to what *** had to go through I think is absolutely abominable.

MR. COCHRAN: May I say one thing, your Honor?

MS. CLARK: I thought it was not double-timing, one lawyer per side.

MR. COCHRAN: I think in this instance, the Court will probably want to hear--

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, but I thought that was the rule propounded by the Court.

THE COURT: Well, we're in chambers now. This is a touchy issue. I don't mind hearing the comment of Mr. Cochran. And I'll hear from you as well, Miss Clark.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I just wanted to point out to the Court just a couple things that are disturbing. Number one, the Court just went through this situation on ***, and you can see how these things get blown out of proportion totally. I'm not saying that the Court shouldn't do this. The Court is doing the right thing I'm sure. I do want to point this out. At one point, the Prosecution asked if they could investigate this juror misconduct, and the Court's response was not to investigate. Yet we keep getting these declarations from the D.A., which is fine. I understand the job they have to do. But Mr. Darden going out doing this investigation last night--he may not have been here to hear that you said they were not to investigate. They're not supposed to be investigating jurors. That's number one. Number two, I think--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Cochran, there's a difference between investigating something and stuff falling in your lap and people calling and contacting you. That's what has been going on, it's pretty apparent to me.

MR. COCHRAN: In reference to your Honor's order, he's one of the principles. Following your order, let me tell you, we would handle it a lot differently. If someone called and said, "We have some information on Juror No. 228," we would have, understanding your order, brought it to your attention, let you get the Sheriff's Department to do it. That's what I'm saying. They didn't do that. And that's because they wanted to investigate this. But more importantly, it just seems to me--and I applaud your Honor's complementaries when talking to the jurors. These people have been down here from September 27th, 28th, and then we accuse them of all these things. And I can tell you, as Mr. Shapiro said, O.J. Simpson will indicate for the record he doesn't know this man, never met him. We all knew this man worked at Hertz. We still questioned him. "Q" never met him. He makes all these allegations when we know that part of it is false right from the beginning. So I think rather than assuming--it seems as though--and this is my point. I don't think the Prosecution should assume that everybody who is not on their witness list, who is not in their office is a liar or just going to make up something to get on the case. And I think that people are entitled to some kind of a benefit of the doubt and to some dignity. And I think that rather than being so accusatory, maybe look at this information falling in your lap as you say, your Honor, look at it, but certainly look at it with an eye to trying to find out what are the true facts rather than being so accusatory, then making up your mind after hearing all the facts. Never in my career have I ever thought I would hear the District Attorney's office cite the Star as a basis for us doing something.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, if I--

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: --could, I am not citing the Star as a basis of anything. I met the witness. The witness through other persons telephoned me at 9:30 in my office last night. I was not out conducting an investigation, I was not on a witch-hunt and I wasn't out after 228. Let me explain to the Court, if I may, why this is going to be on Geraldo and why this incident is going to be described in this magazine in the next day or so. It's because this witness came to the clerk, provided her this information, then watched what the Court did or did not do with the information and became concerned that perhaps the Court had not actually made counsel aware of the issues. The witness apparently became concerned that the Court had committed some active misconduct on its own. And so this witness claims that she became so concerned that she felt that she had to tell someone, that she had to make sure that the information got out and ended up speaking to the Star. This is a draft of an article that hasn't been published yet as I understand it. But the issue is that there is a serious problem with that particular juror. And as for proof or evidence or providing some testimony or indication of some proof under oath, we're waiting a declaration from someone who claims that they were present when 228 met Mr. Simpson. Due to the information that was given me last night, I felt duty bound to look into this just a little further. I have a list of approximately 10 persons who allegedly can corroborate this; that is that 228 knows and/or 228 has made the comment that he hit the lottery, he's going to make some money out of being on this jury and that he has already made up his mind regarding this Defendant's guilt or innocence.

MS. CLARK: And the Court is aware of the fact--I am sorry.

MR. DARDEN: And if I'm in a position to have the resources to pursue that, we have an obligation.

MS. CLARK: Not only that, but Mr. Cochran indicating what they would have done, what Mr. Cochran indicated he would have done is what we did. When we got our first contact from this man, "EE", we came over to the Court in chambers--and Mr. Cochran remembers--and I asked the Court to allow the sheriffs to investigate, and the Court refused. So I did that very thing. Since that time, people have been coming forward to us. We have not been actively investigating. Number two, I find it appalling that counsel would suggest that this is not serious misconduct and that we are somehow on a witch-hunt because we have found a juror who has made such material misrepresentation in his questionnaire and voir dire. He was questioned by the Court, by myself, by counsel and in the questionnaire with respect to whether or not he had ever met or knew O.J. Simpson. Because he's an employee of Hertz, we were all concerned, because there was the appearance of a conflict just by virtue of his employment. He assured us that that was not the case, that could not be the case and that he had only worked in quality control and that his job entailed other things entirely and that the only contact he had with O.J. Simpson was seeing him filming a commercial in an airport. He also indicated that he had no interest in football and that in the last couple of years, very, very recently, he started getting involved in football collectibles. We find a lot of information that completely contradicts everything he has said, people who have firsthand knowledge of the fact he has met the Defendant, that he worked on the VIP committee. And the pamphlet itself that was sent to this Court by "H" reflects the fact that he has lied to this Court point-blank in saying that he had worked only as quality control. It shows in that pamphlet, he's identified as a member of the VIP planning committee that is involved with the celebrities who are part of Hertz corporation, and that is a matter of record. So we have this juror already impeached without calling one witness. Yet we have a list of 10 witnesses who have been identified who will come forward to give testimony and evidence to this Court that will impeach this juror in a very material way. And for--excuse me one moment.

(Discussion between the Prosecuting attorneys held off the record.)

MS. CLARK: For the Defense to insist that we gloss over this or--and push it under the rug indicates clearly that they are interested in stacking this jury to the detriment of the People and not in a fair trial. And the People will not get a fair trial if this juror is allowed to remain based on all that we know. And at this point, it is already apparent that what these jurors--what these witnesses are attempting to tell us and to bring to this Court is true.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I say one thing, your Honor? First of all, we are interested in a fair trial as they are. Judge, we have been participating in this since September 26th, the longest voir dire that any of us have been in, maybe one time longer for me on the Black Panther conspiracy trial in `71, but never longer. So we're pretty serious about this. The point is the difference of approach. We try to abide by your order, by what you told us. What Miss Clark says is right. She brought it in to the Court. The Court said you would deal with it at the appropriate time. We were picking a jury. It's not like you sluffed if off. You understood what the deal was on this. The point I'm trying to make is, you're doing the right thing by questioning these people, but I don't think you can jump to those conclusions. For instance, I happened to be on the Airport Commission in 1981 or `82. I recall we had a juror who said they had contact with me. I was there 13 years. And when we opened that new facility, people from all around the world came to the facility. This man was on the planning committee for the opening of that. That they think O.J. Simpson saw this man through that is preposterous. They're accusing this man of all these lies based upon some people who are sending in declarations. The point I would like to close on is this. Looking at the bottom of this article, it refers to some comment from the D.A.'s office sending their investigator "tonight." Chris Darden or whoever was coming out. And if you wanted to really be truthful about this, do something, would you go to the L.A. Times, New York Times or would you tell this to the Star? I mean, all I am saying, Judge, you are wise and you understand what's going on here. So let's get to the bottom of it. I'm not saying not get to the bottom of it, but I'm saying I don't go around accusing people because someone comes forward with information. I think we have to find out what happened, and I think this is a classic example.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, let me take it one step further. I'm absolutely convinced because--we have been coming up with news leak after news leak after news leak. We've had hearings, we've had investigations, and all we hear from the District Attorneys is, "We don't do anything. We're not involved in this. We have no information." Well, we have it in black and white. They are communicating with the Star before an article is written. They're writing--the Star is writing to them apparently. And down at the bottom, it's real clear where these leaks are coming from. It says right here under comments from the District Attorney's office, "They're seeing their investigator tonight." And I would like to begin right now--if they know this person is going to become famous on Geraldo, they know he is going to be on today, I would like your Honor to refer this immediately to the Attorney Generals who are outside to investigate the District Attorneys to see if they are leaking this information to the Star and to Geraldo to deprive O.J. Simpson of a fair trial and get people off this jury.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I'm going to decline that invitation at this point because the way this information came to the Court is, this person was first anonymous and then this person, "H" conversing with Mrs. Robertson again and sending us this planning committee--this pamphlet which includes Juror 228's participation in the planning committee, and then the information, similar information comes from a different source on a later date. And I think at this point, it's incumbent upon the Court to make inquiry. The reason that I feel that there is sufficient information--I feel at this point, there's sufficient information and it's incumbent upon the Court to make inquiry at this point. And I think that Juror No. ***--excuse me--228 is a prime example. If there's a problem, I think you ought to come to me first so I can talk to the person who was alleged to have done this first and ask them is this a problem rather than create problems for them by sending investigators out and stirring up the pot and creating innuendo where it's not necessary by sending an investigator out to talk to people because you create the impression that there's something wrong or there's something true. I think the first thing we should do now that this information has been presented to the Court is inquire directly of the juror himself to see if perhaps he has forgotten to tell us about something. And that's the way I'm going to phrase it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Whether or not--that causes a different issue. But whether or not this information is true, I would like to know as a primary inquiry.

MR. DARDEN: May I be heard for a moment?

THE COURT: I don't think so, Mr. Darden. I think I've heard enough at this point. It's my intention to inquire of 228 whether or not--ask him about--to refresh his recollection as to what it is he told us about his acquaintanceship with Mr. Simpson and tell him that we have received information from many sources that are contrary to that and ask him if he can explain that. And if he has a good explanation for that, then that's the end of the situation. Okay. Mrs. Robertson, would you ask 228 to join us, please.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask one other thing? This matter--because this will relate to our client, I might at the end of it, before we argue, if there's any argument, ask for an opportunity to talk to our client about this aspect, because this relates to--

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, we believe that if we look into this just a bit more, that we will produce witnesses who will come forward to testify.

THE COURT: It may be necessary, but it may not.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I don't want to let Mr. Shapiro's and Mr. Cochran's accusations towards our office--

THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Darden, don't worry about that, because obviously these people are contacting other persons. If a freelance writer contacts me with regard to this--

(Juror No. 228 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. No. 228, good afternoon, sir. How are you?

JUROR NO. 228: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Have a seat, please. First of all, why don't you just turn your chair a little so you're not blinded by the light there or scooch over a little. There you go. I don't want you blinded. We're not doing good here. Mr. Hodgman, can you pull those shades over just a little? See if that's--you are in a good spot there?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes. Pretty--

THE COURT: Stand right there, Mr. Hodgman. No. 228, first of all, thank you for coming in to speak to us. I have a problem that I need to discuss with you. Mr. Hodgman, why don't you stand in one spot. Thank you. I have a problem that I need to discuss with you. And first of all, let me assure you that the reason I have to do this is, certain information has been brought to my attention relating to you that I need to ask you about. And I want you to understand that I'm not accusing you of any misconduct or any wrongdoing, but the information is such that I'm required to at least make an inquiry of you.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes.

