Jack Walraven's Simpson Trial Transcripts

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1995 9:17 A.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Mr. Dominick W. Rubalcava, Esquire, on behalf of Dr. Christian Reichardt; and Barry Tarlow, Esquire, on behalf of Howard Weitzman.)

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

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Miss Snider Chapman. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Gordon.

MR. GORDON: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: The jury is not present. Counsel, yesterday I stayed in the courthouse until after 6:00 and Mrs. Robertson was here well after 7:00 and we did not receive the materials, and apparently you have given the materials to Mrs. Robertson this morning, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Before I left, your Honor, you recall I came back and indicated to you that we would have it the first thing tomorrow morning. Didn't I come back and tell you that before I left? It was my understanding I told you--

THE COURT: My reasoning is Mrs. Robertson and I were waiting.

MR. COCHRAN: My understanding was I came back and said--

THE COURT: Counsel, the point being is that that is another evening that I didn't have the work on these materials.

MR. COCHRAN: We understand. Judge, let me address this. Let me address this as well. This--

THE COURT: No, counsel. All I'm pointing out to you is that--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: --what you have presented to me with regards to these tapes and transcripts is a very prodigious task.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't know how prodigious, your Honor.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. COCHRAN: No, you do not know. May I just say something?

THE COURT: Counsel, the only point I'm making is that given the volume of the materials that I have before me, you should not anticipate a ruling on this issue this week.

MR. COCHRAN: We don't, your Honor.

THE COURT: That is the point I'm making.

MR. COCHRAN: We try to be reasonable.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, I had to stop my entire office. I've had three secretaries for over a week working around the clock. In addition to that, Judge, I mean I have a flourishing law practice. I had to stop them to do this. We are also cleaning up tapes. We have now done so. Because of your Honor's ruling, which we take some exception to yesterday, your memo, that we have now keyed in our tapes with the proffer, along with her--her tapes, which weren't verbatim. In addition to that, there were some tapes she had not transcribed. There are now ten additional "N" word references; forty instead of thirty.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I'm going to cut you off right there.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE COURT: The only point I'm making is that I have a lot on my plate right now.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand that, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are not going to get a ruling on this until some time next week. Plan your witnesses accordingly.

MR. COCHRAN: It is a lot of work and I understand that. I don't know if we have any dark days all this week, but at any rate, we will be prepared, prepared to deal with that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: We are prepared. May I just indicate to the court what we expect and what we need to do today at this point? I have present today Dr. Christian Reichardt and I would like to do a 402 motion regarding his testimony. We have Detective Ken Berris, we flew from Chicago. I want to go forward, too, regarding him. Mr. Howard Weitzman will be here at 10:30. I want to make sure there is a 402 regarding Mr. Weitzman. Miss Shawn Chapman is here today to argue the Menzione matter. We want to argue--tell you the court what we have before I bring her out for this Thursday, so we will save some time. We are flying witnesses in and out. We are very aware of that. And Dr. Henry Lee is in the wings.

THE COURT: Before you get further down the path, why don't you approach and let me just chat with you off the record.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Sure.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, there is one other matter. We would like to recall Mr. Larry Ragle to the stand, your Honor, for the following purposes, and I can make an offer of proof if the court would--

THE COURT: I was wondering why Mr. Ragle was still here.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Blasier would like to recall him to the stand and I would like to make an offer of proof, if the court would care to hear it.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, Mr. Goldberg is not present.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Is he available?

MR. DARDEN: We'll call for him.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have Mr. Goldberg. Why don't we proceed to the--you wanted to have a 402--I take it this is in the form actually of an in limine motion to restrict certain cross-examination of Dr. Reichardt?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor, it certainly is.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't we do that since we have all the parties. My recollection is Mr. Darden was the attorney on the Prosecution side who was going to be conducting the cross-examination of Dr. Reichardt; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: That's true.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: We are going to have a motion in limine on cross-examination, future cross-examination?

THE COURT: That was my understanding of what the request was.

MR. DARDEN: That would seem to be a rather unusual procedure.

THE COURT: No. My recollection is that both sides have availed themselves of that several times in this case. Mr. Cochran, what issue do you wish the court to determine?

MR. DARDEN: Can we ask Mr. Reichardt to leave before we do this in the courtroom?

THE COURT: What is the issue?

MR. COCHRAN: The issue, your Honor, is as follows: I anticipate calling Dr. Christian Reichardt, who is present with his lawyer, Mr. Dominick Rubalcava.

THE COURT: I see him in the back row.

MR. COCHRAN: He is injured with us today, but he is with us at any rate. I anticipate it will be very, very simple and direct examination. I expect that Dr. Reichardt will testify that he first met--

THE COURT: I want to know what the issue is.

