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 about his basic job duties and what he had done and I said that I found it next to impossible that he had not--that he had never met O.J. Simpson or had any contact with him. And I said to him, you know, "I don't know what they asked him and I don't know what he said, but, you know, it just--" it just didn't seem probable to me, and I said, "I don't know why they left him on the jury." I mean everybody out there had an affinity for O.J. Simpson. He was very affable, very nice, very congenial. Every time he was out there, you know, he would fraternize with the **********. You know, he was the company spokesman. He was a very visible person. When he came on the lot, people would shake his hand, particularly the **********. And not just the **********. I mean, no offense, but particularly the black people. I mean he was--he's O.J. Simpson, you know.

THE COURT: Okay. So it's basically your impression that it would have been unlikely that 228 had not met or fraternized in some way with Mr. Simpson given his status in the corporation and living in Los Angeles?

THE WITNESS: And his position--and his position as a ************ who was always working with the VIPs, yes, it would seem improbable to me. And that's what I said to him.

THE COURT: Did Mr. Frost ever discuss any money for this information? I asked you that earlier and you--

THE WITNESS: Well, yes. I mean he said, oh--you know, "Oh, God, you know, this is going to be worth hundreds of thousands--a hundred thousand dollars, oh, this is going to be worth--this is going to be worth that. This is going to be worth that." And I never--I never discussed money with him on any serious level because of one reason. And that was, I didn't really think he was going to end up writing the story. I didn't really think--he told me from New York that regardless of what happened or what he found out, that if there was anything that he was wanting to print that I didn't want him to print, that I could take it out and I could stop him from publishing the article. And at that point, I said--well, I said, "Well, you're sure?" And he said, "Yeah, I'll guarantee you that. I'll promise you that." And at that point, he came out here and he started doing whatever, you know, calling people and doing stuff. And he was always talking about money. I mean that's what he does, you know. But did he ever promise me any money? No.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: I mean he went from a hundred thousand dollars to like $5,000 to $20,000 to this, to that, to the other. Now, we never had any serious discussions about any money, no.

THE COURT: Do you recall if you ever asked him for money for the story?

THE WITNESS: Well, I asked him how much was he going to pay. I said, "How much do you think you're going to pay for this," yeah.

THE COURT: And what was his response to that?

THE WITNESS: Well, at what time? He had numerous responses to that.

THE COURT: That whole gambit of--

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Now, you've talked to a number of other people regarding this particular issue, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Can you tell me if you spoke with "B" regarding any money for this information?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Can you tell me the substance of that conversation?

THE WITNESS: I said to her at one point when she wanted to--when I called her--"F" gave me her phone number. And I said, "Well, this guy is going to call you and talk to you." And she said to me--I think she asked me--I don't know if she asked me or I volunteered the fact that he was going to talk to her about money that he was going--he wanted to pay her and he was offering money. And she said, "Well, I don't really want any money for that." I said, "Well, he is going to talk to you about money. So I'm just telling you. You can talk to him about it because he's going to talk to you about it, and I'm not going to talk to you about it. So if you want to talk to him about it, talk to him. If you don't want to talk to him about it, don't talk to him about it."

THE COURT: Did she ever indicate to you that she expected to be compensated in any way financially?

THE WITNESS: No. In fact, she said to me, "I really don't want any money for this or anything." I then said, "Well, I'm just telling you he's going to talk to you about money. So if you want to talk to him about money, do, and if you don't, just tell him what you want to tell him."

THE COURT: Miss "H", can you tell me what it is that motivated you to come forward on this and contact my clerk?

THE WITNESS: What motivated me. Well, I had spoken--okay. Once we found out that 228 was on the jury--"F" had gone out to Hertz and found out 228 was the juror. We knew it was somebody. She's worked there for ** years. She was the **************. So she knew whoever it was, she knew. And I think everybody--well, let me not say that. "F" and I were very surprised that he was on the jury. We were very surprised that there was somebody from Hertz on the jury, somebody from Hertz who said he worked there for ** years, somebody from Hertz had been on the same payroll with O.J. Simpson for 20 years. It was a little unusual to us. But okay. At that point, "F" said--"F" found out who it was and she said, "It's 228 you know, he's ************. Jesus Christ, he worked out at Hertz. What the hell are they doing?" I said, you know, I don't know anything about this. She said, you know, "I know he was on this Open House committee and I know this, and don't you remember he was always in charge of the football pools for the year?" And I said, "Yeah, I do remember that." And she goes, you know, "There's just--there's no way that he never met this guy. Do you think they asked him? Can you find out what they asked him?" And I said, "No, I can't find out what they asked him. I don't know what they asked him." And she said, "Well, you know, I'm sure he didn't tell them what he really does and he didn't tell them this and he didn't tell them that." I said, "I don't know. I don't know of a way to find this out." And then--

"O": Do you want to talk to me?

THE WITNESS: Well--

"O": Can we take a break?

THE COURT: Sure. If you want to just step outside, confer with your client. Rather than take a break now, why don't you just confer for a moment.

(The witness, "H", and her attorney, "O" exited chambers.)

MR. COCHRAN: May the record reflect the witness has gone out to talk to her counsel, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At a crucial point?

(The witness, "H", and her attorney, "O", reentered chambers.)

THE WITNESS: Okay. I am sorry.

THE COURT: "H", sure. Go ahead. Madam reporter, you want to read back the last comment?

(Part of the last answer was read by the reporter.)

"O": You asked the question, what motivated her.

THE WITNESS: Sorry. And then I talked to some friends about the fact that there were--there were people who I had spoken to who wanted to know what--how he had ended up on the jury and they wanted to know if he had told them what he really did. And then some time went by and "F" found the article, and I turned the article over to Deirdra.

THE COURT: All right. You indicated something about 228 being involved in football pools. Can you tell me about that?

THE WITNESS: Well, he ran the football pool for I remember at least two or three years while I was out there.

THE COURT: And can you tell me what the football pools were at Hertz? I mean they are different in every place I've ever worked. So--do you recall what kind of football pool it was? Was it college, professional? Was it a weekly thing?

THE WITNESS: Yes. It was a daily, weekly thing. It was pretty much--it was the Super Bowl. I mean the big pot was for the Super Bowl. It was professional. I mean they might have had a college pool. I don't remember, but I do remember the professional one specifically because a very good friend of mine won all the money.

THE COURT: Out of curiosity, how much was the pool at Hertz, football pool?

THE WITNESS: Well, I think the year that my friend won, it was about 5- or $6,000.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. "H", then my understanding then, it just seemed unlikely to you that somebody from--that this particular individual, if it was him on the jury, would be--

THE WITNESS: Well, we knew who it was. Everybody knew it was him. The whole company knows it's him.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Darden, do you have any questions for "H"?

MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment?

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

MR. DARDEN: How does the whole company know that 228 is in the jury?

THE WITNESS: I do not personally know this. But "F" went out to Hertz to pick up her check a few weeks ago or something, and everybody knows. He's been back out there.

MR. DARDEN: Has "F" or anyone else told you that he's bragged that he's going to make money off of being on the jury?

THE WITNESS: Yes. And I don't know how she knows that. I really--and I tried to ask her about that, and she won't--she won't discuss it. In fact, she said, "Oh, I don't think I ever said that." So I just dropped it.

MR. DARDEN: Who is she?

THE WITNESS: "F".

MR. DARDEN: So "F" told you that 228 had bragged that he was going to make money off of being on the jury?

THE WITNESS: Yes. But if you ask her now, she'll say she didn't say it.

MR. DARDEN: But she did say it?

THE WITNESS: I remember her saying it.

MR. DARDEN: Did she ever tell you that 228 said or that she had heard that 228 said that he would never vote guilty?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you heard anything along those lines from "F" or any other person?

THE WITNESS: That he said that?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Have you heard from "F" or any other person that 228 said that there's no way that Mr. Simpson could have committed these murders?

THE WITNESS: I have not heard that from anyone, no.

MR. DARDEN: Who is "L"?

THE WITNESS: He's some kind of an ************ that knows the gentleman that called Tony Frost.

MR. DARDEN: What is the name of the gentleman that called Tony Frost?

THE WITNESS: "P".

MR. DARDEN: Where does "P" work?

THE WITNESS: He is--he has a **********************.

MR. DARDEN: What's the name of the ******************?

THE WITNESS: The ********************.

MR. DARDEN: What is your relationship with "P"?

THE WITNESS: He does all of my trial stuff.

MR. DARDEN: What do you do for a living?

THE WITNESS: I am a ********** at ********************.

MR. DARDEN: "L" is a ********************?

THE WITNESS: I think that's what he is.

MR. DARDEN: And who hired "L"?

THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about "L" being hired or who hired him or anything. If anybody hired him, "P" hired him. I didn't hire him.

MR. DARDEN: Was "L" ever told to negotiate some type of payment on your behalf for The Star?

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

MR. DARDEN: Was there a VIP section at Hertz?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Was there a VIP section out in the garage?

THE WITNESS: There was an area of cars and an area that serviced VIPs and still does.

MR. DARDEN: And what persons are considered VIPs?

THE WITNESS: Everybody that has a gold card or an express card or rents cars there on a weekly basis. And again, this is when I was working there. A lot of sports figures, a lot of actors, a lot of--you either have to spend a lot of money or you have to be somebody.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Simpson, would he be considered a VIP?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Now, was there a particular garage man assigned to relate to or deal with VIPs?

THE WITNESS: There wasn't a particular garage man assigned to it. It's just that you were--if you were going to operate on that level, you were going to deal with two people. One was the guy in charge of dispatch and one was the lead garage man. And that's because you knew that when they told you that they were going to give you this Lincoln, Cadillac, you know, whatever, that it was going to work, that the windows were not going to jam, the steering wheel was not going to lock, that it was--you know, that it was really--it was a good car and you just--there were a lot of garage men there who were not personable I guess you could say and you really did not want--you didn't really want to deal with them because they were going to come in and they were going to show the person the car and they were going to be interacting with them, and it was, you know--it's a different job from just going out and putting cars on standby and going back, and it's a different level of interaction with the public.

MR. DARDEN: You also said that 228 was a real participant at Hertz.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: What did you mean by that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I guess if you want to use the term "Company man"--that's probably a 1950's term, but I think it's probably--

THE COURT: "Company person" now.

THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. Yeah. I would say he is a real company man.

MR. DARDEN: Has any present or former Hertz employee told you that they saw 228 meet O.J. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: "B" told me that at the Open House, she was present when they were all introduced to O.J. Simpson. And I know, you know, he was on the Open House thing and this and that and that. And then she also told me that when--and she told me that, you know, you talked to her. I don't know. She told me that out on **********, when he was in ******** and I guess **************** there--and I really--I don't know that much about that. You would have to ask her--that she would send O.J. out to him. But that was--you know, I don't know anything about that. That's what she told me.

MR. DARDEN: "B" would be "B"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment?

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

MR. DARDEN: That's all.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a few questions, your Honor. "H", as I understand it, you have no independent knowledge of whether or not 228 knows Mr. O.J. Simpson?

THE WITNESS: That's absolutely true.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall a conversation with "B" wherein you told her that you were going to get between 60- and $80,000 from the Frost--from Mr. Tony Frost, Star magazine for this story.

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: That never happened?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall that ever happening. There may have been--there may have been a point where I said to her, "This guy that's going to talk to you is going to tell you that he is going to pay us between 60- and $80,000 or 60- and a hundred thousand dollars." I mean I don't even remember the numbers that this guy was throwing out. And I may have said that to her. I did not say that to her in the sense that "Oh, we're going to get 60- to $80,000," and, "Are you going to get your cut," and, "What is your cut going to be," and you know. That would be mischaracterizing it.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell "B" that there was going to be a four-way split between you, "L", "K" and "F"?

THE WITNESS: **********?

MR. COCHRAN: **********************************. This money was going to be split at least four ways?

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. I did tell her that there were four people involved in it at one point. She had asked, "How many people are involved in now?" I said, "There's four people involved in this."

MR. COCHRAN: And who were the four?

THE WITNESS: Me, "F", her and "P".

MR. COCHRAN: By "Her," meaning who?

THE WITNESS: "B".

MR. COCHRAN: You never--"K"--who was ********** at this point? What's his name?

THE WITNESS: His name is "K". He has a *********************************.

MR. COCHRAN: Did "K" at any point ever negotiate with Tony Frost--

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: --for you?

THE WITNESS: No. No.

MR. COCHRAN: He never did?

THE WITNESS: "K" writes ******************. He has no idea. No.

MR. COCHRAN: Who among the group negotiated with Tony Frost the money?

THE WITNESS: I would say "P".

MR. COCHRAN: "P"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And would "P" report back to you what he was negotiating?

THE WITNESS: He told me what Tony Frost had originally said to him when he was coming out here from New York, and he told me shortly after that that Tony Frost was full of shit. That's about it.

MR. COCHRAN: Tony Frost told you that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you received any funds yet?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you tell "B" at some point that you had been ripped off and didn't get the money you were promised?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You never said that?

THE WITNESS: No. Absolutely not.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you--how much money were you expecting?

THE WITNESS: Somewhere between a hundred thousand and $5,000.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you gotten that?

THE WITNESS: No. I mean are you serious; was I really expecting that?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm very serious, ma'am.

THE WITNESS: No, I was not really expecting that.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, so when Tony Frost told you you would get somewhere between 5,000 and a hundred thousand, you thought he was just joking?

THE WITNESS: Let me just put this in context. I didn't think he was joking, okay. What I thought was, after I spoke to him and I had dinner with him or drinks with him or something to that effect, what I realized was that he was not going to write anything because this was not what he should be doing, that this was not like--I appreciated the fact that he was investigating and he really was investigating and trying to find out what the hell was going on, and I really did appreciate it, because at that point, I didn't know if anybody was investigating. I had assumed that when I gave the article to Judge Ito, because I do civil law, I had assumed that they were going to issue subpoenas and they were going to call in the people on the Open House committee and they were going to examine them, okay. When none of that happened, then "P" said, "Let me call the National Enquirer and get one of these guys out here and let's see what these guys turn up," or, you know--you know, "P" said, "Oh, I don't care. Let's make some money off of this. I am going to make some money off of this. Let's get that guy out." I said, "Fine, go ahead and call them. They're not doing anything. Go ahead and call whoever you want to call."

MR. COCHRAN: You thought out of turning the document over to Deirdra for Judge Ito, that you thought the next best investigator would be the National Enquirer or The Star? Is that what you are saying?

THE WITNESS: No. I thought actually the next best investigator would have probably been the L.A. Times, but I was under the impression that the L.A. Times at that point in time was editing T.V. Guide or doing something. I mean I really didn't know. I was under the impression that they were in some way working for Judge Ito.

MR. COCHRAN: The L.A. Times was working for Judge Ito?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: You are a ********** down at ************************?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: And you thought the L.A. Times was working for Judge Ito?

THE WITNESS: Well, again, you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I don't think that tone is necessary with this witness.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just asking a question.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't mind his tone. He's mischaracterizing it, that's all.

MR. COCHRAN: You thought the L.A. Times was working for Judge Ito?

THE WITNESS: I thought that if this guy was going to come out here and he was really looking for something, that he would find it.

MR. COCHRAN: The Judge asked you a question with regards to the times that you asked about money in your conversation with Tony Frost; and the question was, how many times did you ask Tony Frost about money that you would receive.

THE WITNESS: I would say once, twice, maybe three times.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you still expecting to receive some money from him?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there a story written?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The story has not been written yet?

THE WITNESS: It's not going to be written. There isn't any story for him.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he tell you that?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. I talked to him on Tuesday. Well, I called his hotel and I said, you know, "I just want to thank you very much for--" because he was actually very nice and he really did, you know, do a lot of work and came out here. And I said, "Thank you very much for not publishing the story. I apologize. I am sorry that, you know, you came out here, and I know that--" you know, what's his name--I knew by that time that he had talked to the District Attorney's office because he had told me he was going to go talk to the District Attorney's office. And I said, "I would really like to talk to you after you talk to them."

MR. COCHRAN: Was that Tuesday of this week you're talking about, that you talked to him, maybe the 13th?

THE WITNESS: Tuesday that I talked to Tony Frost?

MR. COCHRAN: Tony Frost, yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he tell you why he's not writing the story?

THE WITNESS: No. He just said, "No, we're not publishing it."

MR. COCHRAN: So you felt then based upon that, you wouldn't get either 5,000 or a hundred thousand or any amount; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Are you asking me if Tuesday was the first point at which I said this guy is not going to publish this, I'm not going to get any money?

MR. COCHRAN: No, I'm not asking--

THE WITNESS: What are you asking me?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just asking you, at some point, you became aware you were not going to get any money; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that point?

THE WITNESS: The Friday night that we had drinks with him.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that--

THE WITNESS: And he said to me--and we--he said to me--and I said to him, you know, "This is--you're really--you're not really the right person. You shouldn't have come out here. This is not--I mean, we should have called a real newspaper." He agreed.

MR. COCHRAN: When you said, "We," who are you talking about?

THE WITNESS: "P", me, somebody. Well, either me or "P".