THE COURT: And my feeling is that if there's something that I've done wrong or there's something people think that I may have done wrong, I like for them to tell me about it so I can at least have the opportunity to answer them if there's some kind of misunderstanding.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes.

THE COURT: Let me tell you what the first issue that I have is. When we talked to you--first of all, when you filled out the questionnaire, you know, obviously because you work for Hertz, there was some question. And in your questionnaire and when the lawyers had the opportunity to talk to you directly, you indicated to us that you were--you knew who O.J. Simpson was.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes.

THE COURT: You were aware he was a spokesperson for your company, but that you had not met Mr. Simpson.

JUROR NO. 228: That's right.

THE COURT: The information that has been forwarded to the Court indicates that your job was as a--at some point in time at Hertz, was to handle VIP customers and that you had direct contact with Mr. Simpson while you were doing that; that when the facility opened at the Los Angeles Airport, the new Hertz facility, that you were on the VIP planning committee that dealt directly with Mr. Simpson during that event and that at a point in time in approximately 1990, "Q" worked at the LAX facility for Hertz and that you were acquainted with her through that contact. Is there any truth to any of these--

JUROR NO. 228: Well, the fact is that I don't have anything to do with the VIP, but I distribute cars to that area. And I believe she did work there at one time, but I never met her and I didn't even know who she was because I'm so busy doing my job, you just don't have time to go around and really meet people. But someone mentioned that that was his daughter, but I had never literally met her.

THE COURT: When you say, "Literally never met her," what do you mean?

JUROR NO. 228: Hadn't formally met her. We wasn't introduced. So I didn't even know who she was until after she had gone.

THE COURT: Did you ever speak to her?

JUROR NO. 228: No, I never spoke to her, sir.

THE COURT: How about Mr. Simpson?

JUROR NO. 228: Never met him. Never met him, never spoke to him.

THE COURT: Any contact with him other than seeing him film a commercial?

JUROR NO. 228: No. No, sir. Let me just say, the area where I work is about approximately 1- to 200 yards away from the VIP area where they were shooting the commercial, and I never even went down there. But I do have to as--part of my job is to send cars to certain areas throughout our lot, and that's one of the areas that I do send cars to.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know anything about being on a planning committee for the opening of the facility, the new facility?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes.

THE COURT: And did you have any contacts with Mr. Simpson during the course of those activities?

JUROR NO. 228: I'm probably one of the only ones that didn't. And I was on a committee to actually help open that. But he was invited there, but I had never met him.

THE COURT: And you had no contact with him?

JUROR NO. 228: Never had any contact with him.

THE COURT: There is also a report that you allegedly made a statement to somebody, that by being accepted as a juror on this case, that you had hit the lottery and you expected to make money from this experience.

JUROR NO. 228: No, I didn't make that kind of a statement.

THE COURT: All right. No. 228, thank you very much for taking the time to chat with us.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I'm going to order you not to discuss this matter with any other person until I order you to do so or the case is over.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's for your benefit as well as mine.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. No. 228, would you take your place, please, back in the jury room.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

(Juror No. 228 exits chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, I think at this point, the state of the record is that the ball is in the People's court. You indicated that you had witnesses who were able to testify to the contrary.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I'm handing counsel and the court a fax of a declaration just handed me. It's dated today, December 8, 1994, signed by "B".

MR. COCHRAN: Can I make a comment?

THE COURT: Let me just ask, Mr. Darden, Mr. Darden, do you know how this declaration came to be faxed to the D.A.'s office?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. I asked Lieutenant Gary Schram of the D.A.'s Bureau of Investigation to contact this witness, this individual. This was a name given to me last night. He did so. She faxed this declaration to us through the ******* police department.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I comment on that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because he wasn't here. But he's part of their team. So he should be aware of this, and that's a violation of your order. That's the problem. See, the point is, they don't understand something. This is not about them. They can't run the world. They can prosecute this case, but they can't run the world. We have been really circumspect about speaking out. They don't have a right to do these things. Just because they are D.A.s doesn't give them any more rights. They're lawyers just like we are, and it's wrong for them to do this, especially violate your order. That's absolutely wrong. And there are things we can do. And believe me, we can do these things. And I want to say they should stop this stuff. They're not above anybody else. They can't go around and do something this outrageous. And this declaration from somebody who 14 years ago remembers this--O.J. Simpson says he never remembers this guy. I bet Marcus Allen will say that. "Q" is out there. She saw this man in the hallway. Carl had her looking. She doesn't know this man, your Honor. In the face of people who really are live witnesses, it's outrageous that they're doing this. They heard his statement. Now, I know the Court is going to do what's right. But if they want to have a hearing, so be it, but that it should not be investigated by this office. That's what you said; you have the wherewithal to do it and you will do that. They've got to understand they can investigate this case, and that's their absolute right, but they don't have the right to investigate everybody in the world. I mean that's wrong.

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, I would like to respond. We're not investigating everybody in the world. This information came to the attention of the Court--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I did direct both sides not to go out and start interviewing people, conducting an investigation. That's what I did do.

MS. CLARK: But this was a person that came forward to us.

MR. DARDEN: This is a person I was told that--I was told wanted me to contact them. This person told the witness, "H", that I should contact her last night. This person has been interviewed by private investigators. The only issue here is when you kick him off. Other people are coming forward. I heard rumors that other Hertz employees are going to come forward and say--other employees that work at Hertz now with this juror are going to come forward in the media and in the press and say that he's made all these comments. And so I can't just stand by and allow this juror to sit on this case without looking further into this issue.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, the investigation on this conduct by jurors is the Court's obligation and delegated to the Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff's Department has already assigned investigators to this.

MR. DARDEN: They have not spoken to any of these witnesses.

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, let me put it this way. We will be happy to turn over everything we have, but there's an additional problem, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Hodgman, here's the problem. I directed you not to do this. Any information you had was to be turned over to me and the Sheriff's Department or whatever agency I determined to do this, because I think a neutral party, somebody who is not involved with the investigation or prosecution of this case should conduct this inquiry concerning juror misconduct.

MS. CLARK: But this was a witness that came forward and requested to speak with us. She requested to speak with us. And rather than have one of us become a witness, we wanted her to render her statement in a form that could be presented to the Court. Your Honor, there's too many people out there--

THE COURT: Is there a reason you did not come to me and ask me or tell me about this?

MR. DARDEN: It happened last night at 9:30, 10 o'clock. And even with regard to the Star article, the investigator had met with Tony Frost. We just heard a rumor of jury misconduct. I don't know even if he knew it related to 228. We just heard a rumor and followed it up.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is the urgency for contacting them 9:30 at night, not to report it to your Honor? Or if it's an emergency--I don't have your home phone number, but I guarantee you, in 30 minutes, I could get it and get in touch with you in an emergency. And they all have my home phone number. They have my car number. They could call us, say, "We've got an emergency. Can we get the Judge on the phone?" This is absolute sheer nonsense. It is just--you know what it is, Judge? It is sheer arrogance on the part of the Prosecutors who continue to refuse to follow your orders in the courtroom and continue to follow your mandates, and it's time for you to really let them know who is the Judge in this courtroom. And it's not them. They don't set their own rules. They don't set their own standards and they don't make their own decisions, and that's what they've been used to doing and that's what they're trying to do to you. And we see it very clearly and everybody else is starting to see it too, Judge.

MS. CLARK: You know something? That is absolutely a lie because we have heard nothing but complaints from the public about how the Defense is leading everybody around in this case, and it's become very apparent to me that Mr. Shapiro barks and expects everybody else to sit. I'm real tired of hearing him make these obviously spurious allegations. But I will say this, your Honor. We have attempted to abide by this Court's order as best we can. But we have witnesses who are out there and have been getting irritated with the fact that they see no action. And so they are taking it into their own hands to come forward. We have not been probing or doing any kind of investigation. We are receiving information. And the witnesses are contacting us and saying, "We want to give this information." And as of last night, this contact came forward saying, "I have firsthand knowledge. I saw this happen." And don't tell me that this juror doesn't remember shaking O.J. Simpson's hand. That was a very notable event I'm sure in this juror's life, as it was obviously to this woman who witnessed it. People remember meeting celebrities. It is a very important fact in their lives. And the fact that this juror did in fact shake hands and he is now claiming not to have--it's not that he's saying, "I may have. I don't remember." That would be different. He is saying it didn't happen. "I never got near him. I never went to that area." He's issued a complete and total denial, not a lack of memory.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, the thing that I'm more concerned about--we are going to pursue this issue. The case law is clear, when this kind of information comes to the Court's attention, I have to inquire. But the obligation for inquiry is the Court's obligation, not yours. And the reason I directed you not to do anything is because a neutral party should be the ones doing this investigation. A neutral party should be the investigator calling these people. Now, if you--I recall that we were busy at the time when this information came to me, and these jurors were not due back in the courtroom until December the 5th. So the Court made a determination that since we had scheduled all of those people coming in in order and that we had more than enough work to do between now and then, that the Court would put this issue off until we had the jurors back here in court so we could talk to them face-to-face. Now, what should have occurred is that information--now, I obviously can't order the District Attorney's office to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to information that's been brought to them. This information was brought to the Court's attention as well, and Mrs. Robertson's memorandum of the 27th indicates the date and time. The Court is aware of this issue. But the Court doesn't have time to drop everything it's doing and pursue all of these issues when they arise, and the Court made a determination that now, December the 8th, was the time that we were going to take this up, which is--actually we got started on it a day earlier. But--

MS. CLARK: All I'm saying, your Honor, we have witnesses out there who don't understand. I mean that's really the issue. They've come forward, they've hired their own investigator. They're going crazy out there, and that doesn't have anything to do with us.

THE COURT: Out of curiosity, who has hired their own investigator?

MS. CLARK: I don't know who it is.

MR. DARDEN: I believe it is "H". And she is acquainted--in fact, I spoke to a person who claimed to be a private investigator last night over the telephone while I was--

MS. CLARK: This is not a situation beyond our control. All I am trying to say, you know, this case has generated very unusual situations for all of us, and they have been very insistent at getting their information to us.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Without being accusatory any more than we already said--we've said enough about that--the point is, your order was very clear. And the reasons for that order are very clear, and the reasons given are not any good if you look at them. Christopher Darden is a very experienced lawyer. This happened at 10 o'clock last night, and we are taking this motion up, involved with this motion yesterday. The thing to do--he's obviously in touch with Miss Clark and Mr. Hodgman--is come in and telling you this morning. The question is just that simple. Not when do we govern ourselves as lawyers governed by the State Bar of California because a witness is anxious--

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, let's assume that I agree it's a violation of the Court's order. What sanction do you think is appropriate, if any?

MR. COCHRAN: You know--

MR. SHAPIRO: Maybe perhaps dismissal of the case for tampering with the jury.

MS. CLARK: We haven't tampered with the jury.