MR. COCHRAN: The issue has to do with the scope of the direct and whether or not the Prosecution is going to be able to bring up issues which aren't covered on direct, and I will be very right to the point.

THE COURT: Mr. Rubalcava, can we have your client step outside, please, and I will allow you to remain.

(Dr. Reichardt witness exits the courtroom)

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. In the course--and let me just as an offer of proof lay out what I expect the direct to be. It will be very brief and you will get an idea of where we would like to limit any other examination that will be beyond the scope. Dr. Reichardt I believe will testify that he met and became acquainted with Mr. Simpson sometime around the middle of 1993, that they were friends, they knew each other over a period of time, and in fact in the earlier part of 1994 Dr. Reichardt was paid I think $5,000 for his work on the video in which he did some background and work with Mr. Simpson about the perils of traveling, jet lag, drinking water, walking around the plane, things of that nature. He did a major script of fifty pages, reduced down to five.

THE COURT: Was that the portion in the exercise video?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, that was the resulting portion of that, that he had participated and helped out with that.

THE COURT: So they had a business relationship?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, they had a business relationship, and he was paid for that. That over a period of time that they continued to be friends. He was aware of Mr. Simpson's relationships. They talked. That on June 12th, and specifically getting to the point, we want to bring out on the date of June 12th, 1994, Dr. Reichardt received a call from Mr. Simpson at about nine o'clock p.m. that evening. Mr. Simpson was jovial, was his usual self with regard to his demeanor, that a conversation at that time occurred. During the conversation Mr. Simpson talked about what he was doing with his life, that he was on his way to Chicago and that the--they made basically a date. They wanted to get together on Wednesday of that week, which would have been Wednesday, June 15th, I believe, and they made a dinner date or plans to get together when Mr. Simpson returned back from Chicago. That he will testify that Mr. Simpson didn't sound any differently than he has on other occasions. In fact, he sounded really upbeat and happy, and they had a very good conversation and that is pretty much it. It will be with regard to the conversation, the demeanor, the brief business relationship they had, that he was aware also of Mr. Simpson's personal life, who he was seeing at various times and that is it. Now, I don't expect to go into any of these other incidents that occurred before that time. I don't expect to elicit anything regarding Faye Resnick and her drug treatment program or anything of that nature. I want to limit it just to these things, and I think the Prosecution would be accordingly limited, and that is why I'm doing this now, so we don't have a misunderstanding, and move ahead.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, any response?

MR. DARDEN: Well, it seems to me that he has something specific in mind, that is, something specific he doesn't want me to go into, and perhaps we should ask Mr. Cochran what exactly that is. If we are talking about bias and prior business relationships and his attitude to these proceedings and things like that, those are traditionally areas that are fair game in cross-examination, then of course I assumed that I will be permitted to pursue those issues. I don't intend to ask about Faye Resnick and her--

THE COURT: You do not?

MR. DARDEN: --and her drug usage. I mean, geez, we got--you know, we fought that issue so why would I do that now?

THE COURT: I was kind of wondering that myself, but I know things seem to change here from time to time.

MR. DARDEN: Nor will I ask this witness about whether or not he has ever used drugs, not that I'm saying that he has, so what are we having the 402 over?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, from the side who asked for the 402 on every hearing, I'm trying to narrow the issues, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, let me just explain something to you just so we all know what the court's thought process is at this point. I would like for this jury to deliberate--begin deliberations on this case sometime after--shortly after labor day is my hope and expectation, which means that scope of examinations are going to get tightened and have been tightened. And if you recollect from the court's rulings yesterday regarding Mr. Ragle, if there were scope problems, I enforce those restrictions. Now, attitudes and opinions, other issues regarding testifying, clearly that is--under the evidence code and under the Caljic 2.20 that is an area that Mr. Darden is entitled to go into, but it has to be impeachment that is relevant to the issue.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I don't--

THE COURT: And we know since our--we've had these discussions informally before, we pretty much know what Dr. Reichardt is going to say.

MR. DARDEN: I didn't here the last part.

THE COURT: We pretty much know what Dr. Reichardt is likely to say at this point.

MR. DARDEN: Yes, I do, and no one can accuse me of lengthy cross-examination of any witness. I think I'm the only one in this case--

THE COURT: The more we talk about it, the longer this morning's session is going to take.

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I ask one other thing? If there is an area of alleged impeachment regarding Dr. Reichardt, I would ask that the court--that either side--that certainly the Prosecution approach the bench so we can argue it before it is asked--some question is asked improperly before the jury. That has been our general rule. Will that be the rule here also?

MR. DARDEN: I'm not going to ask any improper questions, your Honor, but I will hand over any documentation I have just before I go into that area.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, your Honor, umm--

THE COURT: Mr. Rubalcava, do you want to come forward and be available to consult with your client?