MR. COCHRAN: It was the two of you, you and "P" had drinks with--

THE WITNESS: Tony Frost. Right.

MR. COCHRAN: So the last question, your motivation in doing this was?

THE WITNESS: In doing what?

MR. COCHRAN: In calling Deirdra and talking to The Star--

THE WITNESS: No, no, no. That's a different question, completely different question.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me finish the question. The Judge asked you about your motivation in coming forward in this case. So I'm asking you now about your motivation in telling "P" he could call Tony Frost or The Star, whatever. What was your motivation for that?

THE WITNESS: I didn't think anybody was doing anything.

MR. COCHRAN: You thought The Star would be the best place to do that?

THE WITNESS: I didn't think it would be the best place to do it, but I thought, well, "P" had been telling--"P" had been bugging me about the fact that, you know, I should do--I should call somebody, I should do this, I should do that. And he said, you know, "If they're not going to do anything, let me call The Star, let me call the Enquirer, let me call the Enquirer, let me call Mike Wallace, let me do this, let me do this." And finally, I said, "They're not going to do anything." I said, "Fine, call whoever you want. They're not doing anything."

MR. COCHRAN: Did he ever call Mike Wallace, do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don't know. You know, I have no idea what he did.

MR. COCHRAN: Mike Wallace from 60 Minutes or Mike Wallace from The Star?

THE WITNESS: All I know is, his name is Mike Wallace. He said that name to me. I don't know who Mike Wallace is.

MR. COCHRAN: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. "H", thank you very much for coming in. I am going to order you not to discuss this matter, what we've discussed here in chambers with any other person until you hear otherwise from the Court or until this case is concluded. As I indicated to you, I'm going to order the transcript of our proceedings here sealed, and it won't be available except with my order or by the Court of Appeal or some higher Court. Do you have any questions about anything we've talked about so far?

THE WITNESS: No. I don't have any questions. I just--can I just say one thing?

THE COURT: Do you have any last comment you want to make?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I do have one last comment. You know, this turned into a real bizarre experience. It was not originally intended to do that. I was under the impression that when I gave your office the article, because I do civil law, that in some way, you would subpoena the remainder of those publication pictures, that you would issue subpoenas to the people that were on the Open House committee and that you would find out what was going on. I really am sorry that it got beefed out because I didn't think you were doing anything. But I didn't think you were doing anything and I'm really sorry.

THE COURT: It's a matter of priorities.

THE WITNESS: I'm sure it is. I am sorry. And I am sorry that I didn't go to the District Attorney's office. But, you know, I thought, well, they left him on the jury to begin with. And so I--if you want to characterize this as oh, I did this all for money and I thought I was going to make all this money, you are welcome to do that. That's a complete mischaracterization, but you're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. The truth of the matter is, all I wanted you to do was go talk to those people and find out because I do think that 228 does have an affinity--I do think it's impossible to work for Hertz all that time and not to meet O.J. Simpson, not to come in contact with him. I have come in contact with him many times. Most people who worked there have come in contact with him. And I didn't know what you had asked him and I didn't know why he ended up on the jury, and that was the only reason I did it to begin with. And I know it got carried away. A lot of people got involved in this, and this is a very bizarre kind of situation. I have never seen anything like it.

THE COURT: I don't think bizarre even begins to cover it.

THE WITNESS: Believe me, that's all--that was my only motivation. So you can mischaracterize it all you want. But Tony Frost was a nice guy. And when he actually came down here, he dug up a lot of things, talked to a lot of people. And I knew he was never going to print the story. When he called me from New York, he said, you know, "If you tell me not to do anything, I will not do anything." And I said to him, "You can't do it. Please don't do it," and, you know, he didn't. And so, you know--

THE COURT: All right. "H", thank you very much for coming in. "O", thank you as well. I will trust you to escort "H" out.

"O": Yes, I will.

THE COURT: Thank you very much for your time.

("H" and "O" exited chambers.)

THE COURT: We're going to change court reporters, and we are going to bring in "Q" and chat with her.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: "Q" is still out there. My understanding--before we get started with her, my understanding is, the only thing we are going to talk to her about, there is an allegation that she and 228 had some type of personal relationship. So there's some relationship between 228 and the Simpson--a member of the Simpson family.

MR. COCHRAN: That's my understanding. That's from reading one of the reports. That was from "H", who never said that. But it's fine. In the report we had, supposedly she had said they had some contact. And so that's--she never mentioned it here.

THE COURT: My question to "Q" is going to be, "Tell me about when you worked there, did you have any contact with 228, yes or no. If yes, describe the nature of the relationship or contact." That's the only thing I'm interested in with regard to this juror.

MS. CLARK: I would simply like to inquire when she worked at Hertz, between what dates.

THE COURT: Yeah, yeah. The background. Yeah. All right. Miss Robertson, would you get her for us, please.

("Q" entered chambers.)

THE COURT: "Q", would you have a seat there, please. Thanks again for coming in. My apologies to you for yet again having to talk to you. Let me tell you what we are going to be talking about. We're going to be talking to you about your employment at the Hertz Corporation down at the LAX facility. And what we're interested in knowing is if you had any contact with an employee there, 228, who is now a member of our jury panel here, just so you understand the perameters of what we're talking about. Also, at the conclusion of our discussion here this morning in chambers, I'm going to order you not to discuss what we've discussed here in chambers with any other person until--other than the attorneys unless I order you otherwise or until the case has been concluded. Also, for your information, I am going to order the transcript of our discussions here in chambers to be sealed, not to be opened pending further order of the Court, and although that order can be overturned by an Appellate Court if somebody challenges that. But I don't think that they will. But in any event, Mrs. Robertson, would you administer the oath.

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

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand to be sworn. 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: Yes, I do.

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

THE WITNESS: "Q".

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: "Q", I understand that a number of years ago, you were employed by the Hertz Corporation for approximately about a year?

THE WITNESS: No. I was there working about a month and a half, almost two months.

THE COURT: Where was that?

THE WITNESS: I started out in ****************** in a two-week training course, which I did not complete. I went through the first week, but did not complete the second week, then left due to illness and then came back in **************, finished the course and worked until ******.

THE COURT: And where was the training course held?

THE WITNESS: In Los Angeles at the Hertz headquarters.

THE COURT: At the LAX?

THE WITNESS: In LAX, ***************.

THE COURT: And tell me about after you finished the two-week training period the second time, what was your assignment after that?

THE WITNESS: Being a ***************************.

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

THE WITNESS: ********.

THE COURT: During the course of your employment, did you have any dealings with any of the ************ at the Hertz facility there?

THE WITNESS: The ************. Yes. The only time I did would be over the phone.

THE COURT: Are you acquainted or do you know who 228 is?

THE WITNESS: I know of him, but I do not know him.

THE COURT: Tell me about how you know of him.

THE WITNESS: When I came down last Thursday, I spoke with Carl, and he asked me if I knew of him, and I said no. And he asked me to watch to see if anybody looked familiar to me, and I said no, and he pointed him out to me.

THE COURT: When you say "Carl," I take it you are talking about Carl Douglas?

THE WITNESS: Carl Douglas. Mr. Douglas. Sorry.

THE COURT: When Mr. Douglas pointed this individual out to you, did you recognize this individual?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

THE COURT: Tell me what you knew of 228.

THE WITNESS: Nothing. Really, I didn't know anything of him. Just the fact that he might know of me.

THE COURT: When you were working at the Hertz facility, was it pretty well-known that you were related to your father?

THE WITNESS: I'm sure people knew of it. I don't know if everybody did. There's a lot of people working there. So they could have.

THE COURT: How many employees did they have at that facility at the time you were working there?

THE WITNESS: Oh, my God, there's no way I can make an estimate.

THE COURT: I realize there are three shifts and--

THE WITNESS: 3-, 400 people there.

THE COURT: "Q", so it's your recollection that you have no recollection of 228 or somebody by the name of 228?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: "Q", did you ever speak to anyone over the telephone who identified themselves as 228, 228?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. DARDEN: Did you speak to the ****************************** on occasion?

THE WITNESS: I might have. I don't remember.

MR. DARDEN: Do you recall ever calling the ****** and asking for the *************?

THE WITNESS: No. If I were to call, it would just--I would talk to whoever picked up the phone. I never really asked who it was.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Nothing. Thank you.

THE COURT: "Q", thank you very much for coming in. My apologies to you for the inconvenience of bringing you in the last time last week that we didn't get around to speaking to you. I'm going to order you not to discuss what we've discussed here in chambers with any other person other than the attorneys, if they contact you, until the case has been concluded. Do you understand the order?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about anything that we've discussed so far?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Do you have anything else you want to say for the record?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: "Q", thank you again for coming in. We appreciate it.

("Q" exited chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I think we've concluded as to this inquiry. And we also have--I forgot to mention for the record, if I didn't, that Deputy Downs is present with us. And Deputy Downs, you've given me a corrected memo regarding your last follow-up with Juror No. 228.

MR. DOWNS: That's correct.

THE COURT: Mr. Hill?

MR. HILL: Yes.

THE COURT: Would you make four photocopies of these two memorandums, please, and give each counsel a copy of the memorandum. And I want the copy with the sticky on it so it shows that it's a revised memo from the other one.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOWNS: I think the revised version on that memorandum is only in reference to the juror number. It indicated 288, and I saw that the day before and I corrected that to 228.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I think we should go back in to court and do what we can. I think we should conclude the jailhouse conversation.

MS. CLARK: Can I make a request?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. CLARK: We have the DNA guys here from out of town. And is there any possibility we could handle that matter first, get it concluded by noon so I can let them go?

THE COURT: Do you think there's any possibility we could finish that by noon?

MR. COCHRAN: I don't think so, Marcia. I'm sure you want to get finished early this afternoon as we do. We're willing to come back earlier, whatever. I think we have a better chance finishing this argument.

THE COURT: The DNA issue is not going to go away quickly I don't think.

MS. CLARK: But we will resolve it today?

THE COURT: Boy, I hope so. We are talking about scheduling all the witnesses.

MS. CLARK: That right. I mean--

THE COURT: I don't think this DNA--unless you guys want to confer over the lunch hour and see if you can come to some agreement. But I don't think it's going to happen.

MR. COCHRAN: We can argue the jail motion.

THE COURT: Let's go do the jail motion.

(Proceedings in camera concluded.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995 9:15 A.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Also appearing: Deputy Rufus S. Downs, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.)

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

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

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: All right. We are in chambers on the record with Mr. Hodgman, Mr. Darden, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas and Deputy Downs. We just have a few informal things on the calendar for today. We have "R" who is a witness regarding alleged misconduct or misrepresentations alleged to have been made by Juror No. 320 and we will speak with him shortly. The Court also needs to issue a ruling regarding Juror No. 228, since it would not be fair to sequester this fellow if we are not going to keep him as a trial juror. Also, the Court needs to formally impose the sequestration order and to issue appropriate orders to the jurors not to disclose the location of where they are going to be sequestered, the meeting places, things like that. I also have a hair and fiber evidence report from the FBI. And Mr. Hodgman, here is the Prosecution copy. Mr. Shapiro, the Defense copy.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And you also received a copy of Deputy Downs' report that is dated December 19, 1994, and they have "R" waiting outside.

MR. COCHRAN: We may want to switch around because I'm going to be examining. Your Honor, one question about No. 228. We can't do the investigation--just a thought. As I recall, we have heard from him and basically his testimony was that he did not shake hands or recall shaking hands with Mr. Simpson. He was part of this thing and said I knew him and did nothing wrong, et cetera, et cetera. We then have these ladies who have kind of a mixed bag of testimony. You recall that?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: It seems to me, and I'm not trying to prolong anything, but should Deputy Downs interview No. 228, he may have people who back up what he says, and in the course of an investigation, I thought that might be fairer to him. Right now you have, you know, people on both sides of an issue. We, in the course of--of interrogating him, never asked him, gee No. 228, who else do you have that maybe was there to back you up? Since we can't do the investigation ourselves--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: --I want to just be fair to him from the standpoint of I think everybody wants to be fair, so I want to throw that out for the Court's consideration, since he is going to be here today, before you make your ruling, if Deputy Downs might talk to him. He may be able to shed some additional light because, see, we never talked back to him about what these ladies, whatever their motivation was, what they said about the fact that he must have seen him in line or shook his hand. He was part of that committee and I just think out of fairness the Court may want to consider that.

MR. HODGMAN: What is the Court's intention on that?

THE COURT: Well, the proposal is for Deputy Downs to merely ask him if there is anybody who can corroborate--

MR. COCHRAN: What he says.

THE COURT: --228's version that he did not in fact--

MR. HODGMAN: And Judge, I think at this point this time it seems the situation seems pretty clear with regard to 228, and it is simply incumbent upon the Court to make a call.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I--

THE COURT: The thing, Mr. Hodgman--I just feel a necessity, since we are talking about jurors here, citizen jurors, to be as cautious as possible. I don't see any harm in having Deputy Downs--Deputy Downs may not enjoy this, but I have no problem asking Deputy Downs to speak to 228 to see if he can tell us if there is anybody who was present that he can recall who might recall the events differently, and I don't see any harm in him asking that question.

MR. COCHRAN: I think--actually my point--it is not clear, even among friends here or advocates--he may think it is clear. It is not clear to me, so I think that from that standpoint certainly the perception a guy who volunteers his time deserves that opportunity. And in any other case you would have an opportunity for rebuttal or whatever, so the way the investigation is set up, until Deputy Downs talks to him, we will never find that out then.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Do you want to wait for Miss Clark before we start interviewing this witness regarding 320?

MR. HODGMAN: Yes. It is fair.

THE COURT: All right. Then in light of that, then 228 may find himself sequestered before a final ruling.

MR. COCHRAN: If he has somebody, and that is better than to have him out writing a book and saying how unfair everybody was to him, et cetera, you know, because I can prove it.

THE COURT: I think anytime we are dealing with a juror--

MR. COCHRAN: I think so.

THE COURT: --we have to accord them some significant due process simply because--I mean, they are here voluntarily, so to speak.

MR. COCHRAN: And he did tell us that he worked for Hertz. I mean, there is no question about that.

THE COURT: I agree. I agree. Deputy Downs, any problems with that?

DEPUTY DOWNS: I have no problems with it, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. He will be here at ten o'clock today, so you will have the opportunity, which should be shortly. So probably what we will have to do--what I envision is that after we talk to "R", then I will want to talk to 320 to see what her response is to his comments, and when we invite her in, and after we talk to her, we can bring 228 out also and then pose the question to him, and if he has nothing to offer at that point, then the record will be clear. If he has something to add, then Deputy--for Deputy Downs to check out, then we may have to postpone any ruling pending the outcome of Deputy Downs' further investigation.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, argument on the jurors, do you want to hear argument from counsel regarding what role--what should happen to these people, say, 320 and 228?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: Do you want to hear argument at some point from us about the various sides or do you want us to submit it?

THE COURT: Sure, sure. However you want to do it. I invite your comment, obviously. I think you are entitled to comment, but let's wait until we have the complete record.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. HODGMAN: We will be just a moment, your Honor.

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

(Discussion held off the record.)

THE COURT: Okay. We now have all of our parties available and we will now proceed to the interview of "R", which is with regard to Juror No. 320. Any comment before we invite "R" to join us? All right. Deputy Downs, if you would ask Deputy Brown to bring in "R", please.

DEPUTY DOWNS: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: You will allow us to ask some questions, your Honor?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

(Brief pause.)

DEPUTY DOWNS: Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen, "R".

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, "R".

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Come on in and have a seat, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, sir.

THE COURT: All right. "R", we are here to ask you some questions, basically to interview you, regarding knowledge that you have regarding Juror No. 320, whose actual name is 320. First of all, let me tell you how we are going to proceed. I'm going to have the clerk place you under oath. We have a court reporter here who will take down everything that goes on here in chambers today. After we conclude our investigation into this issue, this Court file is going to be--this particular transcript of these proceedings will be sealed and will not be available to the public and will only be available upon Court's order or upon direction by any Court of Appeal, for your information. Before we start, do you have any questions, sir?

"R": No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you administer the oath, please.

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

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and spell your first and last names for the record.

THE WITNESS: "R".

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, "R". "R", can you tell me what your relationship is with 320?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We have, umm--umm, lived together for the past fourteen years. We grew up together and knew each other through high school and stuff. We have a daughter together and a stepdaughter.

THE COURT: All right. And what is the current status of your relationship?

THE WITNESS: We have been separated for several years, umm, on or off again relationship, and at the moment we are--I have had a restraining order placed against me recently in the last two weeks, as a matter of fact.

THE COURT: All right. When was the last time that you actually lived with 320, shared the same residence?

THE WITNESS: About three years ago.

THE COURT: All right. Since you separated from her can you tell me what the--how you would characterize your relationship?