MR. SHAPIRO: That is the sanction that we would suggest.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't like to make snap decisions. Can I have a moment? Can I have a little time to think about that? What I really want--you know what I really want? I'm not really answering your question. I want the D.A.s to act like D.A.s like they do otherwise. I've never seen this attitude where jurors are running checks on jurors, things like that. They've got a lot of power. That bothers me, Judge. I want people to be treated with a certain amount of respect and to be deemed to be telling the truth and not everybody being assumed to be a liar. And they may say--when Miss Clark just got through talking, you would have thought "H" saw this person shake hands with O.J. Simpson himself. Unless I'm so far off, I didn't get that impression at all. If they've got some witnesses, let them bring them forward. They make these statements as though they're the only ones that speak the truth.

MS. CLARK: Well, sometimes that is the case, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: See then, if she thinks that, Judge, then we don't have to say anything else, if they think they're the only ones that speak the truth.

MS. CLARK: Let me indicate this.

THE COURT: Wait. Let me make it real clear to you, I'm going to order the District Attorney's office to turn over their reports to the Court. They are to take no further action. They can take phone messages. They can refer the matter to the Court. Anybody who wants to contact the Court should contact Mrs. Robertson. Mrs. Robertson will report that to me. I will relay that to the Sheriff's Department or whatever investigative agency I deem appropriate to follow this up. All right? That's what we are going to do from this point on. Is that understood?

MR. HODGMAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Understood?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Understood, Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: Is that a yes for the record?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. Sure.

THE COURT: All right. The integrity of the jury is primarily the Court's responsibility, not that of the parties, just so it's clear. All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I raised before the spectrum of an investigation by the Attorney General. And I'm not saying that in any facetious way, in any off-handed way. This is the second reported example that we have of the District Attorney's office being involved with tabloids. And we know the tabloids are sources of that information. The first one came under oath when I examined a witness named "FF" who testified that Patti Jo Fairbanks gave him permission to talk to the tabloids and sell his story. That was at the Preliminary Hearing.

THE COURT: I thought it was "GG" who said that.

MS. CLARK: No. "FF".

MR. SHAPIRO: "FF" refused to identify the person. Miss Clark objected. Finally we got the identification, and he identified a woman named "Patti" in the D.A.'s office. And then the D.A.s came down and said it was Patti Jo Fairbanks who gave this witness from the District Attorney's office permission to go sell his story to the tabloid. That's number one. Number two, now we're involved with a jury trial with 12 seated jurors, and we have correspondence between the District Attorney's office and The Star magazine.

MS. CLARK: Not true.

MR. SHAPIRO: How did they get this? Here is what I would like, Judge. I would like you to conduct inquiry how did they get this memorandum. Did they steal it? Was it sent to them? How did they get this memorandum from Mr. Frost, number one? And, number two, to call in all members who are actively involved in the press relations from the District Attorney's office, all investigators that are involved and see whether or not anybody from the District Attorney's office is meeting with Star magazine.

MS. CLARK: You know, how dare he. How dare he with Johnnie Cochran--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, please. Please.

MS. CLARK: He does not come in with clean hands, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark. I'm going to decline that invitation at this point because I don't want to get sidetracked into that issue. But I am very, very disappointed, that my order was clear for the D.A.'s office not to do anything. All right.

MS. CLARK: We abided by that order.

THE COURT: Well--

MS. CLARK: And this witness--until this witness came forward who wanted to get her information to the Court. This is an unusual situation.

THE COURT: What should have occurred was, that person should have been directed to contact the Court. This person--

MR. DARDEN: She already had.

THE COURT: This person has not contacted this Court. We have been contacted by "H", and the Court scheduled to take action on that, to make inquiry. I think further inquiry as to 228 is warranted at this point in time. I would like the District Attorney's file turned over to the Court by the close of business today.

MR. SHAPIRO: We would also like a copy of that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And I will examine the file and see what, in my opinion, further investigation needs to be done. I agree, further investigation needs to be done with regard to 228. But it looks to me--let's see. As I recall, tomorrow morning at 9:00, we have the Darden motion. 9:30, we have the statements motion. And was there a problem with the afternoon tomorrow or was it Monday?

MS. CLARK: Afternoon tomorrow and--

MR. COCHRAN: Mid afternoon.

MR. HODGMAN: Monday morning, mid afternoon tomorrow. At least these are personally--personal commitments that I made.

THE COURT: I understand. We have no problem with that.

MR. COCHRAN: No problem with scheduling.

MR. HODGMAN: We have that matter which was the subject matter of a letter that went to the Court as well.

THE COURT: Scheduling--

MR. HODGMAN: And that should be taken up tomorrow.

THE COURT: I agree. We have our plate full for tomorrow morning. But I want to--after I examine that file, I will tell you what I'm going to do further about this. Since we are not getting to the actual opening statements until probably mid-January, there is time for the Court to conduct further inquiry.

MR. COCHRAN: May I say, your Honor, with regard to this, we would like--and we are abiding by your order, but we would like at the appropriate time to present some witnesses we--

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: So we're going to excuse her I assume today, but we have other witnesses also that the Court should listen to, presuming you will let us do that.

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: I object. Why don't I get to call my witnesses on the issue--

MR. COCHRAN: We said we want to present witnesses.

THE COURT: Their witness is "Q".

MR. DARDEN: He said "witnesses."

MR. COCHRAN: I was talking about "Q", who happens to be here. We asked her to come down. What I am trying to say too, we will have other witnesses based upon what happens. Clearly, I don't think that--I know Hertz, my firm knows Hertz. And so I don't want them to think they are the only ones that can go out and ask witnesses and stuff. I'll have witnesses more recent than 14 years ago I bet without doing any investigation. The point is, we understood and have abided by the Court's ruling. We don't make excuses for something when we've done wrong.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I've already expressed in my low key manner my displeasure.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. You're right, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Let me indicate also though in case the Court has any desire to believe Mr. Shapiro's representations concerning Patti Jo Fairbanks, she never directed anyone to speak to the tabloids.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, that's an issue that was dealt with down at Municipal Court that I care little about at this point unless and until we ever see "FF" again. If we see "FF" again, then I'll worry about it. But I'm not worried about it today. The schedule for tomorrow will be as we detailed. We need to talk to--who is it? 320?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 320.

THE COURT: I don't have a memory on 320. Tomorrow, first the Darden motion, then jail visit motion, then scheduling for the DNA hearing, and then I will tell you what it is we're going to do with regard to 228 from that point on.

MR. COCHRAN: Great, Judge. We have 320.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: What is the allegation anyway?

THE COURT: And, Chris, would you call Rick and ask him where the file is on our first inquiry to the Sheriff's Department, because I had forgotten the name of the detective who is assigned to this case.

(Discussion between the Defense attorneys, the Prosecuting attorneys and the Court was held, not reported.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. Counsel, with regards to this matter, the memo is dated December the 2nd from "A", who appears to be a receptionist with the law offices of Mr. Cochran from the memorandum. And I'm going to ask Mrs. Robertson to file this in the court file at the appropriate time. The person is described as a coworker who was Hispanic and female, and the call is alleged to have been made November the 16th, 1994, which was after we selected the original 12 jurors in this case. Any comments from the Defense?

MR. COCHRAN: Only that--

THE COURT: We seem to have a happy group of jurors.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, it's their friends, not--maybe not so much the jurors. I just thought as an Officer of the Court, we needed to bring this to the Court's attention. When we came back from Court that day, "A" told us about this. I asked Mr. Douglas to have this put in some kind of memo form, and at the appropriate time, I would present it to your Honor. That's all that we've done. We haven't done any investigation. We haven't gone any further. I just think we should make inquiry--

MS. CLARK: Counsel couldn't investigate it because she was anonymous, left no phone number.

MR. COCHRAN: But I wouldn't even if I could have. I understand the jury is the Court's province.

MS. CLARK: We will see if counsel faces temptation.

THE COURT: Is "A" available? Because this statement is a little oblique as to what exactly was said because it says she talked about talking about the Defendant and beating his wife. Is there a little more detail to what exactly was said?

MR. COCHRAN: I have not talked to "A" about that. Perhaps she can be available by phone if you want to talk to her. Carl, you want to--I didn't ask her anything. I stayed away from her.

THE COURT: My concern, Mr. Douglas, is basically this. This is an anonymous phone call obliquely accusing a female Hispanic, which by process of elimination in a demographic description of who we have in our original 12, could only be one or two persons. One, perhaps the second person. So the other inquiry that I would make, could there have been a little more detail?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I was asked to call asking "A" recently to draft this letter and asking her about the content of the telephone call. She said that the caller discussed the fact that the juror had herself been the victim of some sort of non-physical abuse by the juror's husband and was relating the juror's own experience and this experience of O.J. Simpson and his wife. It had occurred after the jury had been selected. By coincidence, I looked at Juror 320's questionnaire, which confirmed that the juror had been subject to mental and emotional abuse, although it did not say physical abuse, in terms of having prior experience with domestic abuse. And I do not recall more about the exact specifics of the nature of the statements made about Mr. Simpson and his wife. But I do know, because "A" told me, that the juror herself had in fact been the subject of abuse. Interestingly, I will tell you also I recall that the juror's husband has more recently called "A" to deny that he had ever committed any physical abuse on the juror. So that's what caused me to look at the questionnaire. I would say that the questionnaire referred to mental or emotional, not physical abuse.

MR. DARDEN: I have some information on that point.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Shortly before the lunch recess when I went to the telephone--

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, you seem to be a magnet for this kind of stuff.

MR. COCHRAN: You'll take care of that tomorrow morning. You'll take care of that.

MR. DARDEN: After the Darden writ?

THE COURT: He'll be down at the Court of Appeal seeking a writ.

MR. DARDEN: I got a call from a guy named "R", whose telephone number is ***, though he thinks it's ************, and he mentioned something about 320 who was on the jury and said that she claimed that he had beaten her when he had not and--

MR. COCHRAN: Must be the same guy.

MR. DARDEN: That is your guy. He has called us--he's been calling us for a week.

MR. COCHRAN: There was one thing I wanted to add. I noticed yesterday when no. 320 came in, her mouth seemed to be bruised or--did you--

MS. CLARK: Cold sore, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: You were closer than we were. I saw a bruise on her mouth. It concerned me. I mentioned it to Bob. I wondered if someone struck her. There seemed to be a mark or something on her mouth.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Cochran. Is "A" available to come in and chat with us tomorrow?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. It will disrupt my whole organization, but yes. She is one of my receptionists. We can bring her in.

MR. SHAPIRO: I would like both her and Mr. Darden put under oath.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, I would like to have much more detail from her recollection than is conveyed in the memorandum.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

THE COURT: I would prefer to have her testimony before we drag somebody in here under the circumstances that we have here.

MR. COCHRAN: The only problem we have, Judge--and maybe we can work this out.

THE COURT: I'm reluctant to take any action just on anonymous information.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me throw this at you, Judge.

THE COURT: Why not?

MR. COCHRAN: No. I don't want to throw anything at you. She may have a problem coming here by herself. But if it's okay, we may want to do it on Monday.

THE COURT: I want to have--we are not going to have time to do all of this tomorrow. We can have her come back on Monday with everybody else. All right. Mr. Cochran, you'll make this person available tomorrow?

MR. COCHRAN: We'll have her here. Shaun will bring her personally tomorrow.

THE COURT: So we're clear, we will do those matters. And, Mr. Darden, you'll have the D.A.'s file for me by 5 o'clock, correct?

MR. SHAPIRO: Just may I make a suggestion?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SHAPIRO: That we go back out on the record and that perhaps you make at least an indication that there has been inquiry and the jury remains intact.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: I disagree, because then you are going to have to--at some point, it's going to become knowledge that one of them may not--and unless counsel wants attention drawn to that--we have not completed inquiry.

THE COURT: I'm just going to go out and thank them for their patience, excuse them and order them back for Monday. And it was 1:30 as I recall Monday?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1994 11:15 A.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. We are in chambers with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Caplan, Ms. Chapman, Mr. Uelmen, Mr. Kardashian and Mr. Douglas, People represented by Mr. Hodgman. Also present are members of my court staff. And we have present with us at this moment "A", that it's the Court's understanding that "A" is a ****** for the law offices of Johnnie L. Cochran, Junior. And, "A", the reason we are here in chambers is that you have submitted a memo to Mr. Cochran and other members of his law offices regarding a phone conversation that you received.

(Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden are now present.)

THE COURT: And the record should reflect we have now been joined by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. A phone conversation that transpired on or about November the 16th, 1994. "A", do you recall that conversation?

"A": Yes.

THE COURT: I need you as precisely as you can--and before I ask you to do that, I need to administer the oath. Mrs. Robertson.

THE CLERK: Can you please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

"A": Yes.

THE CLERK: Please state your name for the record.

"A": "A".

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: "A", you are a ****** employed by the law offices of Johnnie L. Cochran, Junior; is that correct?

"A": I am.

THE COURT: Would you tell me about this phone conversation that occurred on or about Friday, November the 16th, 1994? Approximately what time of the day or night was this?

"A": It was about--umm, about 9:02 the first time. And our phones were really ringing off the hook. A female caller called, asked if we were in fact the--if Mr. Cochran was in fact the attorney representing Mr. Simpson. I verified, and I had put her on hold real fast, came back to the line. She had hung up. And then she called back minutes later, and I too answered the call again. She then was very excited and she needed to vent, and she told me that she had a coworker who was a female member of the jury who happened to be Hispanic and that she was very upset because the coworker had come to work on more than one occasion stating that Mr. Simpson had been beating his wife. And she, the caller, didn't care to leave her name or number, but she was upset because she was concerned that Mr. Simpson would not be able to get a fair trial.

THE COURT: All right. Let's go back and go over in as precise detail as we can. You indicated the person indicated that she was acquainted with one of our jurors?

"A": She said she was a coworker.

THE COURT: Did she indicate where they were a coworker?

"A": She did not say where they worked. She said she was a coworker of one of the female she called--I think she referred to as Hispanic female, part of the 12-panel jury. She did in fact say 12 panel, which caught my attention.

THE COURT: All right. And did she tell you specifically what it is this panel member had said about Mr. Simpson?

"A": She simply stated that--

THE COURT: Can you tell me in the words of the person who said this to you?

"A": She said that--she said that she was--heard--she heard her female coworker on more than one occasion talking about O.J. Simpson and beating his wife.

THE COURT: Can you tell me what her words were to you?

"A": That's what she said. She said that she has heard her on more than one occasion come to work talking about O.J. Simpson and beating his wife.

THE COURT: Did she indicate to you when this had occurred?

"A": No, she did not. She didn't give me dates or times or whether it was a lunch break or anything.

THE COURT: And you indicated that she indicated that there's some concern that Mr. Simpson would not receive a fair trial. Can you tell me how that was communicated to you?

"A": She said it's very upsetting to her, the caller, that the coworker would do something like that that would possibly jeopardize a fair trial for Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: All right. You indicated this caller said that it is alleged that one of our Hispanic female jurors said something about Mr. Simpson and beating his wife?

"A": Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Did you learn any other information about any other statements made about Mr. Simpson other than in the context of beating his wife?

"A": No. That's all she said.

THE COURT: Has this person called back?

"A": Not to my knowledge. She did not choose to leave her name when I asked for a number.

THE COURT: Did you ask her for that information?

"A": I did.

THE COURT: Did this person give you any information about--any other personal information regarding this juror?

"A": Just her ethnicity and her sex and that she was a coworker and that she was a member of the 12-panel jury.

THE COURT: Did this person say anything about the juror's own experience regarding domestic violence?

"A": Not at all.

THE COURT: Can you tell me in the words of the caller what she said, in the first person what she said?

"A": She said, "Is this the same Attorney Cochran that's representing Mr. Simpson?" I said, "Yes, it is." And I put her on hold. When I came back, no caller. She called back. She says: "I am sorry. I had to hang up. But I just needed to talk to somebody about one of my coworkers who is Hispanic, and she is one of the 12-panel members on the jury. And it's really upsetting to me because she is at work talking about Mr. Simpson and his beating his wife, and I'm really upset because it jeopardizes the possibility of Mr. Simpson receiving a fair trial."

THE COURT: What did you say in response to that?

"A": And I said that, "I will give this information to Defense counsel," and, "Would you care to leave your name and number?" She said, "No, that's okay. I just needed to tell somebody that."

THE COURT: Was that the sum and substance of what was said?

"A": Correct.

THE COURT: And did she then hang up at this time?

"A": She did.

THE COURT: So this conversation took all of what? 30 seconds?

"A": If that long. Enough for her to tell me that. She started to, like I said, the first time. But when I went back, she was not there. So it was between like 9:03 and let's say 9:15 in the morning.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, do you have any further inquiry of "A"?

MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Hodgman, Miss Clark, any inquiry of "A"?

MS. CLARK: The date of the call was again?

"A": Friday the 16th.

MS. CLARK: November?

"A": Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: One moment.

THE COURT: Eight days after we selected the jury, the original 12.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I see that--I can't help but see that "A" has a piece of paper which she appeared to be reading from. Perhaps we could mark that and keep it with the Court.

THE COURT: "A", what is that?

"A": My notes recalling what I said in my own handwriting.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that's the handwritten version from which the typewritten was prepared.

THE COURT: If you would then hand that to Miss Robertson, our clerk, and we'll mark it as a Court's Exhibit for this hearing.

MR. COCHRAN: We'll get our copy of it.

THE COURT: Miss Robertson, would you make photocopies of that, half a dozen so each counsel can have a copy, please.

MR. HODGMAN: And, your Honor, may we have an opportunity to examine that before "A" is excused?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. CLARK: Can we inquire when the notes were made in relation to the call?

"A": I think it's dated the 30th of November.

MS. CLARK: So you wrote that up two weeks after you got the call?

"A": Well, what I did initially was, I took an initial message. And Mr. Douglas in our office and Mr. Cochran both specifically stated that I needed to make sure I recalled everything that I could about the call and just record it. So in longhand, I wrote it down on the 30th, but I had previous notes. They were abbreviated though.

MS. CLARK: Do you have the abbreviated notes?

"A": No.

MS. CLARK: Do you have them in the office?

"A": Possibly. I think either Mr. Douglas or I can look through our records and see.

MS. CLARK: Could we ask that "A" bring those, forward them through counsel?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And those abbreviated notes were taken when?

"A": Precise moment I took the call.

MS. CLARK: At the time of the call?

"A": Yeah.

THE COURT: Let's have Miss Robertson distribute that. Perhaps, Miss Robertson, you can give me the original. Thank you, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Could you tell whether the caller sounded Hispanic?

"A": She did not.

THE COURT: Could you tell anything that would help you identify this person?

"A": She sounded as if she could have been in her late 40's or early 50's. She spoke good English. There was no accent to speak of.

THE COURT: All right. I don't have any further inquiry then. "A", thank you very much for coming in and speaking to us. I'm going to order you not to discuss this issue with any other person other than the lawyers involved in this case--

"A": Okay.

THE COURT: --until I order you otherwise or the case is concluded. Obviously since you work for one of the law firms here, you can't talk to the press anyway. But just so we have a clear understanding, okay? I apologize to you because I know you've been here all morning. But things sort of took longer than we anticipated. We also got a slow start this morning. I appreciate you taking the time to come. You finally got to come in and see what your boss does when he's at work.

"A": Thank you. I've known for nine and a half years.

THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.

"A": Thank you.

("A" exited chambers.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1994 9:25 A.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted, Mr. Hodgman not being present.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: Let's start with the first one, "B".

("B" entered chambers.)

THE COURT: "B", good morning.

"B": Good morning.

THE COURT: I'm Lance Ito. These are the lawyers here, Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran. Why don't you just toss your jacket there, and why don't you take her purse and things there, Deirdra. All right. "B", first of all, thank you very much for coming down this morning. We certainly appreciate your taking your own personal time to come down here. I'm sure things are nicer, more pleasant up in ****** these days.

"B": Not necessarily.

THE COURT: ****** being Spanish for ******. Nice little place up in the ****** there. I'm going to have to put you under oath because of the nature of these proceedings. But before I do that, let me tell you what we're doing here. I am going to be asking you certain questions about your knowledge concerning one of our jurors, 228--and it's my understanding this is based upon your past employment with the Hertz Corporation--and any contact that he may have had with regard to our Defendant here, Mr. Simpson. Miss Robertson, is there someone out there that can answer those phones? I have to wait for my clerk to come back.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. And, Mrs. Robertson, would you administer the oath to "B", please.

"B", called as a witness by the Court, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell your first and last names for the record.

THE WITNESS: "B".

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. "B", let me begin by asking, apparently you were at some point in time employed by the Hertz Corporation; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: And can you tell me the dates of your employment?

THE WITNESS: I was employed with the Hertz Corporation from **** to ****.

THE COURT: Can you tell me what your job duties were?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm going to ask you specifically, do you mean by duties, when I worked in Los Angeles or the time I worked in Los Angeles, because I terminated my employment with Hertz in ******.

THE COURT: Okay. Tell me--first of all, just give me a basic run-down of your employment history with the Hertz Corporation; when, what locations.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I worked at the Los Angeles Airport from **** to **** in the capacity of ********. I then was transferred to ******** in **** of **** to Los Angeles, downtown. In ****, I was transferred back to the ********, which is across the street from the airport facility, and became the ******** for the ********. In ****, I was transferred to ******** and was the ******** for ********, downtown. In ****, I was a **********, which were operational locations. From there, ****--****, I then went to the ******** as the **********.

THE COURT: Where is that office located?

THE WITNESS: It's located at **********.

THE COURT: In the ********?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: In ********?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: "B", while you were at the LAX facility from **** to ****, did you have contact with a person known to you as 228?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And can you tell me how it is that you are acquainted with 228?

THE WITNESS: I was a ********. He was a **********.

THE COURT: And what was the nature of your contact? How would you come in contact with each other?

THE WITNESS: When you needed a vehicle, you had to call the dispatch booth. When I first went to Hertz, I would get car information from the dispatcher.