THE WITNESS: Well, sir, until--until a week and a half ago our relationship was--the reason for the separation to begin with was so that our daughters could attend a school over in ***** area instead of in the ***** area. That was the reason for the separation to begin with. Two weeks ago is when I found out I was no longer wanted in 320's life, okay? Up--the day just--the day before I found that out, we were together and we were talking with each other about different aspects, and about getting back together again, and I went over there to pick my daughter up so could I have her for that weekend. I was--she stated to me then that she was going out of town for a couple of days with some girlfriends from work. Well, she went out of town that weekend with her boyfriend and that was the first--the following Monday is when I found out I was no longer wanted in her life.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: When I confronted her with that fact--

THE COURT: Okay. Now, you have contacted a number of people regarding 320. First of all, apparently you contacted the Defense counsel's office?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The District Attorney's office and also the Court, which is obviously what brings you here today. And you have expressed some opinion regarding the fitness of 320 to serve as a trial juror in this case. Can you tell me, first of all, how it is that you became aware that 320 was a juror on this case?

THE WITNESS: I found out--I wanted--I wanted to take my daughter somewhere for a weekend a while back and 320 had stated to me that--she goes, "Well, instead of you taking her for the weekend, why don't you take her during the week" because she had the report down here for jury duty.

THE COURT: How did you become aware that she was a juror on this case?

THE WITNESS: On this particular case?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Well, we had spoken about it. When--the day she found out about it, she called and let me know, because she was--she started making arrangements to move out of her apartment.

THE COURT: As soon as she became a juror on this case?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Why was that necessary?

THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea.

THE COURT: Okay. What is it that you feel makes 320 unsuitable to be a juror on this case? What makes you feel that she has misrepresented or somehow not been truthful with the Court and with the lawyers concerning her background?

THE WITNESS: Umm, you know that 320 is prejudiced, okay? That is one of the reasons why she doesn't live with me and never did particularly want to stay with me in the city of *****, even though that is where we were raised at, okay? Just, you know, I know that--she has stated that to me personally. That is the no. 1.

THE COURT: All right. Tell me specifically what she said.

THE WITNESS: Well, over the course of our--of our--

THE COURT: Can you give me specific--

THE WITNESS: Knowing each other--320 had problems when we first--when 320 and I first met each other, she had a lot of different problems going on, and through the course of our relationship growing in that period, you know, I started asking her questions about why she acted certain ways, you know, in certain situations and why--being--my profession was a firefighter with the city of *****, okay? There are--I worked side-by-side with a lot of black firemen, okay? Some of them were very close friends of mine. They were never really accepted, you know, by 320 as friends of mine, okay? And so when I started asking her about--about why--if we went to a party or something like that, "Why don't you relax a little bit, 320, everybody here is friends," she would say--she told me that growing up as a child she had been, I'm not going to say molested or anything like that, but accosted, you know, by some--some black gentlemen, and I mean you know like just certain other things, you know, just certain other aspects of it, dealing with neighbors--neighbors and/or tenants around our--the--my apartments in ***** and stuff like that. She just can't--can't do it.

THE COURT: All right. How do you think that impacts her ability to be a juror on this case?

THE WITNESS: Okay. O.J. Simpson is a black man. We--I have been accused recently of--this whole thing came about, your Honor, one evening I'm sitting at home, my sister calls me and she says--me asked me if--she goes, "R," are you watching television?" I said, "No." she goes, "Is 320 on this O.J. Simpson jury?" because, you know, 320 take my daughter over to my mom's house and she had mentioned that she had jury duty and she was on jury duty. So they had a drawing of the jury. Somebody had drawn an artist sketch and they showed it on television, and one--one afternoon at Disneyland she had one of these artist sketches done of herself and it was identical.

All of our friends knew who it was, everybody at that--on that same show, I don't know what she was watching, but on that same show they mentioned that one of the jurors, a 38-year old postal service Hispanic woman, has just ended a 14-year relationship that had physical abuse, mental abuse and whatever else that they added to it. She asked me if I had seen that and I said, "No." I started laughing. I said, "No, I haven't seen it." about twenty minutes later, a friend of mine I haven't seen in six years calls me on the telephone and asks me about the same thing. Within thirty minutes, maybe twelve people have called me. Some of those people I haven't seen in five, six years, and they are asking me about this--they know 320 and I personally, and they had seen this--two days later is when I seen it for the first time. That is when I made my first call.

THE COURT: All right. Tell me about--you indicated in your comments to Deputy Downs that you feel she is extremely prejudiced against African Americans or black Americans. Can you tell me how that manifests itself? How does she exhibit that?

THE WITNESS: She just doesn't deal with them. She avoids it. She avoids black people.

THE COURT: Aren't several of her co-workers at the *********** also African Americans?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, sir, I would imagine so. I can tell you right now, not one of them has ever been to her home.

THE COURT: Can you tell me--

THE WITNESS: I don't know that for sure, your Honor. I'm just saying I believe none of them have ever been to her home.

THE COURT: Can you tell me--you indicated that you are aware of one other person by the name of "S" who was a fellow employee at the postal service who might also have information for us. Do you have any further information about how to identify this person?

THE WITNESS: "S" is the only--out of all 320 brand new friends, okay, "S" is the only one that I have ever met and had a conversation with.

THE COURT: Can you describe this person for us?

THE WITNESS: Yes. She is Mexican American. She has light-colored reddish type--reddish hair, I believe, about 5-6.

THE COURT: Do you know where she works, what postal facility?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. ********--*************************** in ********

THE COURT: And what information would "S" have? You don't have any inclination as to what her last name is?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And I don't know what type of information she would have, but I do know that 320 speaks with "S" a lot. She mentions her name a lot.

THE COURT: Okay. And this is out the ******** ******* and they are at the same work station there?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: What does 320 do for the **** ******?

THE WITNESS: She ***********

THE COURT: She is a **** *******?

THE WITNESS: ******

THE COURT: So "S" is probably another **** *******?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Can you give me a--you indicated to Deputy Downs that in your presence 320 has made racist or derogatory comments regarding African Americans. Can you tell me--give me an example of what those might be?

THE WITNESS: Yes. She--umm, the term "Nigger"" is--she can use that word anywhere at any time, okay? I mean, calling people this, you know, calling straight out--telling people this. My--personally myself, I don't like that word myself. It was never used in my family. I teach my kids not to use that word, and it is kind of hard to do when their mother is using the word all the time. But I will say this, too, your Honor, 320 is not just prejudiced against black people; she is also prejudiced against Mexican people.

THE COURT: How does that manifest itself? How does she display that?

THE WITNESS: In her tone of voice and also dealing with people. She--she speaks fluent Spanish and she doesn't like to use it, even if we were going for a week or so down in Mexico or something for vacation or anything. She doesn't like to speak Spanish. And Spanish is all that is spoken in her mother and father's home who is in charge of taking care of my daughter in the evening until she is picked up after school. When--when "T"--when "T", the oldest girl, was born, and she was at her grandmother's house, all the time, I made it--I made it known that I would like for them to be able to speak Spanish, and I thought that it was--that I felt that as though it was, umm, mandatory for them to be able to speak Spanish, given the area in which we live in. At that point, up until that point, the grandmother and grandfather would use Spanish with the girls. Once I--once I made it known that I would like for them to use the Spanish even more so with them, that is when they stopped using Spanish altogether. And neither one of my daughters, who is with their Spanish-speaking grandmother and grandfather all the time, most of the time, neither one of them speak Spanish.

THE COURT: How long ago did this problem regarding the language occur?

THE WITNESS: Oh, this is--I made that known when "U" was born and that was in `83.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I told them the night she was born. I said, "This child has got to learn how to speak Spanish to make it in the future America and in our--in our area of the future America." and at that point, you know, she does not speak Spanish today. She is twelve years old. Every day of her life after school she goes to her grandmother and grandfather's for at least four to five hours and she doesn't speak a word of Spanish.

THE COURT: "R", what is your own ethnic background?

THE WITNESS: I'm French and Spanish.

THE COURT: "R", somebody looking at this situation from the outside might say that you are motivated to cause problems for 320 because of the disruption of your relationship. How would you respond to that?

THE WITNESS: I respond to that, your Honor, by saying that--in the last three years I have lived by myself. 320 has come over and spent evenings with me. We have gone out of town and spend weekends and weeks together on vacation. Being told that throughout this relationship, being told that--and lied to about what type of relationship she wants. I'm not entering 320--I'm not entering into 320's life right now. 320 keeps entering into my life and disrupting my life about a lot of different things. And like I said before, I just found out that I was no longer wanted in her life just within the last two weeks.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Was that before or after you decided to contact anybody regarding this case?

THE WITNESS: No. That was after I contacted both the Defense and the Prosecution before--before I was served with a restraining order.

THE COURT: Have you informed 320 that you are doing this?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hodgman, do you have any questions?

MR. HODGMAN: Miss Clark does, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

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

MS. CLARK: Excuse me. Do you have a calendar book with you there, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MS. CLARK: And why did you bring that?

THE WITNESS: I brought this for my own note taking. I brought this because this goes with me everywhere I go and I brought this basically because I've got--I have, umm, names and numbers and a few dates written down in here.

MS. CLARK: And what is it you have written down in that book?

THE WITNESS: Just a whole lot of different stuff. I have--a few months back I was trying to get--refinance my apartments. I have that information in here. I have--

THE COURT: All right. Is there anything in there specifically with regards to this issue?

THE WITNESS: Not really, no.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any notations in there as to when you contacted the Prosecution or the Defense?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And what does it say? Can I see it, please.

THE WITNESS: I believe all it is, is--was the name and the number--the morning I went looking to try to find the number who to contact, you know.

MS. CLARK: Can I see it?

THE WITNESS: Can you see it?

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE WITNESS: Sure. Let me find it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: If it is okay with the Court, can I peruse through the book while Miss Clark asks questions, perhaps speed things up?

THE COURT: Well, let's have "R" find the location. I don't know if we are interested in any notes about refinancing his apartments.

MR. DARDEN: I'm not.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Do you have any notes in that book concerning 320?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MS. CLARK: Could you show us those?

THE WITNESS: I have notes in this book concerning my life. I have this book maybe four or five years. Anything that you would like to see.

MS. CLARK: I would like to see your notes concerning 320 and concerning your contact with the Court.

THE COURT: Well, I tell you what, why don't we do this, then: Miss Clark, let me ask you to ask any questions that you wish to ask and then later "R" can sit down with Deputy Downs and go through the book, find whatever pages are relevant, and then make photocopies of that.

MS. CLARK: Well, if "R" doesn't mind, perhaps Mr. Darden can examine the book for the relevant passages while I'm questioning him and that would save a lot of time.

THE COURT: Well, it may save time since "R" knows what he is looking for, and let me hand him a pad of post-its so he can put post-its on the relevant pages.

MS. CLARK: "R", would you mind if Mr. Darden looked at the book to find what was relevant for inquiry?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I would, unless I can sit down with Mr. Darden and go through with him at the same time, because there is stuff in here that doesn't pertain to anything here.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you go ahead with any questions you might have and we will leave the journal for later.

MS. CLARK: "R", you contacted the Prosecution in December; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: In December? I think it was--I think it was more toward the end of November. I think it was earlier than December.

MS. CLARK: And did you leave a phone number at which you could be reached?

THE WITNESS: Well--

MS. CLARK: And there were people who then called you back?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And you did not speak with them, did you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am, I did.

MS. CLARK: Who did you speak with?

THE WITNESS: I spoke--I believe Mr. Darden had called and left a message and I had called back and I had spoken with someone who--I don't know who it was--but they--something had gone on and they told me they would get right back with me, and about two days later they called me back, an investigator.

MS. CLARK: And when was it that you spoke to someone?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? Pardon?

MS. CLARK: When was it that you spoke with someone ultimately?

THE WITNESS: Someone from your office?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I had left a message at your office.

MS. CLARK: Right. And it was sometime after you left that message that you ultimately spoke to someone, correct?

THE WITNESS: A few days. Within a few days, I believe.

MS. CLARK: You think it was within a few days?

THE WITNESS: I think so. I don't really recall right now at the moment.

MS. CLARK: And what is your address, sir?

THE WITNESS: **************************, ****.

MS. CLARK: You do keep a padlock on the outside of that door, don't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And you have a substantial number of whiskey bottles on your porch; don't you?

THE WITNESS: Those aren't whiskey bottles; they are actually tequila bottles.

MS. CLARK: You do drink pretty heavily, do you, sir?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, I don't. I don't drink at home.

MS. CLARK: But you have a lot of tequila bottles on your porch?

THE WITNESS: Well--

MS. CLARK: What was that?

THE WITNESS: The gentleman who does the painting of the apartments, he does a lot of drinking.

MS. CLARK: He left them on your porch?

THE WITNESS: Those bottles aren't on my porch, ma'am. Those bottles happen to be in two 55-gallon drums in which I collect the bottles and place all the glass in for recycling.

MS. CLARK: In front of your house?

THE WITNESS: Right in front of the garage, yes, ma'am, right in front of the garage door.

MS. CLARK: When was the last time they were picked up for recycling?

THE WITNESS: It has been some time.

MS. CLARK: And when was it that you started having visitation problems with 320?

THE WITNESS: I have never had a visitation with 320 until--until the Monday--the Monday that I went to her house, umm, to ask 320--to let 320 know that now that--now that I have--you know, every time I have ever asked 320 what is going on with our relationship, she has straight out lied to me and just said that, well, she needs a little more time and she need this, she needs this and she needs this. She has never came out to me and said that she no longer wanted me--our relationship, okay? That--she has never ever said that, okay? Saturday night--Saturday night before she went out of town she told me where she was going and asked me if I could watch my daughter. And I have always told 320--I said, "Listen, 320, anytime I can have "U", I will take "U." there are a lot of times when I ask her if I could have my daughter for the weekend and I'm told no and given no reason at all. Every time 320's going out of town with her so-called new friend, it is no problem for 320 to call me and ask me if I can watch my daughter. There is no problem if she has my daughter call my mother to find out if she can go visit grandma for that weekend, and it just happened to be--it was--it was a manipulative--the manipulation of the situation that finally I was frustrated with the situation. If I come out and ask her if I could--the weekend before this happened I wanted to take my daughter fishing with me, okay? I made plans. I went over there and I found out and she said, "Yes, you could take your daughter fishing." that start morning she did not drop my daughter off for me to take her fishing.

MS. CLARK: When was this?

THE WITNESS: This was the weekend before the 8th of--December 8th.

MS. CLARK: So around the end of November?

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. Okay. Now, the weekend of--the weekend of the 8th or on the 8th I went over to her house to ask my daughter if--to talk to my daughter about a few things and something else. Anyway, at that--that--that night 320 asked me if I could take care of her that weekend. I said, "Sure." she said she was going out of town with two girlfriends and she gave me the two girlfriend's names. My daughter mentioned it--later on that evening my daughter mentioned to me two different girlfriend's names. The next day 320 called up and said, okay, she was leaving, this, that and everything. She gave me two different names. So that was six different names in a 24-hour period. So Sunday morning, when her girlfriends are supposed to pick her up, I went over to the park across the street from her house and I sat there and I waited to see who was going to pick 320 up. Her boyfriend drove up and picked her up.

MS. CLARK: When was this?

THE WITNESS: That was Sunday morning.

MS. CLARK: The 9th?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if it was the 9th or the 10th, okay, but it was that weekend. Okay. That was the first time--the night before that 320 and I were talking and I asked her straight out, "Are you seeing someone?" she said, "No," this, that and everything. She goes, "No. I told you before if I'm seeing someone I will tell you."

MS. CLARK: What race is her boyfriend?

THE WITNESS: Pardon me?

MS. CLARK: What race is her boyfriend?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MS. CLARK: You saw him?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. I wasn't paying any attention to her boyfriend, okay?

MS. CLARK: Well, you saw him. What did he look like?

THE WITNESS: He looked--he looked white to me.

MS. CLARK: What color was his skin?

THE WITNESS: He appeared to be a white man.

MS. CLARK: What color was his hair?

THE WITNESS: Gray.

MS. CLARK: What color were his eyes?

THE WITNESS: I'm--if I had gotten that close--I did not want to get that close to this man, okay? If I had gotten that close to that man, you know what I mean, or to her at that particular time--

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE WITNESS: I didn't go there for all of that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. This was the first time--

THE WITNESS: I went there to say myself, listen, something is going on. She is--her actions or her words to me do not fit her actions to me.

MS. CLARK: Is this the first time you found her going out with someone else after you separated?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I mean yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: How long after seeing her with that man did you talk to someone in the office of the Prosecution or the Defense?

THE WITNESS: After her seeing her with that man?

MS. CLARK: Yes. How long after that?

THE WITNESS: It wasn't after that. I had talked to both the Defense and the Prosecution before that that happened.

MS. CLARK: When did that--sir, let me ask you a question. And after seeing her with that man did you re-initiate contact with the Court, the Prosecution or the Defense?

THE WITNESS: No.

MS. CLARK: You did not make any further contact after that?

THE WITNESS: Further contact was made, but it wasn't because of that man.

MS. CLARK: But you made further contact after that man?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And when you first--during the course of your relationship with her, you lived together for how long?

THE WITNESS: Fourteen years.

MS. CLARK: And were the police ever called to your house as a result of violence?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Never?

THE WITNESS: Never.

MS. CLARK: Did she ever made a complaint against you to the police or to any--

THE WITNESS: I don't have any of that information. If she has--the police have been to her house to ask me to leave her house. It was--there was no violence.