THE COURT: Would you deal with 228 on a daily basis?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: Can you describe him for me, please?

THE WITNESS: In those days, he was short in nature, very jovial, very easy to get along with, was always very friendly and courteous, never lost his temper. Just a real nice, honorable, fair guy.

THE COURT: Can you give me anything else about his physical description; ethnic background, relative age?

THE WITNESS: He was black. I am sorry, I don't know how old he was. I would say he was not over 40 and maybe 30 or somewhere around in there. I'm very bad at ages.

THE COURT: Okay. "B", can you tell me if you have had any contact with the Defendant in this case, Mr. O.J. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: I have to ask you, how do you mean that?

THE COURT: Well, you tell me. Have you seen him?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Been introduced to him?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Been in his presence?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Tell me about those experiences.

THE WITNESS: Being several, starting out as a rental rep and then moving up to customer service. My contact as a rental rep would be, there was a function called Special Board in Hertz, and all the luxury and foreign vehicles, meaning vehicles that were not from the Los Angeles pool, were recorded and tracked and logged on Special Board. If a client wanted a particular car out of the luxury cars, let's say they wanted a blue Cadillac, they would call Special Board and make the request for that car. Sometimes, some clients called directly or their secretaries called. Sometimes they would get to the airport or they would get to the dispatch booth and request the car. So there was that contact. Mr. Simpson used to come to the facilities, just to walk through in getting his car or picking up a vehicle. Requests were made from his office for particular cars to be set up. He would come out to the facility to meet the employees and sign autographs. There is a--as years went on--when I was here, I lived in Westwood; and where I went to the market, there's a restaurant that I used to frequent in Beverly Hills, and I would see him around town there. When I moved up to the ********, there were licensee annual meetings. Let's use an example; at the ***************. O.J. would come in and appear with "C" and the rest of the chain, you know, the Company, and shake hands and mingle with the licensees and have dinner and talk and do whatever. When Hertz was going through a leverage buyout, there was a meeting in Chicago, and Mr. Simpson was there at the meeting, this party to get everybody to buy--it was a way of getting certain managers at certain levels to buy stock in the Hertz Corporation. So he was there pushing that. I used to see him in the supermarket. So that's my contact.

THE COURT: Okay. Would you consider yourself to be an acquaintance of Mr. Simpson's?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: When you saw him in the restaurant scenario, would you--would he say hello to you or do you think he would recognize you from--

THE WITNESS: It was more like eye contact and seeing somebody and acknowledging they looked familiar, or I'd see him at like a particular--the Open House function that we were--I was introduced to him. At the licensee meeting, I was introduced to him. At the stock meeting, I was introduced to him. If he walked through, it was always acknowledging him, or if you were wearing a name tag, he would say your name. But I can't say that he would look at you and acknowledge, you know, not wearing a name tag who you were.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, what brings you here is, you apparently have some knowledge of contacts by 228 with Mr. Simpson. Can you tell me about that?

THE WITNESS: There's one particular incident when Hertz started expanding. They have an 18-acre lot on ********. When that facility was built, there was an Open House for the employees. I was on the Open House committee along with eight other people, 10 other people, and we were doing an Open House for the employees. And O.J. Simpson came to that function with Marcus Allen, and we were introduced to him individually and shook his hand. And he stayed a couple hours and mingled with everybody and talked.

THE COURT: All right. Were you present--did you personally observe any contact between 228 and Mr. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: Yes. When we were all introduced.

THE COURT: Tell me the details about how that happened.

THE WITNESS: We were--the ******** was "D" at the time, and he--the committee was there. There weren't any other employees. And he introduced us individually by name to O.J. Simpson. And O.J. at the time would say, Marcus Allen, so we all shook his hand. That was it. Now, if--I'm probably skipping, so I won't say any more.

THE COURT: No. Tell me what you recall.

THE WITNESS: If 228 as I know him, 228, stood and talked to him, I can't recollect that. I can't tell you what their conversation was. I can't tell you that I stood and talked to O.J. all I can tell you is no, I didn't talk to him because I know that for a fact. And there was another incident involved.

THE COURT: Tell me about that.

THE WITNESS: It was--it was similar to--there was a bus driver, "I", and O.J. and Marcus Allen were spending a lot of time with "I" and flirting with her and she was flirting back with them. So that's what was going on most of the time.

THE COURT: "B", I received something that was a brochure of some sort that indicated there was a committee for this event. Were you on that committee?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.

THE COURT: Was 228 on that committee as well?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So these were the people who actually arranged or did the planning for this event?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it's your recollection that 228 was introduced to Mr. Simpson in a reception line type of situation?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And you have a specific recollection of that occurring?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We were all--and to even verify that, I submitted two other names, you know, based on the phone call that I received and asked for those people to be called. One happens to be a ******** still with Hertz and the other is in the ******** area who was a ******** at the time, and their names are stated in the article as well.

THE COURT: "B", can you tell me why you felt it was necessary to come forward in this matter?

THE WITNESS: I don't even know if I can necessarily say I came forward. I got a phone call one Saturday afternoon, and someone asked me, "Do you"--I didn't know what was going on to be honest with you, and they started asking, "Do you remember da, da, da?" And I said, "Yeah," and I started talking about it. And that's when I was told that an article had been sent to you. And then I received a phone call from a reporter, and I said, you know, "I am sorry. The information has been submitted. I would like to wait." And they persisted, and then the D.A.'s office called me as well. And then from that time, other people came forth. They said, "Do you have a problem saying this to the Judge," and I said, "No, not at all, because I don't feel I'm saying anything incriminating. I'm only stating what was going on." You had asked an earlier question of me of were there other occasions when 228 would have had contact with O.J. Simpson.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

THE WITNESS: In the old days, for instance, a customer would walk up to the dispatch booth, which is located--was located both at the entrance and exit of the Hertz facility at **********. Some customers would get off of a United flight let's say and they would have their rental agreement, and they would walk over to the dispatch booth and go up to the dispatcher and ask for the key directly. Now, "E", who is the other name that I gave, would know specifically how many times O.J. came up to the booth to ask for a key, and 228 gave him the key. So to say that I saw him get a key, no, I can't say that.

THE COURT: But it's your impression that that's a likelihood?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: I think really the question that I'm asking you--and please don't be insulted by the question--is your motivation for coming forward.

THE WITNESS: Okay. That he did have contact. It was my understanding that this person said he didn't have contact, and he did.

THE COURT: So you want to set the record straight?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. Tell me about your relationship with 228. Did you ever have any dispute with him?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Any feelings of animosity with him?

THE WITNESS: No, none at all. That's why I said he was always very--in fact, of all the ********, he was always very easygoing, likable, very friendly.

THE COURT: My impression from what you've said so far is that you got involved in this by somebody calling you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And saying, "Do you remember that, this and this?"

THE WITNESS: Yes. It was more, "Do you remember this event? Do you remember the Open House," and them asking me about the Open House.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cochran, do you have any inquiry you want to suggest?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I have several questions, your Honor. I would like to find out who it was that called and asked her about the event.

THE COURT: Who called you and asked you about this initially?

THE WITNESS: "F".

THE COURT: "F".

MR. COCHRAN: Is she a Hertz employee?

THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, she is a Hertz employee currently.

MR. COCHRAN: In L.A. I presume?

THE WITNESS: Yes, at the Los Angeles Airport.

THE COURT: "B", if you have no objection, I am going to ask Mr. Cochran to ask you a few questions directly.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: No problem. Good morning. As far as you know, when was this phone call from "F"?

THE WITNESS: I'd say two weeks ago Saturday. It's two or three weeks, and it was on a Saturday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: And you had known her when you worked down here?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What did she say in that conversation?

THE WITNESS: She had told me that she's getting ready to retire and she's moving, and she was going through all this Hertz memorabilia, like she still had all the employee bulletins and she had all the Hertz World copies, you know, magazines and things like that. So--I'm probably telling you more than you want to know. I felt that she knew when she called me what she was asking for. And I didn't get that impression at first. It was almost like a bait and switch. "Well, do you remember the Open House committee? Tell me about the Open House committee." And then later on, at the end of the phone call, she said, "Well, I have this article that's been turned in to Judge Ito." So I almost feel, to be honest with you, that I was put in a position to say something. At that time, I did give her "G's" name.

THE COURT: How do you spell that?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: We'll spell it phonetically, "G". Anyone else?

THE WITNESS: "E".

MR. COCHRAN: These were two people that you felt had been--

THE WITNESS: They were on the committee. They were ******** at the time. "G" was a ******** of ********** and "E" was a ******** of the ********.

MR. COCHRAN: So basically you knew nothing about this--

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: --until she called?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't know Mr. 228 was on the jury at all?

THE WITNESS: Actually I did.

MR. COCHRAN: You read that?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't read it.

MR. COCHRAN: How did you know?

THE WITNESS: People that have worked for Hertz a long time still keep a network of things. So the ********** of the **********, who I'm friends with in ********, called me to tell me.

MR. COCHRAN: But you just--that was something you just processed?

THE WITNESS: I just processed like that's interesting, good, he's fair, he's a good guy.

MR. COCHRAN: And then you get this call from "F", and she seems to know--at that time, she's telling you that a document has been sent to Judge Ito already; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Was it clear to you that--who sent the document to Judge Ito?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did she ever say she sent it?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And based upon your conversation with "F", what did you next do in connection with this, if anything?

THE WITNESS: To tell you the truth--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: --I went to the gym. And on the way to pick up the person that I go to the gym with, I picked up the car phone and called somebody who is currently with Hertz and said, "You won't believe this hoot." So--and proceeded to tell them what was going on.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you do anything official at that point with regard to the Judge, with Judge Ito or anyone else?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. In fact, if I did anything, I said wait, you know, your "A" agenda might be his "C" agenda and just wait, you know.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions. Did you--you said you received a call from someone in the District Attorney's office.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When was that in relation to "F's" call?

THE WITNESS: That was last week.

MR. COCHRAN: And who called you? Who did they identify themselves as?

THE WITNESS: They identified themselves. They gave me their name. By that point, "H" had already called me to say that they were going to call.

MR. COCHRAN: We'll get back to that. Who was this person that called you?

THE WITNESS: It's an assistant to Chris. And I wrote the name down, and I am sorry, I don't have it in my--

MR. COCHRAN: You say "Chris." You mean this gentleman here, Christopher Darden?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was given Christopher Darden's name. And then "H" said, "Don't speak to anybody but Christopher Darden." The D.A. asked me to call him back to make sure that, you know, that I understood who he was.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I understand. This assistant to Mr. Darden, was he a lawyer also?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: He was a lawyer. Do you know his name?

THE WITNESS: No, I can't recall his name right now. If I heard it, I would tell you.

MR. COCHRAN: But it was a lawyer, an assistant to Christopher Darden. And the instructions were for you to call Darden back?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Let me clarify that.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

THE WITNESS: He was an attorney or associate in the D.A.'s office. He didn't say specifically that he was an assistant to Christopher Darden. He said he was working with Mr. Darden.