MS. CLARK: When was that?

THE WITNESS: There are several--that has happened several times.

MS. CLARK: That they have come to her house to ask you to leave?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And is that because she asked you to leave and you refused to do so?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. That--to be honest--to be truthful with you all the way on this, one time did I cause a commotion at her home and refused to leave. She called my father and my father--and she called the police. My father got there before the police did. While my father and I were speaking, the police showed up, and I was bound and determined that if I had to go to jail that day, I was going to go to jail that day, okay, to let it--to get my side--my point of view made--made, okay?

MS. CLARK: When did that happen?

THE WITNESS: Oh, that has been some time. That has been six, seven years back.

MS. CLARK: Was that the first time she called the police on you?

THE WITNESS: I believe it was.

MS. CLARK: And how many times did she call the police on you since then?

THE WITNESS: Umm, that I know of, maybe four, five.

MS. CLARK: And was the Department of Social Services contacted with respect to the children?

THE WITNESS: I--umm, if--that is where you report--get a restraining order from?

MS. CLARK: No.

THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea.

MS. CLARK: Do you know of any agency that was called to protect or take care of your children?

THE WITNESS: I have contacted agencies myself.

MS. CLARK: For what purpose.

THE WITNESS: Because at one--truthfully a few years back I felt as though 320 was not fit to be a mother.

MS. CLARK: Why is that?

THE WITNESS: Because she was--she could not answer a question to me having to deal with anything. One afternoon I was asked to go pick my daughter up from school. I went to the school to pick my daughter up at 2:30, which is the time that I was told to pick her up. At 3:30, which I figured this has got to be the last child leaving this school right now, and I still haven't seen my daughter, at that time I made contact with the people that were in the office and for the first time I had just found out that four months previously she had been transferred to another school, four months.

MS. CLARK: Has 320 ever complained to you of your abusing her children?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Has she ever called the police because of your abuse of the children?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Has the Department of Social Services ever been called to intervene because of the way you handle the children?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. I had my daughter the weekend that she had her boyfriend up in the mountains, okay? The following weekend or Monday morning she filed for a restraining order and I haven't seen my daughter--I was kept from seeing my daughter from New Year's and Christmas for the first time ever in fourteen years in our relationship.

MS. CLARK: How long have you been separated?

THE WITNESS: We have--we have lived apart for the past three years.

MS. CLARK: And during that time you have been trying to reconcile with her?

THE WITNESS: There is nothing to reconcile. I was never told that I wasn't wanted in her life until last week.

MS. CLARK: So as far as you were--

THE WITNESS: And then I was told by her sister.

MS. CLARK: So as far as you were concerned things were fine between you?

THE WITNESS: Things were not fine. Things were by no means fine. Umm, but--umm, I have not dated--for the past three years I have not dated. I have not sought to date anyone. I have tried everything I can to build our relationship. And at every time car--and I will sit down with 320 and we will lay out plans, and as soon as--as soon as the plan is just about ready to--as soon as you are ready to reap your harvest from those plans, they goes wrong.

MS. CLARK: So you would try to reconcile with her and she would pull away?

THE WITNESS: I don't call it a reconciliation.

MS. CLARK: Did you try to move back in with her? Is what you were planning to do?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. What I was doing was giving 320 space that 320 was telling me she needed.

MS. CLARK: She needed space.

THE WITNESS: That is all that I ever got out of her.

MS. CLARK: And were you planning at some point and hoping to move back there with her?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. That is why I hadn't been dating.

MS. CLARK: And she kept putting you off?

THE WITNESS: Umm, well, yeah, I guess you could state that.

MS. CLARK: When did you retire from the **** ********?

THE WITNESS: I retired from ***** **** ******** in ****

MS. CLARK: Why?

THE WITNESS: I had a hiatal hernia.

MS. CLARK: And you suffered that as a result of job-related injury?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Were there any other problems that caused you to retire?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: If I contact the **** ********, they will tell us that you retired because just of a hiatal hernia?

THE WITNESS: I believe so. As a matter of fact, the reason I retired was because I had--I had the proper percentage of disability to retire if I chose to do so. At--during that particular time my family and I were together, okay? We sat down and discussed this. I told--I let it be known to them that I would like to--I would like to take the opportunity to, after eighteen years with the **** ********, to leave the **** ******** at that particular time and go over to **** ***** ****, ***** and relax and build some homes.

MS. CLARK: And you were served with a restraining order when?

THE WITNESS: I was never served with a restraining order. I was told that--by--I was notified by 320 she was filing for a restraining order, okay? And then the next thing I know is that these people are telling me that she was the only one that told me that I was being served with a restraining order. So I said, okay, when I get it, I will take care of it. No problem. Apparently they came out to my house several times, and either I wasn't there or I had gone around the corner or something, but I tried to make myself available to be there to receive the restraining order. I know I--he was sick one day when I spent the night one night over at my mother's home, and apparently that morning the lady in the front house told me that they had two guys there the night before knocking on my door.

MS. CLARK: So you still haven't received a copy of it?

THE WITNESS: I have got it--I have one now, yes, but I received that through the court.

MS. CLARK: And what court was that?

THE WITNESS: ****** court.

MS. CLARK: ****** Superior Court?

THE WITNESS: Superior Court, yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And it alleges what? What are the grounds stated in the TRO? What does she allege? What she does say in there? What are you doing?

THE WITNESS: What am I doing?

MS. CLARK: In the papers what does it say you are doing?

THE WITNESS: She stated to the Judge--in the papers--what it was all about was for me to stay away from--from her house.

MS. CLARK: Right, and why?

THE WITNESS: Because--because that Monday morning that I went over there to speak with 320, she opened the--she alleged that I attacked her.

MS. CLARK: Physically attacked her?

THE WITNESS: Physically attacked her, yes, and struck her.

MS. CLARK: And did you?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. I didn't strike out at 320. 320--I knock on the door, 320 opened the door, and there is a security door there, okay? From behind the security door she says, "What do you want?" and I said, "I came by to let you know that now that I know about your secret, that maybe we could sit down like adults and do this thing properly, take care of--take care of finances and do--you know, take care of things properly." 320 wants to get on with 320's life, but she is not allowing "R" to get on with "R's" life.

MS. CLARK: What secret is that?

THE WITNESS: The secret that she has been dating. This is the not the first time that she has dated that particular man. I have found that out. Miss Clark, you must understand that I am an ******** my own self. I have been--I was an *************** with the city of *****, okay? So I do know the procedures of going about finding out information, okay? I just wish I had found this out maybe three years ago when I believe this whole thing started with 320, okay, and that way I could have three years of lost time to three years of good time instead of all this.

MS. CLARK: So this secret you are speaking of was the first time you confronted her with dating someone else?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. It was the first--no, it is not the first time I confronted her with dating anyone. It is the first time that I had proof, okay, that she was dating someone.

MS. CLARK: But you accuse her of it before?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, I never accused her of anything before. I had asked her before.

MS. CLARK: What happened--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, hold on. Do you have any other area, because I think--I have an impression as to what the nature of the relationship is at this point.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you strike her on that occasion?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. I was told that she has--I have--she told me when I asked her--I said, "Can we sit down and take care of the business that I need to get on with my life with, 320, like adults? Can we take care of the things that I've been asking you for for the last several years, like adults, and do this thing properly instead of me coming over here and asking you a question or you coming over to my house?" I mean just the night before 320 walked up to me and is hugging on me the night before she left with this man. She is hugging me and telling me how much she loves me, do you understand?

MS. CLARK: "R", when you heard her profiled on T.V. as someone who had suffered physical and mental abuse over a 14-year relationship, what did you think of that?

THE WITNESS: First of all, I didn't hear that on television. My sister called me and told me that is what she heard and then within the next hour or two people from my past who know 320 and I called me and asked me if I had seen it. I believe it was CNN. I'm not positive. Personally a couple days later I saw that picture which everybody recognized as being 320.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What was your reaction to what you heard was said about you on T.V.?

THE WITNESS: My reaction--my first reaction, I got mad. I got mad, and my first reaction was anger.

MS. CLARK: And you don't live with 320, do you?

THE WITNESS: No. Not at the moment, no.

MS. CLARK: That hasn't been the case for some years; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MS. CLARK: You don't see her on a daily basis; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No.

MS. CLARK: You don't go to her house on a daily basis; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: The only friend you know that she has is this woman "S"?

THE WITNESS: She has got other friends. I have never been given the opportunity to meet any of her friends.

MS. CLARK: How do you know she has them?

THE WITNESS: Well, maybe--maybe those are the friends that--like the two girls names, you know, two names she had give me and two different names she gave my daughter, and then later on she gave me two different names.

MS. CLARK: You don't know who they are?

THE WITNESS: These were all girls, no, ma'am, but "V" is the guy that picked her up, so maybe "V" is the only friend.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you have anything else?

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment?

THE COURT: Sure.

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

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Could you check on the status and find out where Deputy Magnera is going to put everybody. All right. Thank you. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. "R", I just have a few questions, sir. Do you know the approximate date that you first contacted either the Prosecution or the Defense? You said it was in November. Do you know about when in November?

THE WITNESS: I contacted the Defense first.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Do you remember whether you called my office or Mr. Shapiro's office?

THE WITNESS: I called your office first.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You talked to a receptionist; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Then sequentially after you spoke with the receptionist in my office and you advised her at that time of the problems regarding Miss 320--how do you pronounce her last name?

THE WITNESS: 320.

MR. COCHRAN: 320?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: You at that time told a young lady in my office that--let me see if this is correct--that 320 was heard on more than one occasion talking about O.J. Simpson and beating his wife, that this co-worker would do something like that--that her doing that you thought might jeopardize Mr. Simpson receiving a fair trial. Do you recall that 320 at some point had talked about domestic violence or domestic discord between Mr. Simpson and his wife?

THE WITNESS: Yes, over the telephone the night that--the night of the freeway chase, I guess it was.

MR. COCHRAN: 320--

THE WITNESS: 320 and I were talking to each other on the phone, and that is when that thing--they started showing this thing, so we started talking about it right on the phone.

MR. COCHRAN: What did she say?

THE WITNESS: She goes--she told me that--she says that, "Apparently he is guilty; he is running."

MR. COCHRAN: She--this lady said that "Apparently he is guilty, he is running"?

THE WITNESS: 320 said what, "Do you think? It looks like he is guilty to me."

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: We talked for hours that night on the phone about it.

MR. COCHRAN: And this was back in June of 1994, the date of the so-called--

THE WITNESS: Freeway chase.

MR. COCHRAN: --freeway follow; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: As a matter of fact, I believe 320 called me and said, "Are you watching the news?" and at that time I was working upstairs in an empty apartment.

MR. COCHRAN: Right. It was after that that she made this statement about he is guilty or words to that effect; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, do you recall that after that, after the June date, do you recall her saying anything else, before she even became a juror, about this?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. We had talked about it quite frequently because there is a lot of different aspects about it, you know, that we had--that we had talked about.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell the Court, if you can, some of those aspects.

THE WITNESS: Umm, it is like--let me see. There is a lot of speculation, there is a lot of speculation as to Mr. Goldman.

MR. COCHRAN: She engaged in speculation. Tell is what she said about Mr. Goldman.

THE WITNESS: She said that--it sounded--she told me that it sounded to her as though--it looked as though O.J. Was trying to put his marriage back together and that--and that his wife is going--you know, is living in his house or something like that, and--and being given money by him and stuff like that and at the same time going out with--you know, got caught with another man.

MR. COCHRAN: Meaning Mr. Goldman; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Goldman, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what she--

THE WITNESS: That was before apparently we found out that her boyfriend looked like Goldman or something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Her boyfriend looked like Goldman?

THE WITNESS: What apparently that is--yeah. Apparently that is what she had seen on T.V. or read this book or something. Her real boyfriend--Mr. Goldman had been mistaken as her boyfriend.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Who told you that?

THE WITNESS: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you hear that?

THE WITNESS: We were discussing it one night watching television, that they had a show on T.V. That had mentioned it and it might have been like hard copy or one of those type of shows.

MR. COCHRAN: One of those accurate programs. So let's say now when say we were discussing it, that would be you and 320?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did she comment on the fact that Mr. Ron Goldman may have been mistaken for Nicole Brown Simpson's boyfriend?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What did she say about that, if you recall?

THE WITNESS: Well, she--she said--well, you know, she was saying--we were talking about what the--what so-called facts these people were showing, and like I told her, I said, well, yes, it appears to me--I said, but you got to--I said, yeah, but remember about all these--at that period of time, like everything dealt with inside sources, our inside sources, everybody had inside sources and everybody's inside sources who were, you know, nothing concrete. I mentioned--"320," I said, "Listen, until all of those inside sources are sorted out, nobody is going to know anything about what happened out there."

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: I said, you know, like you got the police--the police killed her, you know, there is aspect that the police had killed her, there is aspects or--or leading me to think that. There is aspects that--I mean, you know, the so-called boyfriend that Mr. Goldman had been mistaken for. The last thing I heard about this guy--I never seen a picture of this guy. I don't know his name or anything, but I do remember hearing something about he immediately left the country and has been gone since then. That is what I heard, okay? Now, I don't know if it is true. I don't put any credence in any of that type of stuff, you understand. Any other conversation where you call wherein 320 said something about the Simpson case prior to her being called down her for jury duty? Any opinions that she ventured?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: Other than the fact that for some reason she just felt as though--she had mentioned to me that she had felt as though Nicole had been cheating on O.J. And that he finally caught her.

MR. COCHRAN: And that he was guilty of killing her? That was her opinion. That he was guilty of killing her?

THE WITNESS: She never said that. What--she said it appeared as though he was guilty the night we were watching the chase on television.

MR. COCHRAN: The chase?

THE WITNESS: She never came out and told me that he was guilty or nothing like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, then at some point you became aware, through the source that you have told us, that she was probably on this particular jury, this jury panel. Has she ever told you that she was on this jury, on the Simpson jury?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When did she tell you that?

THE WITNESS: She called me immediately the day she found out. I think that was like the first part of November--she immediately called me because she said we have to make arrangements to take care of our daughters, you know, because I mean it is no secret that Judge Ito is having problems--do we sequester this jury or do we not, okay? I might also mention that since 320 and I--when 320 and I turned eighteen years old, we had the opportunity to vote in America as 18-year olds for the first time. Okay. We have always used that opportunity and we have always been available for jury duty and 320 has come down for jury duty many, many times. 320 has never, ever, never, ever once sat through--sat through a trial. She has always given an excuse to get out of it for some reason. This is the only one and she has gone way out of her way, okay, to be on this jury.

THE COURT: Why do you think that is?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor--

MR. COCHRAN: Hoopla?

THE WITNESS: I do not know. I can't tell you.

THE COURT: She hasn't made any comments to you?

THE WITNESS: I can tell you what my theory is.

THE COURT: What is your theory?

THE WITNESS: My theory is--

MS. CLARK: I'm going to object to that question, your Honor, as irrelevant and speculation.

THE WITNESS: I believe it is relevant. I believe it is very relevant because I have facts to go along with it.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer it.

THE COURT: Give me your answer.

THE WITNESS: I'm out of hand here.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: And I'm very--excuse me, Miss Clark, but everybody has been telling me that it is irrelevant, but it is very relevant, okay.

THE COURT: Tell me why.

THE WITNESS: Because--because, sir, I have worked very hard from a young man, okay? I started out as a ******** at eighteen years old, months right out of high school. You couldn't even be a ******** until you are 21 then, okay? Yet I was working right alongside ****** who were Vietnam--Vietnam vets who were making $1400 a month, I'm making $88.00 a month doing the exact same job, the exact same training, okay? I worked very hard to provide for--for my family.

THE COURT: All right. "R", let me ask you, the question to you was why do you think it is that 320 wants to be a juror on this case when she has avoided jury service on other cases?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Object again, your Honor, as speculation. He says he didn't know. He has his own theory.

THE COURT: Noted. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: There has been statements made that--the statements--in particular, your Honor, the statements about the abuse throughout fourteen years of our relationship. There has been--for the first time--for the first time ever in fourteen years of our relationship just this past Monday that--that this restraining order was obtained did I--have I struck 320 where she has witnesses of me striking 320. For the first time ever, okay? For the first time in our relationship, umm, these statements are being made now. Why are they being made now? I believe they are being made now because she has--she has--she has a means of saying these statements and my statements being irrelevant.

Last Friday at the hearing there was a Judge that we--that was speaking to us. He asked me a question which she blurted out her answer to. When I was--when I asked for the opportunity to give me answer, he said yes, you can give your answer, but make it a yes or a no answer, no explanation. Irrelevant again. Your Honor, I'm not irrelevant, okay? I can see--see, the reason I'm here is if these statements just go by and they are contested, then it is as though I'm guilty of whatever it is she decides, whenever it is she decides to put--put it out or say it or do it and I'm not guilty of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I ask a follow-up question, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why is it that you think she wanted to serve on this jury in relation to you?

THE WITNESS: Well, once again, O.J. Simpson is being accused of abusing his wife throughout a long-time relationship. All of a sudden I'm being accused of the same thing. Friday afternoon, when she blurted out her answer to the Judge's question that was--that was meant for me, she--she very quickly and politely, and I'm sure it is in the Court orders, she said that I am stalking her.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So you think--let me see if I understand what you are saying.

THE WITNESS: Now all of a sudden I'm stalking the woman. Two nights before I was at her house sitting down picking up my daughter, she was hugging and kissing on me. Now I'm stalking her.

THE COURT: "R", do you know what court this was in?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It was ****** superior Court.

THE COURT: Do you know what department?

THE WITNESS: I believe it was department f.

THE COURT: Do you know the name of the Judge?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, anything else?

MR. COCHRAN: Just a few other questions, your Honor, if I may. Does the Court think you've heard enough? There are a few other areas that I wanted to go into, if I may, just briefly. If I understand what you are saying to us, that you believe that this case has given her a forum to talk about domestic abuse and stalking.

THE WITNESS: To charge me with these crimes and actually at the same time take me to court and I have trouble with her saying all this at this particular time and being a juror on this man's jury.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you think that because of her beliefs and her experiences, that might tend to make her an unfair juror toward O.J. Simpson? That is one of your concerns concerning--

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am--sir, I'm sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you said when you first called my office the first call before any papers were served; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple other questions. After you called--

THE WITNESS: And it takes me a long time to talk you people--call you people.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't just call me, you also called Shapiro's office?

THE WITNESS: I called your office and then I called--I think I called Shapiro's office and then your office.

MR. COCHRAN: You also called the Prosecution?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you were asked some questions and you shared with Deputy Downs the fact that this lady is racially prejudiced and you told his Honor that she uses the word "Nigger" quite frequently, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have any other anecdotal information regarding her racial prejudice against African Americans?

THE WITNESS: Sure. She could have worked in ***** and walked two blocks to work. I was living in ***** and walking half a mile to work.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that where you were living together?

THE WITNESS: But she had to go to ********, you know what I mean.

MR. COCHRAN: She wanted to go to ******** because it was a non-black area?

THE WITNESS: Well. There is blacks living in ********, but there are--the particular--the--most--the majority make-up is of Hispanic, I would imagine.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. Not only that, sir, but she--we lived in ******** for quite some time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Any other things that you recall that she said about African Americans or about black people?

THE WITNESS: Over the years?

MR. COCHRAN: Just kind of a summary for us, if you can, that demonstrates her racial prejudice?

THE WITNESS: Umm, for instance, 320--at the beginning of the summer 320 was living where she is living at this particular moment, okay, in the city of **** ***** with her sister and brother-in-law. All right. I was having--I was having a lot of difficulty going over there to visit, okay? Because I mean, you know, I have to--I have to--I have to maintain around her family members all the time. I have to maintain too much. You know, they have--I'm tired of them talking about me in front of my daughter, okay? My daughter calls me on the phone and says hey, dad, they said this, this, this, and I said, "You know, baby, don't even listen to that stuff, you know." if you see them or her sisters or mother and father or whoever talking to me, to my face and you know, hey, they know my telephone number, they know where I live, they know my mother's number, you understand, hey, if you have anything, talk to me, man-to-man face-to-face, you know what I mean, because that is the way I want to come to you, okay? I'm not going to say--I don't talk about 320 in front of my daughter. I don't ask my daughter anything about her mother.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about the incidents of racial prejudice. You were going to tell us another example.

THE WITNESS: Okay. That is why I was having difficulty going over to that house. So at that--and again, at that particular time, we were supposedly working to heel our relationship, okay? So 320 moved out. She--320 first daughter, "T", who I always considered my daughter, because I raised her--I got a chance to raise her. I'm not getting a chance to raise my daughter, okay? All right. Has--ran away from the home, okay? She has been gone all summer, part of last year of the school year.

MR. COCHRAN: How old is she?

THE WITNESS: She is 16. She will be 17 in a month, two months. Okay. So that--that was apparently all right with 320, so 320 and "U" moved into a home on ***** avenue in ******* it was a two-bedroom--a small two-bedroom home and, you know, 320 had her room and my daughter had her room by herself for the first time. Okay. Now, she lived there up until the time she found out that she--when she found out that she was going to be a juror on this trial she started making arrangements to move.

THE COURT: "R", the question to you is what information, what other incidents?

THE WITNESS: Of prejudice?

THE COURT: Of racial prejudice can you tell us about. That was the question.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, sir. See, at that time when she started saying that, I said, well, instead of going on on this big search for a home and first and last month's rent and security deposit, I said, hey, I've got an empty apartment that is empty right now, just been painted, new carpeting, everything right now. And they lived there before. Instead of going through all this stuff again, 320, why don't you let the girls come home, you know? Why don't you let her stay with me instead of her moving her back into the situation that I keep trying to get her out of at her sister's home. At that time 320 says--she goes, "Listen, I'm not going to allow my girls to live in ******" I said, "320, what is the matter? What is so bad with ***** with you 320?" she goes--she goes--you know, she told me straight out--she goes, "You know what the answer is, "R". you already know the answer to that." I said, "No, I don't. What is it?" "Because I don't like *****, I don't like the area, I don't like niggers, I don't like the schools, I don't like any of that."

MR. COCHRAN: She said that to you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the other question I wasn't clear on, why--do you know why she decided to move from her apartment--from this house or whatever when she got on this case? Why did she move? Do you know why?

THE WITNESS: She said she was going to be sequestered and that she can not pay--she cannot pay this guy rent and not being there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: And not be working and everything.

MR. COCHRAN: She made arrangements? What month was that that she started?

THE WITNESS: She gave the man--she gave her--let's see. Umm, it had to be--this started at the end of September.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She had only lived there--when she mentioned to it me, she had only been living there a few months actually.

MR. COCHRAN: Has she moved now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. She moved at the--you know, I think it was the first of November when she moved.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. The last question I have is you were kind enough to bring your book and I don't think we should be looking through your book.

THE WITNESS: I don't think you should either, but I don't mind if you do.

MR. COCHRAN: The Judge has so indicated. You mentioned the restraining order. Can we see a copy of the restraining order?

THE WITNESS: To be honest with you, I forgot it with another book in the truck.

MR. COCHRAN: It is here, though?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: If you would?

THE WITNESS: It is not here, it is at the parking lot.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE WITNESS: About two miles, three miles away?

THE WITNESS: It could be obtained today.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to see that. It might be helpful to us, your Honor, to answer the question about which court.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Downs, if you can get us a copy of the restraining order.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm not going to ask any other questions at this point.

THE COURT: All right. "R", I want to thank you for coming in. Do you have any other comment that you wish to make, anything for the record before we conclude this morning?

THE WITNESS: Umm, no, sir. I just like to thank you guys for--you know, all of you are very busy and I--to me I think it was well worth the time. I think it is going to show to be well worth the time and effort to at least, you know, know what I had to say.

THE COURT: All right. "R"--

THE WITNESS: Thank you for listening.

THE COURT: We appreciate your taking the time to come in.

THE WITNESS: You are welcome.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: You are welcome.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Downs, thank you.

(Brief pause.)

("R" exited chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Deputy Downs and "R" have withdrawn from chambers. Counsel, what I propose to do at this point is to check and see what the status is of our jury that is ordered back. What I intend on doing is advising them of the formal sequestration order--Deputy Downs, would you ask Deputy Magnera to wander back here for me, please.

DEPUTY DOWNS: Sure.

THE COURT: Thank you. It might be easier to ask 320 to come out of the jury room right now rather than do it out in public right now, so let me see if she is in there and available.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, I had forgotten, can I have Jo-Ellan come back? She wanted to sit in on this possible. If possible. I think she was in on the last juror.

MS. CLARK: Where?

MR. COCHRAN: Where what? Her job is the jury. I think she was in here before. She is not going to ask any questions, Judge.

THE COURT: We are going to have to get bigger chambers, you know that.

MR. COCHRAN: I would vote for that, Judge.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: What is the status of our jury?

THE BAILIFF: They are all present in the jury room.

THE COURT: They are all present. Counsel, let's take a brief five-minute court reporter break and then we will talk to 320 and ask her about these things.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Judge.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you get me Deputy Magnera, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I'm going to have 228 to come out first so Deputy Downs could be here, because he has got to take "R" back.

THE CLERK: He is coming.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Downs. All right. I need 228, please.

DEPUTY MAGNERA: 228.

MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, we are on the record?

THE COURT: Yeah, back on the record.

MR. HODGMAN: Before 228 comes in again, the People want to urge the Court--I think the record has been established with regard to 228. I know what the Court's mind set is, but just to me it seems like we are going to open Pandora's box and go further and further and further without getting this resolved.

THE COURT: Maybe yes; maybe no.

MS. CLARK: Let me just point out one thing, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, we've had this discussion already. I said no. This is the way we are going to do it. All right?

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

DEPUTY MAGNERA: 228.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. 228, why don't you have a seat there, and Deputy Magnera, why don't you close the door. 228, have a seat there, please. Good morning. How are you again?

JUROR NO. 228: Good morning.

THE COURT: The last time you were here, if you recall, we had a discussion about your participation in a particular event at Hertz at an open house for the new facility?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes.

THE COURT: And my recollection is that you told us that you were there but you don't recall being personally introduced to Mr. Simpson or having ever been formally introduced to him?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Is that correct?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir, that's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know of anybody that we could talk to who was present at that event that might be able to corroborate your version of how things happened?

JUROR NO. 228: Possibly, but I'm not sure.

THE COURT: Who might that be?

JUROR NO. 228: Umm, it could be one of the employees by the name of--let me see. Who was there? I think "W".

THE COURT: "W"?

JUROR NO. 228: "W".

THE COURT: Is "W" still employed there at Hertz?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, he is.

THE COURT: All right. What part of the Hertz set-up?

JUROR NO. 228: He is in the*** ********** he is one of the ***** ******

THE COURT: All right. Was he on this planning committee as well?

JUROR NO. 228: No, he was not, but he was at the event.

THE COURT: Okay. Can you think of anybody else?

JUROR NO. 228: Let's see. There is quite a few people that was there, but I don't know if they really knew the situation, whether I met Mr. Simpson or not, in which I never did.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

JUROR NO. 228: But I do have a letter that was forwarded to my--to my file that stated--congratulating me for participating, but honestly, I just never met Mr. Simpson and that is the only thing I can think of right now.

THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else who was on the planning committee or anything like that that you would suggest we talk to?

JUROR NO. 228: Umm, maybe "X". I think she was on the committee with me as well.

THE COURT: "X"?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes. She is one of the ***** *** there.

THE COURT: All right. Is she still there?

THE WITNESS: Yes she is.

THE COURT: How do you spell "X"?

JUROR NO. 228: "X", same as the--

THE COURT: As the--

JUROR NO. 228: --yes.

THE COURT: Okay. No. 228, do you have any other comment regarding that particular issue? Anything else you need to tell us about?

JUROR NO. 228: No, not that I could think of right now.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, could we inquire as to whether that letter is still in existence in the file and whether it was signed by O.J. Simpson?

JUROR NO. 228: Well, I have a copy of it myself because they put one in my file and they forwarded one to me as well.

THE COURT: All right. Who signed the letter?

JUROR NO. 228: It was signed by one of the city managers, I believe. I'm not sure, but I do have a copy of it.

THE COURT: Okay. When we see you back again, why don't you bring in a copy of that with you.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, No. 228.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, are you going to admonish him?

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Still the same admonition. Don't discuss this with anybody, what we have discussed here in chambers, until I tell you otherwise.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Downs, do you have that information?

DEPUTY DOWNS: Yes, I do, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

(Juror No. 228 exited chambers.)

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record.)

MR. SHAPIRO: There is no reason why Mr. Darden can't articulate his position, but I think it would be highly inappropriate for your Honor to speak to any potential witness in this case.

MR. DARDEN: In any event, I just wanted to leave the court to leave and speak to Mr. Goldberg and return.

(Brief pause.)

DEPUTY MAGNERA: 320.

THE COURT: All right.

THE COURT: No. 320, good morning. Why don't you have a seat there. How are you today?

JUROR NO. 320: Fine.

THE COURT: Good. No. 320, a problem has come up that I needed to talk to you about, and let me start by, first of all, saying that in no way should you consider anything we are going to talk about today to be an accusation of any misconduct or wrongdoing on your part. What has happened is that something has been brought to our attention that once I begin to discuss with you you will understand that I have an obligation, when something like this is brought to my attention, to at least look into it, so that is what we are involved in today. Also, I'm going to order you not to discuss what we are about to discuss here in chambers with anybody else until I tell you otherwise. Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Now, you have already been placed under oath with regards to your answering questions regarding your service as a trial juror, so you are still under that oath in answering these questions here today. And let me apologize to you ahead of time for some of the questions that I'm going to have to ask you, because this is going to go into your personal life, and unfortunately, it is something that I have to ask you about, so I'm sure you understand. No. 320, we had somebody by the name of "R" contact the court and just I can tell from the expression on your face that you are acquainted with "R"?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: And know about him? He has contacted Defense counsel, the Prosecution and the Court and advised us of certain information that he believes makes it inappropriate for you to serve as a trial juror in this case. And let me tell you the two areas that he has raised with the Court that cause me to have some concern and make it necessary for me to ask you these questions. First of all, he posed the allegation that you have a high level of animosity towards blacks or African Americans, and he also raised the issue by his comments to the Court regarding a rather extensive domestic violence experience on your own part that would make it difficult for you to serve as a trial juror on this case because of your own personal experience. Specifically, he has indicated to us that you have on occasions--on numerous occasions referred to blacks as "Niggers."

THE WITNESS: Sir, can I speak?

THE COURT: Let me just tell you what the allegations are and then I will ask you to respond to this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: He indicated that you told him that you did not want your children to reside in the city of ***** because of the school district and because of blacks being a very large part of the population in ***** and he also indicated that there are certain conflicts that have led to the issuance of a restraining order and that there has been--there have been incidents of domestic violence such that the police have been called to your home on numerous occasions, that your own personal background and given the facts and circumstances of this case might make it inappropriate for you to serve as a trial juror. These are just allegations, I want you to understand that, but as you can see, given the nature of the allegations, I have an obligation to ask you about these.

JUROR NO. 320: Sure.

THE COURT: All right. So why don't we start with the racial animosity.

THE WITNESS: Sir, I have no racial animosity whatsoever. I am not prejudiced. "R" is my ex-boyfriend that I had talked about and he told me in my face and he has harassed me to the point where he pushed my last button. He beat the shit out of me the day before I came here and I don't know if you guys had noticed, my face was pretty bruised and I wanted to say something to you, but I just didn't want it to affect my position, so I just kept to it myself. I did get a restraining order on him. He has harassed me. I have not been with him for three years. I told him to totally leave me alone and he just won't leave me alone. I have a very open mind and I have no problem in sitting in my seat where I'm at and he told me that he was going to make sure that he was going to make hell for me and that I will go to jail.

THE COURT: All right. Tell me about this--we did notice, it was brought to my attention, I believe it was the last time that we were here, that you appeared to have a bruise.

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

THE COURT: On your right cheek.

JUROR NO. 320: He totally just beat me up. And in the past there has been physical violence, but the physical violence hasn't been as bad as the verbal and the emotional violence that he has put me through. And I'm a strong person, you know, but that day it just got to the point where he just pushed my last button, and you know, he is the father of my child and I never wanted to do anything to hurt him because I feel sorry for him. But I just--I had to go down to the court because I went to the school. He tried to take my daughter out of school and he told me that I could never see her again, and at the moment that I thought about calling the school, I called and he was there and I told him, "Please don't release her to the school, I'm on my way," and as soon as the principal saw my face, they called the cops.

And the cops told me if I wanted to get him arrested and I said no and they told me to go down and file a restrainer on him. I just went to the court on the 30th of December and I took--and he is mad because I took--they gave me physical custody of my daughter. It is not like--I used to live in ****** I don't like raising my kids in ****** there is nothing wrong with ****** it is just that I work in ********* I didn't want to put my kids in school in ***** so I was taking them to ****** district so I was driving--doing a lot of driving and I was leaving my house at six o'clock in the morning and I can't get home until seven, eight o'clock at night. So I decided to move to ****** and I have been in ****** for four or five years. My kids have been in ****** school District for that long. He is just trying to make--he is just trying to make this very miserable for me. He told me that he was going to try to do everything in his power--

THE COURT: Okay. Do you work with African Americans at your job?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Is there any other explanation, other than the school districts, for moving out of *****?

JUROR NO. 320: No. I have no--I was raised in ****** I have no problem in ****** I just didn't want my kids to go to a ***** school, basically because I'm a working parent and my mom always--my mom was always there to take care of my kids. You know, there was never really nobody out of the family that I wanted to, you know, just leave my kids with.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

JUROR NO. 320: So my mom was always there so I had to take my kids in order to where my mom, you know, in the city that my mom was in so that she can watch my kids after school.

THE COURT: All right. We have an additional problem. It appears to me that the--that your own personal experience with domestic violence is obviously now to the point where you have been physically beaten by a former--were you ever married to "R"?

JUROR NO. 320: No. We are not married, no.