MR. COCHRAN: But your clear impression was, he was a lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in the D.A.'s office.

MR. COCHRAN: And through that conversation, you made arrangements to call Christopher Darden back?

THE WITNESS: In that conversation, that person insisted, for my reasons of authenticity, to call him back. He gave me the number.

MR. COCHRAN: What do you mean by that?

THE COURT: To verify who it was?

THE WITNESS: Verify who it was.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you then call Darden back?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Well, I called that person back, not Christopher Darden back.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember that person's name?

THE WITNESS: No. But if somebody told me what the name was, I--I'm a little nervous.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I understand.

MR. DARDEN: Can I give the name?

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, do you know who that was?

MR. DARDEN: Gary Schram.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: So you called Gary Schram again; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about that.

THE WITNESS: He asked me specific questions about working at Hertz and how the facility, the Hertz facility on ********** was set up. He asked me about the Open House and the functions of what everybody was doing or my recollection just like Judge Ito had asked me. I gave him "G's" and "E's" name. At that point, he said he wanted to have me sign an affidavit and he was going to type everything up and read it to me over the phone and fax it to the ****** police. He read it to me. He made some corrections. The ****** police came to my house. I read the document very carefully and explicitly and signed my name, and it was witnessed by a sheriff, and that was the end.

MR. COCHRAN: If I may approach, I have a copy. I'll come over to you. Excuse me, Miss Clark. This is a document purported to be a declaration, and at the top appears to have been faxed to the ******** County Sheriff's from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Bureau of Investigation. And there's a signature, "B".

THE WITNESS: Yes. That's me.

MR. COCHRAN: That would be December 8th?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That was I guess last week. And you had this witnessed?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That was the sheriff.

MR. COCHRAN: And this was fairly accurate?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You read it over. This was all instituted after our conversation sometime during the week of December 8th?

THE WITNESS: No. It was the same day that Gary had called me.

MR. COCHRAN: This all took place on the same date, December 8th, which was a Thursday, last Thursday?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as he talked to you, this declaration was filled out, and you then signed it, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever talk to Christopher Darden?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You referred to him as Chris. When did you first meet him?

THE WITNESS: I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: You just called him Chris. Did they call him Chris? Did Gary Schram call him Chris?

THE WITNESS: No. "H" called him Chris.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you had told us that "H" had called you prior to Gary Schram calling you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So that sequence of events, the first person who called you--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. Let me interrupt you just for a second. Forgive me for doing that. I just wanted to--Mrs. Robertson, the signed statement, December the 8th, signed by "B", the Court's copy of that will be Court's exhibit 1 for this proceeding.

(Court's 1 for id = copy of declaration dated December 8)

THE COURT: All right. Just so the record is clear.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You just shifted subjects.

MR. COCHRAN: You had I believe told us that your first contact was two, three weeks ago with "F".

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And then we skipped to a conversation with Gary Schram. But in the interim, between the two, you had a conversation with "H"?

THE WITNESS: I had several conversations with "H".

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us from the sequential standpoint, when was the first time you heard from "H"?

THE WITNESS: It was actually I want to say the following Tuesday from the Saturday that "F" called me. I would have to look at my phone records to be precise. I had another conversation with "F" or "F" called me and explained that "H" was involved. And I proceeded to ask for "H's" number because at that point--I am sorry. "H" is one of those people--it's like, "This sounds like really official. What the hell is going on? Let me ask "H". I want somebody to tell me what's really going on."

MR. COCHRAN: You made that statement about it sounding official?

THE WITNESS: It sounds like somebody's progressed--it was like that Tuesday, "F" had told me that the document was turned in to Judge Ito, where before, I was led to believe that it had not been turned in to Judge Ito. So the following Tuesday from the Saturday, she called to say, "Oh, by the way, it's been turned in to Judge Ito."

MR. COCHRAN: When you say, "She," you're talking about "F"?

THE WITNESS: "F".

MR. COCHRAN: So you talked to her on Saturday, you talked to her on Tuesday.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: By Tuesday, you thought it had become more official?

THE WITNESS: Meaning someone had a document and what the hell is this whole story.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you understand that document to be that was turned in to Judge Ito?

THE WITNESS: The article from the Hertz World about the Open House.

MR. COCHRAN: And by the way, so that we're clear and the record is clear, this Open House that we've been talking about where you said that O.J. Simpson and Marcus Allen were introduced to all the Open House committee and talked to "I", what was the date of that Open House?

THE WITNESS: It was June of 1982. I couldn't tell you the specific date.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you have a clear recollection as you sit here now that 228 was a representative--

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: For the reporter, I need a yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: The answer is yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall seeing O.J. Simpson shake his hand or do you know if O.J. Simpson shook the hands of the committee?

THE WITNESS: To answer your question more precisely, I would say from my recollection, that we were all introduced individually and we all went up and shook his hand. So I can tell you that in my memory, yes, I see it happening. I can't say yes, I stood there and watched every single person shake his hand and they shook it this way or they made that kind of comment.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand it was 12 years ago. What you're saying to us is, you don't have an independent recollection of seeing 228 shake O.J. Simpson's hand--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: May I finish the question?

THE COURT: She answered my question very directly.

MR. COCHRAN: As I understand your testimony, you don't have an independent recollection of seeing O.J. Simpson shake 228's hand now at this point?

THE WITNESS: I am sorry. I don't understand your question.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this. You described that O.J. Simpson and Marcus Allen were introduced to all the people on the committee.

THE WITNESS: Yes. We were all standing there in a line waiting for the time to occur where it was officially the Open House.

THE COURT: And, "B", when you say, "We were all," was it all Hertz employees or the eight on the committee or the 10 on the committee?

THE WITNESS: The committee with the ********** and the ********** at the time, which was "J".

MR. COCHRAN: Who was the **********?

THE WITNESS: "D".

MR. COCHRAN: And the **********?

THE WITNESS: "J".

MR. COCHRAN: And my question then is whether or not you have an independent recollection today of seeing O.J. Simpson actually shake hands with 228 at that time.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. The question is vague.

THE COURT: No objections. Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm trying to find out--when he says recollection, you know, I can remember all of us shaking hands, but--and I have this picture in my mind, but I feel like you're asking me is there a snapshot somewhere. Do you--

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just asking if you recall seeing 228 shake O.J. Simpson's hand.

THE WITNESS: To my recollection, yes. I'm going to state it that way. To my recollection, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You picture that at this point?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, anyone else--and there were a number of other people present during this time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who would have been there at this time; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, to continue on, you told us then that "F" called you back on that Tuesday and you knew that things became more official.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And then was it after that that you first talked to "H"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And tell us about that.

THE WITNESS: That was that Tuesday afternoon, and it ended up being a three-hour conversation because we ended up talking about personal things or people we knew.

MR. COCHRAN: Three hours?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about--well, you don't have to tell us all three hours, but can you condense it for us, that conversation as it relates to this case?

THE WITNESS: As it related to the case was, was this article turned in? You know, "F's" telling me this article was turned in. Was this turned in? Who turned it in? Who received it? Did anybody give it to the D.A.'s office? Why are you giving it until Friday for them to respond to you? At that point, there was discussion of selling the story.

MR. COCHRAN: Who had that discussion?

THE WITNESS: I guess "H" had had the discussion with "F". And they asked me did I want to talk to a reporter, and I said no.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, it's true, is it not, that either "H" or "F" ultimately sold the story? Isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one was it who sold the story?

THE WITNESS: I would say from my--without being physically there and hearing conversations on the phone, I would say it was "H". Not "H" directly. It was an acquaintance of "H's" that was selling the story.

MR. COCHRAN: For "H"?

THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was for "H". I just know that it was--

MR. COCHRAN: What publication was it sold to?

THE WITNESS: I was told it was the Enquirer. And it wasn't until I received a phone call from the reporter and then called them back and verified that it was The Star.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware that The Star is owned by the Enquirer?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Good for you.

THE COURT: Can you tell me, if you know, what financial arrangement was made to sell the story?

THE WITNESS: Actually, I didn't. And I had to call--when I spoke to the reporter, I didn't even ask how much it was or anything. And I immediately told "F" and "H" no, I wasn't interested in receiving any money. And then when the reporter called me, it was a Sunday evening, at home, he asked me, you know, specifically did I have any pictures, different things about the operation. At that point, he never discussed money with me. And it was like the following I would say like the Tuesday or the Monday--so that would have been like the 5th or the 6th because it was before I was contacted by Gary--that I asked "H", "So how much are you getting for this?" And then at that point--no. It was the week before that. So it would have been November. So it was after Thanksgiving. They gave an amount. And then when I spoke to the reporter that Sunday, which would have been the 4th to clear everything up, he said he would like to send me $500 for the story. And it was that following Monday or Tuesday when I spoke to "F", you know, to verify when was the story going on, da, da, da, that I was told they were not being paid. No, I have not received a check or anything in the mail or been paid for the story.

THE COURT: Have you received any money?

THE WITNESS: No. That's what I am saying, I have not received any money.

THE COURT: Have you made any agreements to receive any money for this?

THE WITNESS: It was that Sunday, and he said he would send me $500. But I haven't gotten anything.

THE COURT: Did you expect to receive anything for talking to that reporter?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

THE COURT: Did you sign any agreement to sell any information to anybody?

THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell him not to send the $500?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And what was the name of the reporter?

THE WITNESS: His last name was Frost and his first name was Tony.

MR. COCHRAN: Tony Frost. Before we get to him, in the conversation that you had had with "H", she had told you she was going to get some money. What was the amount she said she was getting?

THE WITNESS: She led me to believe that it was between 60- and $80,000.

MR. COCHRAN: 60- and 80,000?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you say she led you to believe, what do you mean by that?

THE WITNESS: That's what she said was being negotiated.

MR. COCHRAN: That was with The Star?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: How did that strike you?

THE WITNESS: Pretty absurd. I am sorry. I understand the value of a dollar, and it didn't seem like it was that big of a story to me. Maybe I was missing something.

MR. COCHRAN: Who came up with the 60- to 80,000 figure? Was that "H" and "F" both?

THE WITNESS: No. I understood "F" didn't--wasn't interested in any part of that, that it's "K" who was the one who wanted to sell the story and that he was the individual negotiating this. He had some friend call me that was very unprofessional on the phone, and I understood that he was supposed to receive a cut of the money. So it was like four ways; "H", "K", ****** and "F" I thought was getting money.

MR. COCHRAN: So the four of them?

THE WITNESS: But "F", when I asked "F" specifically about it, she said no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me ask, were you ever part of the negotiations to receive money for this information?

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. Not that I acknowledged because I even told "F" and "H" I didn't want any of it. But then I'm thinking in the back of my mind, well, okay, if somebody wants to pay me, I mean--and then I actually called somebody with Hertz and--who is a personal friend and starting asking about it. I said this is absolutely absurd.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not "H", "F" or "K" have received any of this money thus far? Do you know of your own knowledge?