THE COURT: Okay. And that you've had to go to the point of getting a restraining order, and obviously this is a very unfortunate and very distracting thing in your personal life, I would imagine.

JUROR NO. 320: Well, it doesn't really bother me, it doesn't, because you know, I never thought that he would take it to this point, and like he has harassed me--even at the court he showed me--he showed me this notebook he had and he had the names of the lawyers, he had phone numbers and he had a card--he said that he was being investigated and I didn't believe that he could go to this extent to do this to me. I thought he was just pulling my leg, you know. I just didn't know that he would go to this extent. I have a very open mind. I've tied to avoid him and anything that he would say to me I would just try to go in one ear and out another.

THE COURT: Here is my concern, though. My concern is obviously he is making--he is doing his best to make your life miserable and we all understand how these things happen and how they are beyond our control, our individual control, and you had to go to the court to get a restraining order. Can you really honestly put all that aside?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir, I could. I'm not going to let "R" intimidate my life. He is jealous. He is so jealous of me because I can be a very independent woman. He is jealous to the fact that I don't want to go back with him. I just can't go back with him. I don't love him any more.

THE COURT: And you have been living separately for the last approximately three years?

JUROR NO. 320: For the last three years I have not lived with him.

THE COURT: Okay. What court were you in on the 30th, do you recall?

JUROR NO. 320: ******

THE COURT: Do you know what department you were in?

JUROR NO. 320: Department z or y--well, the domestic--the domestic--

THE COURT: Do you remember the name of the Judge?

JUROR NO. 320: No, I don't.

THE COURT: All right. I take it you don't have a copy of the restraining order with you?

JUROR NO. 320: Not on me. It is at home.

THE COURT: Okay. When you come back--

JUROR NO. 320: But I believe I had a little card that the counselor gave me and she told me if I ever needed to get ahold of her for anything that I can call her.

THE COURT: Okay. They will--the counselor will talk to you, they will not talk to us, because those are confidential records an issues. When you come back to court later today, I'm going to order you to come back on Wednesday, and what I would like for you to do is get a copy of that restraining order and the papers that you filed for it. Do you have these at home?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Could you make a photocopy of those for me?

JUROR NO. 320: Sure.

THE COURT: All right. Could you bring those back on Wednesday, because what I'm going to do is--first of all, don't discuss this with any other jurors.

JUROR NO. 320: I won't.

THE COURT: I'm going to order you to be sequestered today. I'm going to give you until Wednesday to pack your bags and then come back to court on Wednesday, so you will be able to go home tonight and make the copies for us today or tomorrow, and when you come back on Wednesday I would like you to bring that with you.

JUROR NO. 320: I had him served but he evaded, he was never served.

THE COURT: Well, he has been served--he has been served. He has a copy of the restraining order.

JUROR NO. 320: He has got a copy. I'm sure he does because I talked to him. He is constantly calling me and stuff and he calls his daughter. I let him talk to his daughter. I have no problem. I don't want to keep him away from his daughter; I just want to keep him away me. I just want to live my life. I am tired of him harassing me. The things that hurt me is the names that he calls me and he accuses of me of having boyfriends. I don't have a boyfriend. I haven't been with anybody since the last fourteen years since I have been with him, and I can't seem to get it through his head. He thinks I have a boyfriend right now. I don't want a boyfriend. I don't have a boyfriend.

THE COURT: What kind of arrangements are you making for your children when you are sequestered?

JUROR NO. 320: My arrangements have been with "R" and I with the counselor and my arrangements are to leave--I have a 17-year old daughter that is going to stay with one of my sisters and my eleven-year old is going to be--she is going to be with her father one week and with my mother one week. We are alternating it like this and that is the way it was going to be and he is--he is mad because he wants to keep her the whole time.

THE COURT: All right. Do you think that if we have problems regarding that arrangement that it is going to cause you to have problems sitting as a juror on this case?

JUROR NO. 320: No, I don't.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes. You wrote in your questionnaire that you had suffered verbal and mental abuse?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You were referring to this man, correct?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And as far as the physical abuse goes?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, physical was only like maybe two--two times, but this last incident that happened, it was just the last straw. I mean, it got to the point where I just--that was it. I just had to make--make him aware that I'm not playing his games any more, and you know, yeah, there were times when I had called the cops and it was just to--because I would ask him to leave and he wouldn't leave.

MS. CLARK: You put that in your questionnaire also, didn't you?

JUROR NO. 320: I believe I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you feel that as a result of what has recently happened between you, that you are going to have any difficulty being fair and impartial in this case?

JUROR NO. 320: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Is it going to make any difference in your ability to be a fair juror?

JUROR NO. 320: No, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Do you feel any differently now about your ability to be a fair juror than you did when you filled out the questionnaire?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MS. CLARK: And has your feelings changed about your ability to be fair and impartial since we last spoke to you in court?

JUROR NO. 320: No. Everything--everything is the same. I don't--like I said, my mind is very open and I--I don't feel that I'm going to have a problem.

MS. CLARK: And have you dated--have you ever had any interracial involvement with either African American men or men of any other race?

JUROR NO. 320: Yeah, I've dated white.

MS. CLARK: And you are not dating anyone now?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MS. CLARK: Is there any--the reason you moved out from ***** was because you wanted to accommodate your children in the school district that would be close to your mother?

JUROR NO. 320: Basically it was to accommodate myself really more and my children, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did it have anything to do with the racial or ethnic background of the neighborhood?

JUROR NO. 320: I was raised in ****** it did not, none whatsoever.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever had any problem with African American co-workers?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MS. CLARK: And are you friendly with African American co-workers?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, I am, very friendly.

MS. CLARK: Umm--

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

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just an few questions. I need to ask you a few questions because he did in fact call our office and he has made some allegations and the court said they are just allegations. There has been an allegation that when you were living in ***** or growing up in ***** that you were accosted by an African American. Did that happen?

JUROR NO. 320: That I was what?

MR. COCHRAN: When you were growing up you were in some way, I don't want to use the word molested, you were in some way assaulted or some confrontation occurred with an African American when you were growing up in the city of *****?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: That never happened?

JUROR NO. 320: Just in school, you know, we would have fights, you know, but nothing--not nothing--I don't know if he said something to that effect. I don't know where he got his information. I have never had any problems.

THE COURT: Where did you to go school?

JUROR NO. 320: I went to *********** in ***** and I went to ****** ****

MR. COCHRAN: So you don't recall any particular incidents where you were in a particular fight, or the police were called, with somebody of an African American--

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: He says that you use the word "Nigger" very, very frequently. Is that true?

JUROR NO. 320: He is lying. He is a liar. You know, he's a liar.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can understand our concern. We just need to understand.

JUROR NO. 320: I understand that, but I can't believe that--maybe you guys could see he is trying to--like I told you, he told me he was going to make my life miserable for me.

MR. COCHRAN: We understand. Bear with me on those questions for a moment. He indicates that on the date of the so-called freeway follow-by the police that you were on the phone with him and you made a statement to the effect that O.J. Simpson was probably guilty because he was running away or something?

JUROR NO. 320: He is a liar. No, I did not never say that, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there a time that you were on the phone with him on June 17 where you all discussed the chase?

JUROR NO. 320: It is a possibility. I don't recall. It is a possibility. Like I said, he calls me. He calls me until three, four o'clock. There are times I have to take my phone off the hook to avoid the phone ringing.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't recall ever making that statement? Was that your thought regarding the chase, that Mr. Simpson was probably guilty?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: There is also an allegation that you used the words in your papers of--that you are being stalked by him. Your lawyer used those words, that you were being followed or stalked by him.

JUROR NO. 320: I believe--I believe I did. I wrote it down in the--because I've had--in the incidents where, you know, he hit me, one of the neighbors came out and told me he came out and told me that he has seen that truck because he was asking who was that was and I told him it was my ex-boyfriend and he told me that he has seen that truck out there many times just parked down the street sitting there watching at one or two o'clock in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: That is a word that you did use in fact.

JUROR NO. 320: If it is written, it is written in my writing on the paperwork.

MR. COCHRAN: On your questionnaire, question 162, when you were asked about domestic violence in your home growing up by either--growing up or as an adult, you described the circumstances as follows: "Verbal and mental abuse by ex-boyfriend. I did not like to be called names." you did not put down at that time that he had struck you. Why didn't you put down that he had struck you at that time?

JUROR NO. 320: Because it was--I didn't really think that it was--it was just kind of like a push.

MR. COCHRAN: But you said he had physically touched you before this last time?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, no, no, he never, never physically touched me the way he beat me on the face.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand, but you said that he had physically touched you at times before. How many times had he touched you?

JUROR NO. 320: Probably two where he would just like push and shove me.

MR. COCHRAN: So it became physical on maybe two occasions?

JUROR NO. 320: Two occasions.

MR. COCHRAN: But you didn't put those down at all?

JUROR NO. 320: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: This last incident, and we did in fact notice your face was swollen, he went beyond pushing you and you were struck in the face?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the question--I guess I've got to ask this. Mr. Simpson isn't in here so I have got to ask this question for him. In a case where there may be allegations that Mr. Simpson had struck his wife at some point, do you think that you can be fair in that case like--just hearing that evidence, based upon your situation? Even since you have been here your face was swollen that we could notice it and called it to the Court's attention at that time. Do you think that given that situation, I know you want to be fair, don't you think that is going to really impede your ability to be fair and impartial where you are going through or are in the process of going through what the Prosecution may allege Miss Simpson--Miss Brown Simpson went through before she died?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: How will you be able to separate that?

JUROR NO. 320: I just--I just--like I said, I have an open mind. You know, what happened to me--I don't know what happened--everybody is different. You know, I don't--in my situation maybe it was--I don't know. It was--she could have been through worse. I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you--he also in the first conversation that he made, the first call that he made back in November, he alleged that you had been discussing the fact that O.J. Simpson had beaten his wife. Did you talk to him about that?

JUROR NO. 320: No, I have not.

MR. COCHRAN: Never talked to him about that?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell him you were on this jury?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, he was aware that I was on the jury.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. When did you tell him that?

JUROR NO. 320: During the time that I was--I guess when I was first on the jury.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You discussed it with him?

JUROR NO. 320: I told him, you know--I think it was September 26 when we were all called into the jury.

MR. COCHRAN: You talked about being considered for the O.J. Simpson jury?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at that time did you have any conversations with him after that time wherein you discussed the fact that there was an allegation that Mr. Simpson either stalked his wife or had been charged with his beating his wife?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir. He would constantly call me on the phone and asking me how court went and I would kind of just try to go off and just try to talk about something else because he would always come out and try to ask me questions.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there your time on a jury?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Have you ever been called for jury duty ever at any time before this?

JUROR NO. 320: I have only been on jury duty one time before this.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you ever been called before that?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You never received a letter or anything to come down in all the thirteen or fourteen years?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, one time before this, two years ago.

MR. COCHRAN: Before that you never received a letter at all?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you vote regularly?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You just never got called?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Two years ago what happened when you were called?

JUROR NO. 320: I just came and served my ten days and they let me go. I was never put on a panel.

MR. COCHRAN: You never sat on a panel?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: This would be the first panel?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: There are a number of African Americans on this jury panel.

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And Mr. Simpson is an African American. Does that cause you any concern with regard to African Americans?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't think that is a problem at all?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You said you wanted to move and you didn't want your kids to go to school in ****** why was that?

JUROR NO. 320: Basically because of my babysitting problems.

MR. COCHRAN: What is that?

JUROR NO. 320: My mom always took care of my daughters.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Where does your mom live?

JUROR NO. 320: She lives in ******

MR. COCHRAN: And where did "R" live?

JUROR NO. 320: In ****.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there ever a time when you--when he was a ******** that you would go to parties with him and that you were very uncomfortable because a lot of his friends were African Americans?

JUROR NO. 320: No, I never went to parties with him.

MR. COCHRAN: You never went to any social gatherings at all?

JUROR NO. 320: No.

MR. COCHRAN: How long were you with him before you separated?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, we were together, umm, let me see, like got together in 1980 and we lived in ******** and we moved--in `86 we moved to ****** `83 he bought the property and in `86 we moved over there and in `89, three years later, I moved out.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So you lived together about nine years before but--before you left town?

JUROR NO. 320: No. I would say probably about--living together together probably about five years and all the other times I was back and forth. You know, I will have my own place and then we will get together and I will leave my place and go back and be there for a month and then I will leave again.

MR. COCHRAN: You were still fiancées?

JUROR NO. 320: We were boyfriend and girlfriend.

MR. COCHRAN: There came a time, as I understand it, three years ago when you didn't consider you were girlfriend and boyfriend any more?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, we were still dating, but it was--it was more or less I wanted to end the relationship and I told him about this a long time ago, but you just couldn't--I don't know. He just couldn't get it through him and so I just moved away and I've stayed away for three years.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. At the time that you filled out the questionnaire and you talked about the domestic violence aspect and you talked about the verbal and mental abuse, were you aware at that point that he was following you around or that he was calling you all the time?

JUROR NO. 320: Oh, yes. This has been an ongoing thing for three years where he calls me and verbally abuses me.

MR. COCHRAN: But you didn't go into detail on that?

JUROR NO. 320: I didn't think it would affect me. It didn't affect me really as far as--you know, it will go in one ear and out the other.

MR. COCHRAN: So you think that--what you are telling us is that you think that your personal experience, even though it is rather personal, won't affect your ability in this case even though there may be some similarities or at least the allegations may be similar; is that correct?

JUROR NO. 320: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: How many times would you say you had to call the police to ask him to leave?

JUROR NO. 320: Maybe four or five.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that prior to the time this last time when you were struck?

JUROR NO. 320: Oh, yeah, uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: You and "R" have a child together; is that right?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: How old is that child?

JUROR NO. 320: She is eleven years old.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the court give you both joint custody?

JUROR NO. 320: The court gave me physical custody and gave us joint custody of her--I assume it is her needs as far as her education and health.

MR. COCHRAN: So that on your own you have made an arrangement with him so that while you are sequestered, the Judge is now going to sequester you, he will have the child one week during the month?

JUROR NO. 320: His mother will have the child one week.

MR. COCHRAN: And?

JUROR NO. 320: And my mother will have the child one week.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you speak Spanish?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There is also an allegation that you--that you have some racial prejudice against Hispanics, that you don't want your children to learn Spanish and you said derogatory things about Hispanics.

JUROR NO. 320: No, that is not true. I would love my children to learn Spanish. My 17-year old, I don't understand why being raised by my mom she never picked it up.

MR. COCHRAN: "U" your younger child?

JUROR NO. 320: She has learned it pretty good. She understands it and she talks, but not as good as I would like for her to.

MR. COCHRAN: That is something that you would like to have happen?

JUROR NO. 320: My oldest daughter right now in the last couple of years she is taking it in school, but she is doing pretty good but the kind of language they are learning in schools is kind of different than what you would learn when you are growing up.

MR. COCHRAN: What your mom might speak?

JUROR NO. 320: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: "R" insist early on that at least "U" learn Spanish?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, he has insisted, and I have no problem. She understands it fairly well and she speaks it.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever have a problem with her speaking Spanish?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir. No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have any African American friends?

THE WITNESS: I have. I have an a lot of them.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Where do you know them from?

JUROR NO. 320: When I used to live in ***** and a lot of the places that I work and my work right now.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you had, in the last three years or so, any African Americans in your home in ******? Have your had any African Americans guests in your home?

JUROR NO. 320: Oh, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Would that have been--

JUROR NO. 320: Umm, in ****.

MR. COCHRAN: Was I meant, the last three or four years before you moved to ******?

JUROR NO. 320: I'm sorry. Well, not--not particularly in my home, but in gatherings that I go to we get together a lot.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, you go to gatherings, like parties or something from work?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes. There is Filipinos, Koreans, African Americans.

MR. COCHRAN: But never in your home since you have moved to ******? Have you had any African Americans in your home in the ****** setting, that you recall?

JUROR NO. 320: Not that I can say, no.

MR. COCHRAN: You used the word "Stalk." where did you pick that word up, if you recall?

JUROR NO. 320: Just--just from previous--stalking is just like probably just from hearing it from other sources.

MR. COCHRAN: You felt that it fits your situation but you never--you never told us about that in the questionnaire, right?

JUROR NO. 320: No, because it just happened over the last couple of weeks.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't think that before that when he was calling late and night and doing those things, you didn't consider that to be stalking?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, no.

MR. COCHRAN: And you had to call the police and make him leave?

JUROR NO. 320: I didn't think about the word. The word just kind of came up when it came up--because of my neighbor, that he came and told me--he must have been the one that kind of put that word in my head, "Stalking," and I wrote it down.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you think that came from your experience of being in this case, where you may have heard or may not have heard?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir. I have heard that word many times.

MR. COCHRAN: Even before this case?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes. I have heard it when--when the young lady got killed. Which one was that? A couple of years ago. I don't remember who she was. She is famous.

MR. COCHRAN: He also--

THE COURT: That is the actress who got killed?

JUROR NO. 320: The actress that was being stalked.

MR. COCHRAN: You heard it at that time?

JUROR NO. 320: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: He also has contended that for whatever reason you wanted very much to be on this jury, that you have been called before and you didn't want to serve, but for this case that the allegation is that there is some ulterior motive for you wanting to serve on this particular case?

JUROR NO. 320: Like I said, this is my second time being called and my first time I did my ten years in jury service and I never got called.

MR. COCHRAN: Ten days?

JUROR NO. 320: Ten days. I did ten days.

MR. COCHRAN: And this one?

JUROR NO. 320: Or was it--maybe it was five--I think two years ago they had changed to it five.

MR. COCHRAN: So the allegation was that you wanted very much to serve on this case for whatever reason and that you went out of your way to get on this jury. Is that so?

JUROR NO. 320: Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: He alleged that you went out of your way to get on this particular case.

JUROR NO. 320: I don't understand how I can go out of my way. I was called.

MR. COCHRAN: That you--the allegation was again that you had made arrangements to move or something shortly after September to get ready for sequestration. Did you move at some point?

JUROR NO. 320: I moved at the end of November, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Was that so you could get ready for sequestration?

JUROR NO. 320: Well, more or less, yes, because I didn't know what was happening and I didn't know how long of a time we were going to be given and I asked that question, if you guys recall, how much time are we going to be given, and I don't know and I cannot--I didn't want to leave a burden to my family to have to put because of all my personal stuff and everything. So I thought at the end of November I had five days off of work to be able to, you know, because of my--because of my time off of work because we alternate days and it just happened to fall on a five-day weekend at that time so that was a good time for me to do whatever I had to do to move--to be able to move, plus I have to give a thirty-day notice.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand.

JUROR NO. 320: So I just went ahead and did it at that point.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand. At that time did you have a conversation with him where he asked you about moving back to ***** and you said, "You know I'm not going to move back to ****."?

JUROR NO. 320: I had never--I will never go back to ***** and it has nothing to do with--it has nothing to do with African Americans. It has nothing--I love African Americans. I have no problem. It is just that I didn't want to go back to ***** because I have to take my kids back to ****** and then I have to go to ********* from ******** I got to go back to ****** and back to ****** it was too much for me.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand. Did you ever work at the ***** **********?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: ******** is the only **********?

JUROR NO. 320: That is where I got called and that is where I went.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you a ***** ******.?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir, and I deal with all kind of people every day, you know.

MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a second, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Cochran and Dr. Dimitrius.)

MR. COCHRAN: Given everything that you know, and you had a lot of time to talk to us about this case and filled out a questionnaire--you know this is a very serious matter?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: With everything that you know about the facts of this case and the allegations in this case of spousal abuse and that sort of thing, if you were to trade places with O.J. Simpson would you be comfortable with a person in your present mind-set in your present position?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Even though he is African American? Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Allegations made against him of spousal abuse and has wife has been killed?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no qualms about that?

JUROR NO. 320: I have none.

MR. COCHRAN: I hope that you understand that as the Judge has indicated I have to ask these questions.

JUROR NO. 320: I have no problem.

MR. COCHRAN: We didn't call him; he called us.

JUROR NO. 320: I understand that and I wanted to bring this up to your attention because I didn't now if it was going to affect me in any way and I thought, well, I just won't say nothing because maybe nothing will come up, but he told me and he made it his word that he was going to make life very miserable for me on this jury and I don't understand why he is doing it. Maybe because I'm on the jury and--I really don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question. As you sit here now do you think you would tend to identify with the Prosecution in this case because of the fact that this man has battered you during this trial? Do you think that that is going to make you favor the Prosecution?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. No. 320, "R" told us about a person who might be able to shed some light one way or the other, somebody by the name of "S" who is also a ***** ******* over at the ******** ********** office.

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Who is "S"?

JUROR NO. 320: She is just a friend.

THE COURT: All right. What is "S's" last name?

JUROR NO. 320: Her last name is "S".

THE COURT: "S". all right. Is there anything else for the record that you wish to say?

JUROR NO. 320: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: May I ask one last question, your Honor? Are there any African American friends that you have at that **********?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir, I have at lot of them.

MR. COCHRAN: The names?

JUROR NO. 320: Sure. "Y"--I'm not sure his last name. "Y"--his name is "Y" and there is--let me think. There is "Y" and there is "Z".

MR. COCHRAN: "Z"?

JUROR NO. 320: "Z" and there is--we call her "AA".

MR. COCHRAN: "AA" like in Mayberry?

JUROR NO. 320: We call her "AA".

MR. COCHRAN: What is her real name?

JUROR NO. 320: I think her real name is "AA", but we call her "AA". and there is--who else is there? There is "BB". she is in charge of ********* i'm not sure of her last name. And there is "CC" and there's--I'm a little bit nervous right now.

MR. COCHRAN: These are all friends of yours?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, and they are all African Americans, and there is--I can't--he is just madly in love with me, he's African American and he is just madly in love with me. His name is--what is his name?

MR. COCHRAN: He is in trouble if you don't know his name.

THE COURT: He is not doing a very good job.

MR. COCHRAN: He is not doing a very good job.

JUROR NO. 320: I'm nervous right now. I just can't think of his name. I don't like him. I like him as a friend but nothing else, and I know that--because he always tells me--he will whisper to me "I love you" and I'm like, you know, but they are just very nice people, you know. I have no problem.

MR. COCHRAN: If you think of his name, you will tell us.

MS. CLARK: Can I please ask a question?

THE COURT: One question. Two questions.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. You said that you had--he had shoved you a couple of times in the past. Did you suffer any physical injury as a result?

JUROR NO. 320: No. It was just a moving like, you know, he will--he will shove me and I shove him back, you know. It got to the point where I just--I wouldn't let him get the better of me, you know. If he hit me--you know, it wasn't a fist or anything; it was just a push.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. So you weren't injured so you didn't consider that physical abuse?

JUROR NO. 320: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the last question.

THE COURT: That is two questions. Is that it?

MS. CLARK: No. I thought you were cutting me off.

THE COURT: Last question.

MS. CLARK: Do you often have people into your home?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And are they people from work usually?

MR. COCHRAN: That is three, four.

THE WITNESS: Well, right now I'm staying with my sister, rooming, so I really don't have no company, but a couple of friends here and there, you know.

MS. CLARK: That is mainly family?

JUROR NO. 320: Yeah, a lot of family.

THE COURT: I see we are going to have trouble at trial here. All right. No. 320, I'm going to order you not to discuss this with anybody else, family members, fellow jurors, anybody, until I tell you otherwise. Do you understand the order?

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Just for your information, the transcript of what has gone on today is going to be sealed and won't be available unless the Appellate Court tells me to open up the transcript if there is any need for the Appellate Court to see it or some other court tells me I have to open it up.

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So this is a private discussion between you, me and the lawyers here.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, can we inquire whether or not any of the people of the names were supervisors?

JUROR NO. 320: Oh, "DD". she is my ********** and she is African American.

THE COURT: "DD"?

JUROR NO. 320: "DD".

THE COURT: Just so you know--

JUROR NO. 320: She is aware of the situation of "R" because she likes "R" and she thinks that we should get back together.

THE COURT: Okay. Just so you know, no. 320, I'm going to have a Sheriff's Deputy go down to the ********** and just ask a few questions, so you will understand it will be done as discreetly as possible, but I'm sure that you understand that we need to do this.

JUROR NO. 320: Sure. I have no problem.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Go on back there and smile and don't talk to anybody. All right.

(Juror No. 320 exited chambers.)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, what I'm going to do is ask--I'm going to take no action at this time as to either of these two jurors. Go ahead and be seated. I'm going to ask Deputy Downs to go out to Hertz and chat with the two people that Mr. 228 has given us, and then to run down to the ****** **********

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

THE COURT: ********, I'm sorry, to chat with the people that she named, or as many as possible, reasonably possible, in the next couple of days. Deputy Downs, any problems with that?

DEPUTY DOWNS: None at all, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, with regard to 228, when I spoke to "H", and I think she mentioned that when she was here, she mention the name "G" who apparently resides in the ********* area who might have some information.

THE COURT: Well, at this point, let me--I am interested in the persons that he indicates may have some information from his point of view. That is what I'm interested in at this point. All right. Anything else? I think we need to go out there and formally sequester the jury and set then loose. And Deputy Downs, don't ago way because I want to chat with you for a few moments.

DEPUTY DOWNS: Just to confirm, the two parties at Hertz are "W"--

MR. COCHRAN: I think it is "W" or "W".

MS. CLARK: "W".

DEPUTY DOWNS: And the second party, "X"?

MR. COCHRAN: "X", like the **.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, since we have to resolve the issue as to juror misconduct as to all three before they are sequestered--

THE COURT: Counsel, we don't have to do it before they are sequestered. I can do it any time during the course of the trial, but I want to get them sequestered because of all of the other problems coming up.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, you are going to have jurors who are potentially unfit in there tainting the rest of the jury.

THE COURT: I haven't made that determination yet, have I?

MS. CLARK: No, but--

THE COURT: Counsel, there are bigger problems coming up that are going to cause us problems if I don't hurry up and get this jury sequestered. I want to get them sequestered first. We will then take up the juror pollution problems that we have, but because these are jurors, I have to be very careful about how I do these things. First of all, I mean, these are citizen volunteers who are giving us their services and they need to be treated with some due process. That is what I'm trying to do here.

MS. CLARK: I don't have any problem with that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: All I'm saying is that we are going to sequester together these jurors, some of whom should not be on the panel and can spread further problems within the panel. You are sequestering the problem with itself.

MR. COCHRAN: We are not ready to argue it yet. We disagree with that.

MS. CLARK: We are exacerbating the matter we are trying to resolve.

THE COURT: This is a matter of priorities. I choose my priority as I have. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, are we going to handle any other matters today?

THE COURT: I hope not.

MR. COCHRAN: This is it then, we will be excused until Wednesday?

MR. DARDEN: I don't know if we mentioned it yet on the record, but we are going to handle the motion to quash by sojourn on Wednesday?

THE COURT: I haven't calendared a date for it yet.

MR. DARDEN: Could we calendar a date for it for Wednesday?

THE COURT: Why do I want to do it on Wednesday as opposed to any other time? I guess you need that information for the motion, though, hum?

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: Okay, yeah, we will do it Wednesday.

(At 11:44 A.M. the proceedings in camera were concluded.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1995 4:10 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.) (Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

THE COURT: Let's go on the record on the juror issues. We're in chambers with Mr. Cochran, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Darden and Miss Clark. Counsel, as you know, we've had an on-going investigation with regards to no. 228 and no. 320, and you both have received--both sides have received the updates from Deputy Downs I believe that are dated January 9th and January 10th. And let me now share with you--this is the latest files regarding number 320 and her domestic problem. All right. Counsel, I'll hear any comment or argument you wish to make regarding the challenge to no. 228.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Your Honor, I think--and I'll be brief, your Honor. No. 228--I have in mind what your Honor said on a number of occasions, but I think it's very clear we have to proceed very delicately with regard to these citizen volunteers. 228 from the very beginning told us he worked for Hertz. Everybody knew that and he was questioned in that regard. I believe that he indicated he did not personally know Mr. Simpson, and it seems to me that's the only question that is in issue. We already knew he worked for the Hertz corporation. If you take the testimony of "H" and the other lady and you throw out the stuff about the Star and all the money they may or may not have expected, basically what it came down to, as I recall, what they said to us is that they attended an open house at that facility, lax, in 1982. And I know that facility because when I was president of the airport commission when it was being built, I was there myself that day. And it seems to me in that situation, that what they said is that--just one lady said, "I just can't conceive of him not having seen or met Mr. Simpson on that particular day." She doesn't have any direct recollection of that because who would remember it like 12 years ago or whatever. We then I think brought him back in or we questioned him at any rate and asked him whether or not he had met Mr. Simpson on this occasion, and he said no, he had not, and he stuck by that. Nobody can say that he did positively. And by the latest reports, it's not a situation where I think he's misrepresented or lied in his position. He had told us before, for instance, he was a sports fan and we heard that he likes betting on games or whatever. There's no evidence he's a gambler or has a gambling problem or whatever. And so for those reasons--and I also want to be sensitive about this. He has not done anything since the time we picked him. We haven't found anything out that we didn't know before that time regarding this man. We knew he was with Hertz. We knew because Marcia questioned him about O.J. Simpson, that sort of thing. And there's been no proof that he knows this man or he shook his hand that day. Nobody says that. The witnesses--and I applaud the Court's effort in sending the deputy out to go back to talk to his friends or acquaintances. But again, there's no picture of him with O.J. Simpson, nothing like that, your Honor. And so I think this juror--and it's a real tough thing investigating these people. I think this juror cannot be shown to have lied to this Court or to have lied to us. So we're kind of back in the position we were when we picked him. The fact is, the Prosecution may now have second thoughts about it, may want a second bite of the apple. That's not the test as I'm sure your Honor is aware. The question is whether or not there are grounds, sufficient grounds, whether there's evidence that he lied to us; and I don't think there is. I don't think there's reciprocity of proof in that regard. So from the Defense, we believe that this juror should stay, should still be here and we object to his being thrown off this jury under these circumstances given. And I just would like to point out to the Court again how all these things started. Somebody from the Star offering 60-, 80-, $100,000 or something calling the D.A.'s office, the D.A.'s office gets involved in an investigation, contrary to what you say, they pull back and then this thing goes on. And you've made an investigation and it just hasn't shown us--and the good thing about your investigation is that Deputy Downs doesn't have a bias one way or the other. He's obviously just trying to get the facts. And the facts are one thing that are lacking whether or not we exclude this juror it seems to me.

THE COURT: People.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I disagree with counsel's characterization of the evidence as it relates to 228's voir dire and with regard to the information he provided to the Court. When he was questioned during voir dire, he never indicated that he worked for the VIP committee in 1982. He never indicated that he worked for the VIP section at Hertz. And this was a section which catered to celebrities like O.J. Simpson who, according to "B" and "H", often visited the LAX facility. So he never indicated or gave any indication there were numerous opportunities for him to have contact with O.J. Simpson. And I also disagree with Mr. Cochran's characterization that there's no evidence that 228 ever met O.J. Simpson. In fact, "B", stated here in chambers rather clearly that she was present and that she has a very vivid clear picture of 228 having met Mr. Simpson. And that wasn't revealed by Juror 228, and I think Juror 228 is guilty of gross misrepresentation, failure to provide the Court and the Prosecution of a very, very important and material fact; and that fact is that he is acquainted with O.J. Simpson. And had the Prosecution known he was personally acquainted with O.J. Simpson, we would have exercised a challenge or we would have asked the Court to excuse him for that, and we--I believe we would have had a right to have him excused for cause. So I think the record is clear, Juror 228 made material misstatements. And had we known this information, he would not be seated on this jury now, and I think there is more than ample cause to excuse him.

THE COURT: All right. I'll hear your comments on 320.

MS. CLARK: May I supplement Mr. Darden's remarks on 228, just to point out--

MR. DARDEN: She's my boss.

MS. CLARK: But I mean--

MR. COCHRAN: She's not our boss. We can object.

MS. CLARK: Or if you want to take a pause, I will remind Chris.

THE COURT: Remind Chris.

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

MR. DARDEN: Miss Clark told me to tell the Court that 228 never advised the Court or counsel that he distributed cars to the VIP area or that he worked within 100 to 200 yards of the gold VIP area, which apparently Mr. Simpson frequented.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I suggest a response to Mr. Cochran?

MS. CLARK: May Mr. Darden finish, please?

MR. DARDEN: Delay in the transmission. In fact, he indicated he was a **********, worked in ********. He actually worked out on the grounds delivering cars to celebrities explaining how the vehicles operate, taking vehicles to LAX personally and personally handing over those vehicles to celebrities. Had we known that, that would have opened up additional areas of voir dire and perhaps would have led to our discovery of the fact that he had met Mr. Simpson. But he didn't reveal any of that in the voir dire even though he had the opportunity to do so. So on those grounds and only those grounds, we would ask the Court to excuse Juror 228.

MR. COCHRAN: Are both of them finished now, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: We are finished now.

MR. COCHRAN: May I just say this? What's happened here is, the Prosecution knew he worked for Hertz. He didn't lie about that. Remember "B", what she really remembered, she thought he had--couldn't conceive of him not meeting him. He said he didn't shake his hand, and there's no other person who can say that. And so what they're asking you to do is give them a second bite of the apple because they made this mistake and should have gone through it and maybe they could have found out. If he worked as a ***********, that's what he does, works as a ***********. I bet there's a lot of jurors on this jury that we didn't know all the right questions to ask. But I mean it seems to me this guy wasn't in any way doing this--what I'm trying to do is to look at this from a civil standpoint. Before this case, I was a civil lawyer. And when somebody came in to me and said, you know, "I told them all these things--" I want to remind everybody of what is going to happen. From this point forward, if he's excluded from this jury--and I'm trying to think of it as a civil lawyer, if a guy came to me and said, "I told them all of this stuff. They kicked me off this case with some nice words, what can I do about it?" So I look at it from that standpoint. There is reciprocity of evidence regarding that. And I think not only that I look at it as a civil lawyer, I'm looking at it as how we treat a civil volunteer who spent since September 26--and a human being that's been sequestered--I guess they have been since Wednesday. So for those reasons, we disagree and firmly think he should not be excluded. We think there's a failure of proof.