THE WITNESS: I was told by "H" after. So that Sunday the 4th that I spoke to Tony, it was like that Tuesday or Monday I was told they weren't getting anything, they felt they had been ripped off.

MR. COCHRAN: But they planned to, but then The Star ripped them off?

THE WITNESS: Yes. And to me, it was no skin off my nose because I didn't feel--

MR. COCHRAN: Who told you that? "H" told you that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: "H" has a lawyer now; does she not? Are you aware--have you seen her since you've been here today?

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, just--I'm almost through, your Honor. You mentioned that you heard from a reporter at some point.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: So let's go back just for a moment. When you talked to "H" on Tuesday, did she ask you to talk to the reporter?

THE WITNESS: No, she didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn't. It was another phone call.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about that.

THE WITNESS: She said this individual was going to call me and would I mind talking to him. And it was the friend of the "K", and he was asking me a bunch of questions. I said, "I'm not going to talk to you on the phone. I don't know who you are."

MR. COCHRAN: Was this the unprofessional individual?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What was his name?

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: And if you have some notes or something that would help you, feel free to use them, if the Court has no objection.

THE COURT: No. Referring to her Day Runner.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have it under "U"?

THE WITNESS: Do I have it under "U"? Pretty close.

MR. COCHRAN: For unprofessional? That was just a joke.

THE WITNESS: "L". He gave me his phone number and his beeper number, and I was to call him back on the 30th of November.

MR. COCHRAN: So that meant--do you know what date he called you then?

THE WITNESS: So that meant that he called me--he had to call me that Tuesday.

MR. COCHRAN: And that Tuesday before--

THE WITNESS: Would be the 29th.

MR. COCHRAN: 29th?

THE WITNESS: Of November.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you mind--if the Court asks you, will you give us his number?

THE WITNESS: Sure. I have two numbers. ************, and his pager number is ****--

MR. COCHRAN: The first number is what?

THE WITNESS: ****--

MR. COCHRAN: What was that? Was that his home number or--

THE WITNESS: I don't know. That was just--and his beeper number was ************.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he called you, was it clear he was calling because--at the behest of either "H" or "K"?

THE WITNESS: He was calling--yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So he had gotten your number from them?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What was he asking you to do?

THE WITNESS: He was asking me information regarding my acquaintance with 228 and my events about the Open House.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And did you cooperate with him or tell him you would talk to Tony Frost or anything about that?

THE WITNESS: No. This was even before talking to Tony Frost.

MR. COCHRAN: How did the conversation end with him?

THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, he was the individual negotiating with Tony Frost.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he tell you that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What did he say?

THE WITNESS: He was meeting with the reporter.

MR. COCHRAN: And then what else did he say?

THE WITNESS: And that did he have permission to give my name to the reporter.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you say?

THE WITNESS: I said yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he mention money to you at that time?

THE WITNESS: No, he did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he tell you what he was negotiating at that point in time?

THE WITNESS: No, he didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he ask to give--

THE WITNESS: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. I cannot remember actually if he said if he's negotiating money. I'm trying to remember where the money conversation came in.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You just don't remember?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. COCHRAN: At any rate, you told him he could give your name and your number to the reporter?

THE WITNESS: Right. But I was under the understanding at that point that the reporter was coming to ********** to meet me and talk about it.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the reporter do that?

THE WITNESS: No, he did not.

MR. COCHRAN: What happened?

THE WITNESS: That Friday, which would have been it looks like the 2nd, I got a phone call from "L" from a phone booth saying that he was there meeting with the reporter and would I talk to the reporter on the phone. And I said, "No, absolutely not. This isn't--no. This is not right. This is--" you know, "Would you please let the officials do their job?" I felt they hadn't given it enough time.

MR. COCHRAN: So you refused to talk to the reporter on that Friday?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you at some time later talk to the reporter?

THE WITNESS: That's when the reporter called me later on, I would say it's about 5:30 in the evening, and gave me his number. And I called to verify the number through information and called him back.

MR. COCHRAN: This is the conversation with Tony Frost?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us briefly about that conversation.

THE WITNESS: He basically asked me did I--he asked me questions of information he had. He asked me different things about 228's character that I knew nothing about. He asked me questions about the Open House and did O.J. attend the Open House and was 228 there. And I said yes, he was a member of the committee. He asked me about 228's job function like how the operation worked; specifically like in the old days, would a person have physical contact with customers. And I said yes. And at that point, he said that he was writing the story or he was meeting--I was under the impression he was meeting with somebody in the D.A.'s office to--this is what the reporter told me.

MR. COCHRAN: What did he say about meeting with somebody?

THE WITNESS: He said, "I'm meeting with somebody in the D.A.'s office and I'm going to be writing the story over the weekend. So can I call you and ask you more questions?"

MR. COCHRAN: And this is the weekend of--

THE WITNESS: That was the weekend. So that would have been the 4th, which was that Sunday night that he called me.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he say who he was meeting with at the D.A.'s office?

THE WITNESS: No, he did not, and I didn't ask.

MR. COCHRAN: Was it during this conversation--

THE WITNESS: Well, wait. I want to clarify. Sorry. Good story teller here I guess. I asked him specifically did--were they aware of the article and were there other people involved, was I not the only person involved, because I didn't want to be the only person coming forward. At that time, he told me there were 30 other people that had contacted the D.A.'s office and that he was looking into it and no, I wasn't the only one. So at that point, I felt comfortable like I wasn't the only one.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, Mr. Frost told you there were 30 other people who contacted the D.A.'s office?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: You were just one of many?

THE WITNESS: Right. At that time, I called "F", I said, "Who are the other people that are calling in?"

MR. COCHRAN: What did she say?

THE WITNESS: She said she didn't know. And then when I spoke to "H" again, I said, "Who are these other people?"

MR. COCHRAN: And she said she didn't know either?

THE WITNESS: She said "M". "Was it "M" or "M"? But it wasn't "G". I told the reporter just like I told "H" and just like I told "F", "Please call "E". Please call "G"."

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know if they called them?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: It was in this conversation, this Sunday the 4th conversation that the reporter Tony Frost told you he would be sending you $500?

THE WITNESS: That was the conversation, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At what point in the conversation did he tell you that?

THE WITNESS: At the end. At the end.

MR. COCHRAN: He hasn't sent it yet?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You never met him personally?

THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, after that, did you have contact with someone in connection with this case after this Sunday the 4th conversation? Between the 4th and the time you talked to Gary Schram on the 8th, did you talk to anybody else about this case?

THE WITNESS: No. You mean anybody else from the D.A.'s office?

MR. COCHRAN: D.A.'s office, reporters or friends.

THE WITNESS: No. Well, friends, yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Same friends? Any new friends?

THE WITNESS: No. Same friends.

MR. COCHRAN: And then at some point, you talked to a Deputy Downs?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was within--that was this week I presume?

THE WITNESS: Right. That was this week.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to anybody else in the D.A.'s office that you have not told us about?

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you talked to the reporter again?

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: When was the last time you talked to "H"?

THE WITNESS: It was this week sometime she called me. And I was rushing out the door. So I would have to say the 30th. And I explained to her I've got my own problem going on right now, I don't have time to think about this, this is not a priority on my list.

MR. COCHRAN: In that conversation, did she talk about the money again?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Just--

THE WITNESS: Oh, she explained--she said, "Did you know that you're not just meeting with Judge Ito, that you are meeting with Marcia Clark and Robert Shapiro?" And at that point, I was like running out the door, and I said, "No, they didn't tell me that. I don't have time to deal with this," and--I'm sorry. I've been in my own world dealing with personal things as opposed to this.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand. Did she say how she knew you would be meeting with Marcia Clark and Robert Shapiro?

THE WITNESS: Uh-uh. I cut her off. I didn't have time to get into it and I didn't need the information. It wasn't--I'm one of those people, if you don't--if I can't process it and deal with it, don't give it to me now.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was the last time you spoke with her?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you or "F" or anyone have any pictures of this function that took place in June of 1982?

THE WITNESS: "F" asked me the same thing. And the picture--and it's the same thing Tony Frost asked me. The Hertz Corporation would have photos I am assuming somewhere in a file back--well, in those days, the office was at **********, and they moved to **********. Because if the article was published back at ************, that's where the pictures would be. I don't have any pictures. I didn't take pictures. I'm not one of those people to take pictures of celebrities.

MR. COCHRAN: "N" was the ******** of Hertz at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he is.

MR. COCHRAN: Still ********?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Still in **********?

THE WITNESS: I don't know that.

MR. COCHRAN: The headquarters is in **********?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden. You will be out of here quickly.

THE WITNESS: I'm nervous.

MR. DARDEN: You indicated earlier that you telephoned someone at Hertz, a friend.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What is the name of that friend?

THE WITNESS: I can't give that name.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. DARDEN: Is that person an executive at Hertz?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he is.

MR. DARDEN: Is that person "D"?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did that person work at Hertz in 1982?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did that person work in the ********--

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: --in 1982? Is that person male or female?

THE WITNESS: Male.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us the conversation you had with that person at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. "F"--the length of the conversation--it's a battle to go--I seem to be the only person to be able to go 10 rounds with "F" because it's not just one thing. You can't have a 10-minute conversation. So it was like, "This is what "F" is doing. You won't believe the new one," and basically what I was going through in my life and why, you know, it all happens at the same time.

MR. DARDEN: Was this person a committee member?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Was this person present at the function June `82?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen 228 in possession of an autographed photograph of O.J. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever seen him in possession of an autographed photo of any celebrity?

THE WITNESS: No celebrity.

MR. DARDEN: Was there a football pool or betting pool going on?

THE WITNESS: Everybody keeps on asking me this. I don't know. I never partook in them, so I don't know. I could say yes, there have been, but I don't know who's running them.

MR. DARDEN: You indicated that Tony Frost asked you questions regarding 228's character.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What were those questions?

THE WITNESS: Did he run the football pool, did he have a gambling habit, did I know if he went to Las Vegas.

MR. DARDEN: And what was your response to those questions?

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no, no. Can I interject something here?

MR. DARDEN: Sure.

THE WITNESS: When I worked at Hertz, even in those days, I was going to school full-time and working full-time and overtime at ******. So when I came into work, I came in to do my job. And in-between doing whatever, I studied. So it was like I didn't have time. I didn't mingle with people. I didn't--you know, I didn't have time. You know, if I had conversations in the day with them, that's what I did.

MR. DARDEN: You indicated earlier that--strike that. Where exactly did 228 work in 1982?

THE WITNESS: In ****, he still worked in ******** at the Los Angeles Airport, but it was set up differently. By that time, we were into busing.

MR. DARDEN: And there's a booth near the dispatch area?

THE WITNESS: The dispatch area is a booth.

MR. DARDEN: And customers would approach the booth?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And it was at that booth that they would retrieve keys to vehicles?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Keys were turned in to go up on the board.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And so 228 worked inside the dispatch booth?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did 228 ever tell you that he met Mr. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Has anyone told you that they saw 228 meet Mr. Simpson in the reception line?

THE WITNESS: No, because--no.