THE COURT: All right. And I'll hear your comments regarding 320.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. 320 I think is a little different situation. And I'll be brief about it. First of all, there's two things. Even her closest friend said she is unstable, she's unstable right now because she's going through a tough time in her life. You will recall that I am the one who asked to approach the bench early December. I said, "Judge, I want you to look at this lady. I think she's been beaten." Marcia said, "No, I think she has a cold sore." It was much more than a cold sore it was clear to us, and her mouth was all swollen. It was obvious she had been beaten and I was concerned about that. The problem with it is, she's in denial. The problem is that in a case of such explosive nature, when we bring her in here talking about her boyfriend where the guy was stalking her--I mean it's bad enough to go through this kind of a case, but here's a juror who is enduring it right now. Her problems are with the same fellow, "R", who you got a chance to see him. I don't think I have to say much about "R". I don't think I have to say much about either one of them as I look at them. But they've been together 14 years, whatever. It's kind of a bizarre relationship where she goes away for three years, they still think like they're together and now they have this dividing up custody. So she wants to be on the jury in this kind of a serious case and this man, "R", is going to have the child I guess one week or something during that period. Even her coworkers said she's unstable, it's affected her work. This lady has a real problem it seems to me. But beyond all that, she also has these allegations of bias against African Americans. It was interesting because I asked her, I said, "Well, you know, you work with these African Americans. Have you ever had an African American at your home?" "Well, no, not in my home, but I work with everybody." And in fact, this guy is African American.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I'm not really interested in that particular aspect of this particular juror. What concerns me--

MR. COCHRAN: Let me get to the point then. I know where you're going. She didn't tell the truth. I was trying to save the best for last.

THE COURT: Well, why don't we start with the best argument. If you need to, then back it up with others.

MR. COCHRAN: The best argument then--probably a good point. It's late. But I wanted to get to the best argument. The best argument, I tried to approach the bench. I told your Honor--and we went back through our notes. Bob Shapiro's interrogation of this particular juror, she was specifically asked whether there had been any physical violence. She said no, there had not been, only verbal, and that was it. And now she comes in and tells us that he pushed her, she pushed him back and it became physical. And she didn't tell us that. And had we known that, it would have been a different thing altogether, different than 228. So that's where I wanted to end up so it would be fresh in your mind. But I think that's abundantly clear. Whether she lied to us because she's unstable, because she may or may not harbor some racial hostility, I don't know. For all those reasons, the first reason being perhaps the best choice--

THE COURT: At this point though, the standard is, these are challenges to these jurors on the basis of misconduct. So the fact that somebody thinks that she's unstable is not acts of misconduct. The issue is, was there, as to both of these jurors, some misrepresentation whether--as to their qualifications to be a juror on this particular case. The interesting thing is, the case law here, as you probably know, goes off in different directions. There's a line of cases that says that unintentional misrepresentation, and there's another line of cases that says that there has to be some indicia of concealment, of intentional concealment before this rises to misconduct. But in both of these situations--with 228, the problem is, it is a direct connection to this Defendant that the concealment has to do with, and that leaves this Court to believe that there is a bias despite protestations to the contrary. As to number 320, do you have any comment?

MS. CLARK: I do, your Honor. I think that what counsel is really complaining of in this case is, they're changing their minds. They don't like the bargain they struck in accepting her because she did admit in her inquiry right up front, she said there was verbal, mental abuse. She did not consider pushing and shoving to be physical abuse because, as she indicated to us, there was no physical injury. I think that's very understandable and normal and plausible reason for not concluding that there was abuse in the relationship. I wonder if there's anyone present who hasn't had physical contact with someone they've been intimate with, of the nature where there's no physical injury involved. Mr. Shapiro raised his hand, but you'll notice no one else did, myself included. She repeated it in the questionnaire. She stated there was verbal and mental abuse. She also indicated she had to call for assistance to have him removed from her house. And counsel's failure to probe those areas in any more depth, to elicit further response is counsel's responsibility. But she hid nothing. In fact, she was very forthright in her responses in the questionnaire. She did not make material misrepresentations. That's what distinguishes her from Juror 228. What we have in "R" is a very controlling and abusive man who is determined to seek revenge against her for her personally terminating their relationship. He's come forward to make inflammatory accusations that have been proven to be groundless about her. She was very clear and I thought very forthright in her candor in stating it would have no bearing on her ability to be fair. And indeed the comment that was made in the memo by her--that when someone pointed out the photograph in Star magazine, her comment was, these photographs are not always authentic. This is a very neutral and unbiased response and someone that I'm sure counsel would be happy to have on this jury, one that is of the state of mind that is unwilling to accept tabloid journalism as anything but what it is; nonsense, and it shows that she's rather level-headed about her view of all the garbage that's being disseminated in the media. The fact she has an unstable relationship was totally disclosed in her questionnaire. And what her coworkers were saying is that her relationship is unstable, not that she is unstable. So the fact of the matter is, she was forthright and she was candid about her living situation. Counsel was informed of it. And that's really the issue that confronts us. Did she tell? She told, unlike Juror 228 who said he only worked in quality control, never admitting the fact that he actually worked in the dispatch booth, which "H" indicated was the place where people would meet the celebrities to give them keys to the cars from the VIP; so he probably met O.J. Simpson on a number of occasions, not just the one where they shook hands that "B" said he did. That's a very different situation. That's a direct misrepresentation of his job duty and function where he tells us in court he had nothing to do with the Defendant and saw him at a distance in the airport once when he was filming a commercial, when in fact he comes in court and ultimately admits he was working 1- to 200 yards away, was in the VIP section and worked in the dispatch booth where he might have even had daily contact with the Defendant. Totally different.

MR. COCHRAN: Is this a motion for reconsideration on your ruling on the first juror, your Honor?

MS. CLARK: I'm contrasting--

THE COURT: I haven't ruled on it yet.

MS. CLARK: May I conclude?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought you were finished. You breathed, so--excuse me.

MS. CLARK: This is how I learned to speak. But 320 I think has been forthright to this Court concerning her domestic situation. Had counsel inquired further based on the answers contained in her questionnaire, he would have learned more I'm sure. He failed to do so. That is not anybody's fault. But her explanation for failing to include--she said twice in this 14-year relationship, they pushed each other without resulting in any physical injury. Failure to disclose something like that is--the reason she gives is highly plausible, and I don't think that that would have changed counsel's view of her in any event. I think that counsel has changed their position with respect to this juror based on the nature and the weight of the domestic violence evidence that has been presented to this Court. That's a different situation, but it has nothing to do with juror misconduct, and that's the issue confronting this Court.

MR. COCHRAN: You know, it's so interesting, Judge, when we argue, sometimes when I hear the two sides, it's like we almost change places according to the issue. She sounded just like we did on the other issue.

THE COURT: Ironic, isn't it?

MR. COCHRAN: So ironic, your Honor. But, your Honor, the fundamental thing, basic thing is, yesterday, Miss Clark's colleagues were arguing pushings were violence, part of their whole case. Now we're back here, pushings are just minimal, it's nothing. Pushings are not to be accepted, not to be tolerated. And you saw--you got a sense of the volatile relationship between these people, and pushing between these people means a lot more than any verbal abuse. She didn't tell the truth, and that's what we have to come down to. Not any bad bargain or anything. We didn't ask him to come forward. He came to us, he came to the D.A.'s office, he came to the court, and we had to ultimately look at it. That's the situation. And I'm one who does spend a lot of time picking these jurors, Judge, and I'm really loathe to have any of them leave. But I think with regard to what I've heard with her, she just should not be on this jury for the reason she misrepresented the facts. And I think back when we had other jurors, when there was a misrepresentation, you were very consistent about that. They had to go. And that's the situation here. And I think that for her to say someone voluntarily didn't tell us his part in the company, I don't know of any obligation for them to tell us where--he said he worked as a *************. He said he didn't know O.J. Simpson. And that is still in the record. Everything else is speculation. We cannot speculate. Speculation doesn't help us with this lady who was going to sell that story to the Star. That didn't help us. These are citizens who deserve some respect. So I know that the Court is going to rule. And you could listen to us all day, but I'm ready to submit it. But I just want to be mindful and get my feelings out. I think that 320 should definitely go. 228--I mean I just think if the Court looks within your heart, soul and mind, it's different in her situation because he did tell us that he worked there and there has been no proof he knows O.J. Simpson. I'll submit.

THE COURT: All right. Well, it's interesting that I agree with the parties variously in different parts of their argument on various and different parts of the day. I find this to be an unintentional concealment on the part of Juror 320, that she says there were incidents of pushing and shoving. I don't believe, however, she was as candid with us explaining the current status of her relationship with "R", and I think this is the same situation where, given the facts and situation of this particular case, even unintentional failure to adequately disclose the nature of her relationship with "R", the conflict--I mean she clearly appears to me to be a battered woman in her situation.

MR. COCHRAN: And not a cold sore.

THE COURT: And that also leads me to believe despite her protestations she can remain unbiased, that I think there's sufficient good cause for the Court to believe that that is not likely, and I'm going to excuse both those jurors. Now, how do you suggest--off the record.

(A conference was held, not reported.)

THE COURT: Back on the record.

MR. COCHRAN: We would strenuously object to the Hertz employee being excluded from this jury.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. COCHRAN: We find there's no basis for it. And further, in picking the jury, it was very important for us to have some type of balance; and there were only three males on this jury. He is one of them. And in picking the jury, that was something that was very important to us, and we believe the record does not support the Court's finding.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: May I indicate, it was important to the People to have balance as well. We're interested in having male jurors on the jury, but we agree with the Court's reasoning.

(At 4:25 P.M., the proceedings in camera were concluded.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995 10:40 A.M.

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

APPEARANCES: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas representing the Defendant; ms. Clark, Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Darden representing the People; also present, Dr. Dimitrius.

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

(The following proceedings were held in camera:)

THE COURT: Back on the record. We have Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Miss Dimitrius, Mr. Darden, Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark, also Mr. Douglas. Counsel, the Court is going to invite in 228 and 320. I'm going to start with 228. Any other comment before we proceed? all right. Can we have 228, Deputy Magnera.

(Brief pause.)

(Juror No. 228 enters chambers.)

THE COURT: 228, would you have a seat, please.

JUROR NO. 228: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning. No. 228, good morning.

JUROR NO. 228: Good morning.

THE COURT: First of all, let me return to you the Hertz collection of letters that you provided to the Court earlier. 228, there are certain things that I have to do as a Judge that are not pleasant, and this is one of the most difficult decisions that I've had to make as a Judge. I want you to understand that.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I also want you to understand that this is not a reflection on you, your personality or anything about you. I have made a decision to excuse you from further service in this case because of your employment with Hertz, and it is because of the Hertz corporation's connection with the Defendant in this case. I want to tell you something. Since you have been sequestered, the news media has mischaracterized this as juror misconduct and I want you to know that after today's proceedings I'm going to issue a ruling indicating that I am going to excuse you from further service, but that it has been mischaracterized as misconduct. And I want you to understand that I'm truly sorry to have to do this and it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in and it is certainly not your fault. But the situation is such that the appearance of a problem here is enough to give us all a problem, and I know it is unreasonable for me to ask you to understand that, but I think you understand the position that the Court is in and that both parties are in in this particular case. Do you have any comment you wish to say at this point?

JUROR NO. 228: Well, the only thing I can say I guess is, you know, I've just been sort of like in the hot seat from the beginning and I spoke the truth at the beginning. If I had to say this a thousand times, it still remains the same.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. 228, thank you very much. I certainly appreciate the time and service that you have given to us. And I'm going to have the sheriffs escort you back to the hotel and they will make arrangements to make sure that you get back home and back to court. All right?

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, sir. I'm sorry, I forgot to admonish you, you are not to discuss this with anyone. And also, there is a new law that indicates that you may not accept any money for any information regarding this case for 90 days from today's date. It is the new law regarding juror publicity.

JUROR NO. 228: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, sir.

JUROR NO. 228: Thank you.

(Juror No. 228 exits chambers.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may we be heard for the record before 320 is brought in?

THE COURT: Do we have arrangements for him to be taken back?

DEPUTY MAGNERA: We will, your Honor.

THE COURT: He is not going to go back into the jury room.

DEPUTY MAGNERA: Do you want 320 after I take care of this?

THE COURT: Yes. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: The People would object to the public characterization of the reason for the excusal of 228 as not being based on misconduct. I think that the evidence that was brought to this Court was very clear and persuasive that he was in fact engaging in misconduct in his failure to disclose his involvement with the Defendant. If the Court does issue a statement to the contrary indicating that that was not misconduct, then the message is sent to other jurors and to the citizens of this state that it is acceptable to withhold important information from the Court in the process of voir dire, and I think that is not the message that this Court would like to send.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, I think the record in the proceedings that we've held so far pretty much speak for themselves. It may appear to you to be clear-cut, but the problem I have in this situation was the appearance of that problem, and I erred on the side of caution is what I've done, and I don't want to cast unnecessary aspersions on this man's character if I don't have to. And to say that issues were brought before the Court and the Court in its discretion chose to excuse these jurors and not necessarily make a finding--I don't necessarily have to make a finding publicly of misconduct, but I think the record is clear.

MS. CLARK: And you are going to say in an abundance of caution?

MR. COCHRAN: I don't think it is appropriate for us to tell you how to draft the order. I disagree with Marcia. I don't think the record is clear at all, but sooner or later we've got to stop arguing about this, I suppose.

MS. CLARK: I'm done.

DEPUTY MAGNERA: 320, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Juror No. 320 enters the courtroom.)

THE COURT: No. 320, let me start by thanking you for all the time that you have spent with us so far. This has been an unusual situation. I want to tell you that there are many decisions that I have to make every day in a lot of cases and a lot of these decisions are not easy to make. And the decision that I have made with regards to your service on this case is one of the most difficult decisions I've ever had to make. And I told the lawyers previously that it is something that kept me up all night one night and I was mulling it over because the situation that you were in with Mr. R is a horrible situation and unfortunately the facts and circumstances of that relationship are too close to the situation that we are dealing with here, and I feel compelled to excuse you from further service on the case. I want you to know that there have been some reports in the press that characterize what has gone on with regard to your life as misconduct on your part, and I want you to know that today at the close of business today I'm going to issue a ruling explaining the fact that I'm going to excuse you from further service. And it is not because of anything that you have done. It is because of the circumstance that you find yourself in that I believe you would be a victim of a very similar situation to the facts of this case.

JUROR NO. 320: And sir, the only reason why I think I am a victim is because he won't leave me alone.

THE COURT: I know.

JUROR NO. 320: He won't leave me alone and I do not think that he will ever leave me alone and I don't know what to do about it. The only thing I was able to do is go down and get a restraining order thinking that that would do it, but I guess not.

THE COURT: Have you gone to any of the--called any of the battered women's hotlines?

JUROR NO. 320: I didn't feel the need to. If he would just leave me alone, I would be okay.

THE COURT: You see, the problem we have is that after you had been selected as a trial member in this jury, I mean you were assaulted in a domestic violence situation, and it is something that is unfortunate. I mean, you are indeed a victim. You are a victim of that circumstance. He continues to make you a victim. And I want to tell you that the thing that pains me so greatly is that by my excusing you from the jury he has essentially won a fight with you.

JUROR NO. 320: That is a true. I told you he was going to do anything and everything in his power.

THE COURT: To make your life miserable?

JUROR NO. 320: To make me lose everything, and that is okay, because I have my kids.

THE COURT: No. 320, I want you to know that that pains me greatly.

JUROR NO. 320: Pains me, too.

THE COURT: And all of us, when we discussed this, agreed that it was an unfortunate consequence, but the problem that I have is I have to ensure a fair trial for both sides here.

JUROR NO. 320: I understand that, and like I told you, I would be fair and impartial. What has happened to me, I cannot compare it with anybody else.

THE COURT: I realize you feel that way. Unfortunately, both sides here have to feel a level of comfort with the people who actually sit in judgment, and I'm sure you understand that.

JUROR NO. 320: I understand.

THE COURT: I don't expect you to agree with my decision, but I hope you at least understand what it is that we've had to go through with regards to this. I would really recommend, however, that you consult with a women's group regarding this problem, because my assessment of your situation is that it is a very serious situation that you are in. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: May I pass this to the Court, please?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. No. 320, if you would, after you get settled back home, would you call Mrs. Robertson, and she will give you a list of battered women's shelters in your area that you can call and consult on this problem and they can give you advice about restraining orders, about counseling. They can refer you to legal services and that sort of thing. They are specialists in this area. And I think it is really something that you need to avail yourself of. Did you file the restraining order at the local police department so they are aware of it.

JUROR NO. 320: Yes, I have a two-year restraining order against him, but that doesn't mean that he is not going to bother me.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that.

JUROR NO. 320: I mean, he can talk to his daughter as much as he wants, but I just don't want him harassing me. It is basically the mental and verbal abuse that I get from him. I don't think anybody likes that; I certainly don't.

THE COURT: No. 320, my apologies to you again and my thanks to you.