MR. DARDEN: "F" didn't tell you that?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: "H" didn't tell you that?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you spoken to "G"?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: How many people did you say that there were on the committee?

THE WITNESS: I thought there were between eight and 10.

MR. DARDEN: Then there was the **********?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the **********?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: So then it was approximately 12 people, 10 to 12 people then--

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --that met Mr. Simpson and Mr. Allen also?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was there anyone on the committee that did not shake Mr. Simpson's hand?

THE WITNESS: "D" and "J".

MR. DARDEN: But everyone else did?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Are you certain of that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, no. I mean from my recollection 12 years ago, yes; but no.

MR. DARDEN: Do you remember that "D" and Mr.--was it "J"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --did not.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Have you had any contact with 228 since you left Hertz?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever been to his home?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Can I have a moment?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: Had you planned to negotiate with Tony Frost for more money?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: That is prior to your contact with him?

THE WITNESS: No, I hadn't.

MR. DARDEN: Was there mention of money only at the end of the conversation you had with Tony Frost?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: You never brought the issue of money up?

THE WITNESS: Uh-uh.

MR. DARDEN: That's no?

THE WITNESS: That's no.

MR. DARDEN: Did Tony Frost tell you that "H" and others were going to receive 60- to $80,000?

THE WITNESS: No. He said they were negotiating a fee with him.

MR. DARDEN: Have you discussed with "H" her recollection of the Open House?

THE WITNESS: Not specifically, because "H"--she never asked me specifically about the Open House. The conversation was more on the fact that I was one of the old employees who was there in the beginning when things were more--it was tiny, it was more intimate.

THE COURT: All right. Anything further?

MR. DARDEN: No. Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask one last question?

THE COURT: One.

MR. COCHRAN: That's all. You had said at the time you knew 228, he was an honorable person, he was fair.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Can I explain how I meant that?

MR. COCHRAN: That was the Court's question.

THE WITNESS: I am sorry. When you are at someone's discretion or there to give you a car for your customer, you want to be as nice as you can be and you want to get the best car available for the customers standing in front of you. So it was never a game with 228. You didn't have to negotiate. You didn't have to beg. He gave you good cars all--at least, he gave me. Now, I don't know what he did to somebody else, but that's how I'm judging his personality as being honorable, in my working with him.

MR. COCHRAN: That's all.

THE COURT: All right. "B", I want to thank you first of all for taking your time and coming down here. I know, having traveled back and forth, to the ********, that getting up at 4:00 in the morning to get yourself down to the airport and get down and get back is a great inconvenience, and we appreciate your taking the time to do that.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: I'm also going to order you not to discuss this with anybody--

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: --until this case has been concluded or until you hear otherwise from the Court.

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Other than, if you are contacted by the Sheriff's Department from Los Angeles County with any follow-up questions, you may talk with them.

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: Also, I am going--just so you know, for your information, I'm going to order this transcript sealed for these purposes. It will not be made available to the press, although the Appellate Courts may order me to unseal that. But that's somebody else higher than me will do that if that's necessary. Do you have any questions at this point?

THE WITNESS: I can't think of any.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else you want to say for the record?

THE WITNESS: No, I can't.

THE COURT: Thank you very much for coming in then. Miss Robertson, would you see if you can find Deputy Downs to escort "B" back to LAX? Thank you, ma'am.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

("B" exited chambers.)

THE COURT: Let's take a break for 10 minutes.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Deputy Downs, would you bring in "H" and "O", please.

("H" entered chambers, along with "O", attorney for the witness.)

THE COURT: "H", am I pronouncing that right?

THE WITNESS: "H".

THE COURT: "H", would you have a seat, please.

THE WITNESS: How are you?

THE COURT: Would you have a seat there, "H"? Right there. "H", thank you very much for coming in. And let me tell you briefly what we're going to be doing here today. And the record should reflect that we have present Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Uelmen, Mr. Douglas. Also present is Miss Clark and Mr. Darden from the District Attorney's office. Deputy Downs from the Sheriff's Department is present and "O", who is an attorney-at-law. Are you appearing on behalf of "H" or--

"O": She asked that I be present with her.

THE COURT: Well, "O" is well-known to the Court, and she is welcome to be in this proceeding if that's agreeable to you, "H".

THE WITNESS: It is.

THE COURT: Before we proceed, let me tell you what I'm going to be doing. I'm going to ask you some questions about information that you might have. I understand that you're a former Hertz employee?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Any information you might have regarding a person by the name of 228, who is presently on the jury on a case that we have in trial here. And this will be a statement under oath. I'm going to ask the clerk to give you the oath in this matter. And so you understand the perimeters here, the transcript of this proceeding I am going to order sealed once we have taken the testimony from you, and it will not be available except by order of this Court or by an Appellate Court should it become an issue later in the trial. Also, at the conclusion of our discussion, I am going to order you not to discuss our discussion here in chambers with any other person unless you hear further from the Court.

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Robertson.

"H", called as a witness by the Court, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell your first and last names for the record.

THE WITNESS: "H".

THE COURT: "H", can you tell me your employment history just in brief with the Hertz Corporation, dates and place of assignment?

THE WITNESS: I was employed by the Hertz Corporation I think beginning in October, sometime in late ****. I was employed there until approximately December of ****. I was originally employed as a ************. I was then what they call a **************. I was a ********** for a period of time. This is all at Hertz LAX. This is at the facility on ************. I never worked at the ********** facility. And eventually, when I left, I was running the evening shift, because it ran 24 hours a day, of the ********** for Los Angeles, the Los Angeles area, which was at the Hertz facility upstairs.

THE COURT: All right. "H", during the course of your employment with the Hertz Corporation, did you become acquainted with an individual by the name of 228?

THE WITNESS: I know him as 228. I really never even knew his name. I knew him as 228.

THE COURT: 228?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Can you describe 228 for me?

THE WITNESS: He's small frame, dark, rather attractive, you know, dark eyes, maybe 5/6 or -7. I don't know if he's that tall.

THE COURT: And what is his ethnic background?

THE WITNESS: He's black.

THE COURT: And what was his job assignment while you were there at Hertz?

THE WITNESS: He was a ************ while I was there for the most part, and that's kind of a--well, he was a ************, but he would also work in ********** depending on--there was a lot of overtime and a lot of different shifts. So he would come in as a ************. He might go into dispatch for a while. He would come out, and if another lead came up, he was--overtime, he would be ************. It was kind of a fluid place in that sense depending on the volume that was occurring and where he was needed.

THE COURT: While you were employed at Hertz, what was the nature of your contact between yourself and 228?

THE WITNESS: Well, during one specific period probably--I don't know--for two years maybe--I'm not sure. It was a long time ago. I'm not sure of the time frame--I was a lead--what they call a ************. As such, I interacted with him a lot in terms of setting up cars. I worked out of the **********. Do you want me to show you this so you can see what I'm talking about?

THE COURT: If I need an explanation as to what's there, I'll ask. But I'm glad you brought some things in with you.

THE WITNESS: My lawyer told me to.

THE COURT: Tell me about how you interacted with 228.

THE WITNESS: Well, two things. Number one, we would set up specials for the VIPs. We would set up cars for--as a ************ person, you are responsible for a lot of VIPs and a lot of specials. The **********, you're responsible for making sure that everything is being coordinated and there's always what I would consider like a premier availability of cars for the VIPs that are coming in as well as the other people in the other situations. You're just in charge of that. So what you do is, you're constantly interacting with the ************ because they're responsible for the fact that the cars are coming in and that you're getting what you need from them and that certain specials are being set up and where it's going to be and, you know, bringing in cars to--you're accommodating special needs. So you're interacting on that level for the customers.

THE COURT: How would you characterize your relationship with 228? In other words, was it a business-like relationship? Was it more on a more personal level? How would you characterize your relationship?

THE WITNESS: I would say it was a casual business relationship.

THE COURT: Did you ever have any conflicts with him regarding--

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: --his job performance or the type of cars that he was giving to your customers or any animosity, anything like that?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: How would you characterize him as far as an employee there at Hertz?

THE WITNESS: I think he was a very good employee. He is very well liked there. He apparently--I mean I don't know. I can't get into his head, but he's very--he's very well thought of there. He's very much a participant in Hertz, when I was there at least. You know, I have no idea what he is now. But when I was there, he was very much a participant at Hertz.

THE COURT: "H", as you know, we're involved in the case of People versus O.J. Simpson, and my understanding is that you have some information regarding a relationship between 228 and Mr. Simpson. Can you tell me anything about that?

THE WITNESS: A relationship in the sense of what?

THE COURT: Well, do you know if they've had any contact?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't. I have never personally seen O.J. Simpson with 228. I have never personally--I have no personal knowledge of any interaction between them; no, I do not.

THE COURT: There has been some tabloid newspaper interests on the issue of 228's contact, relationship with Mr. Simpson and his being on the jury--

THE WITNESS: Well, I am aware of that.

THE COURT: --in this particular case. Can you tell me what kind of contact you've had with any of the tabloids?

THE WITNESS: I talked to Tony Frost.

THE COURT: That's from The Star?

THE WITNESS: Is that--yeah, I think that's where he's from.

THE COURT: Have they ever discussed with you paying any money to any of the people involved?

THE WITNESS: Oh, sure.

THE COURT: Can you tell me about that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I think Tony Frost talked at length when he was originally in New York about--when I first talked to him, he had already talked to--someone I know called him who I had spoken to about the whole situation. And he called me, this other person called me and said, "He wants to talk to you." At that time, we got on a conference call and he basically asked me what I knew, and I told him what I knew. And I don't think at that time, he talked about any money. But at some point, he was talking--at some point, he talked about money, yeah.

THE COURT: At this point when you talked to Mr. Frost the first time, do you recall what you told him was the extent of your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: I told him that--I told him what 228's job had been out there. I told him that 228 had worked for the Hertz Corporation for ** years. I told him what I had discussed with "F". I don't know. That's another issue.

THE COURT: "F"?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And I told him that she had given me the article and that I had given it to Deirdra and that I hadn't heard anything and I didn't know what was going on. And I told him--and he asked me how I thought that 228 knew and he asked me did I personally have any information or know anything. And I said, you know, "No, I don't. Let me just tell you what I know. I know that he worked out there for, you know, while I was there, for ***** years. I know that he delivered cars to VIPs. I know that O.J. came in there, you know, quite a bit. I know that."

THE COURT: When you say, "Quite a bit," how often, I mean to your recollection? Once a month? Three, four times a year?

THE WITNESS: Well, actually got a car or just he was coming in and, you--

THE COURT: How often would he come in to the facility while you were there?

THE WITNESS: Maybe--I don't know. Two or three times a year within a nine-month period. I know they made at least three or four commercials there during that period of time; and during that time, he was there for, you know, two or three days at a time.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Also, he had the Open House and all that whole thing. But that was very early on. But then through a whole sequence of--I don't know. At least I remember at least three occasions when they were out there filming for a few days.

THE COURT: All right. And, "H", you were about to tell us--you were talking to us about what you told Mr. Frost, and I interrupted you.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Okay. I told him