MR. RUBALCAVA: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you been riding motorcycles?

MR. RUBALCAVA: Yes, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: He is here in great stress and pain. Your Honor, given that, may I move on to the issue?

THE COURT: Do you want to sit closer to the witness?

MR. RUBALCAVA: Umm--

THE COURT: Or--

MR. RUBALCAVA: If I could sit here, that will be fine.

THE COURT: That is the bailiff's seat so we will need you over here.

MR. RUBALCAVA: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Rubalcava.

MR. COCHRAN: May I address also the issue regarding Howard Weitzman so we can move right along?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. With regard to Mr. Weitzman, we expect, as I said, he will be here around 10:30. This hearing would be--and we talked about this also, so I think everybody is aware of this, we do not expect to get into any attorney/client communications and do not expect the court will recall that Mr. Weitzman represented Mr. Simpson back on the 1989 incident.

We are not getting into that. I'm not getting into any communications between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Weitzman from `89 to the present. That I don't want to get into any statements made by Mr. Weitzman, publicly or privately, or anybody in his family, re these proceedings, your Honor, the lawyers. That is all irrelevant. I expect only to go into background briefly. He is a lawyer, that he was called on June 12th, at least the jury has already seen the video, then go briefly into his background, June--of June 13th, rather--he has a distinguished background, obviously, and I will go through it briefly.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, let me help you out here. What you are saying is want me to enforce the scope objection regarding any cross-examination, and you want the court to be wary of any attorney/client issues?

MR. COCHRAN: That is exactly correct.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to get right to what happened at the time of the statement and what he was told and that is it.

THE COURT: And that is to impeach--to impeach the testimony of Detective Vannatter?

MR. COCHRAN: That is exactly correct. And I have told the court this before and I want to make sure that everybody understands that.

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: I'm sorry, who is going to be handling Mr. Weitzman? Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: I will, your Honor. Well, I would really like to know what counsel is talking about. What testimony is it that he is supposed to be impeaching? We have not entered the statement.

THE COURT: No. It has to do I think with the nature of the timing, location and circumstances of Detective Vannatter talking to Mr. Weitzman, who was allowed to be present, who wasn't. There is apparently a factual dispute.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what difference does a factual dispute make if we have not introduced any evidence of the statement? We have not introduced one thing about the manner in which the statement was taken, the content of the statement, Mr. Simpson's demeanor or any interaction with Mr. Weitzman. What is the relevance?

MR. COCHRAN: Very relevant. Vannatter--I will show you the testimony of what Detective Vannatter said about who could be present during the statement. It is directly impeaching.

MS. CLARK: What statement?

MR. COCHRAN: And that is all.

MS. CLARK: I would like to see the relevant transcript portions, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: We will be glad to show her.

MS. CLARK: I do not recall Detective Vannatter ever testifying to--

MR. COCHRAN: We will be glad to do that.

THE COURT: Why don't you show to it her and we will proceed with recalling--I'm sorry, Mr. Goldberg is back. We have Mr. Ragle still present.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

THE COURT: So let's have the offer of proof from Mr. Blasier as to recalling Mr. Ragle. Let's get Ragle out of the way and then Dr. Reichardt.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, so the court is clear on this Weitzman issue, we have Miranda waivers on tape from the Defendant.

MR. COCHRAN: That has nothing to do with the issue.

THE COURT: The issue goes to the attempt to impeach Detective Vannatter. Why don't you look at the transcript portion and then we will take a look at that. Mr. Blasier, what is your offer regarding recalling Mr. Ragle?

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, after Mr. Ragle was done testifying yesterday he came--he came off the witness stand, he had seen Detective Vannatter sitting in the back of the courtroom during his testimony or on the back bench there, he put his hand out to shake his hand and Detective Vannatter backed away and stated, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You are a traitor," or a word to that effect, that substance. "You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm a cop, you're a cop. You are pathetic. I've been a cop for 27 years and I have never seen a cop come in and testify the way you did." Now we want to him put Mr. Ragle on to state that. It is directly relevant to the bias of Detective Vannatter of his motives. It is--it shows--it is state of mind evidence on Detective Vannatter as to his feeling that cops should not testify against cops. It is--the central aspect of our defense is the code of silence of the police department, and it is relevant to Detective Vannatter's credibility and we wish to call Mr. Ragle to demonstrate that. It is relevant to bias under evidence code section 780. It is evidence of a habit and custom of the police department or Detective Vannatter of not wanting to say anything negative about another police officer.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MS. CLARK: I will handle this, your Honor. This is ridiculous. I mean, we have really reached the farther outmost reaches I have every seen. I am actually speechless. I can't believe what I'm hearing. Detective Vannatter is entitled to his opinion. He's a human being and a citizen of this country and he is entitled to his opinion. And if he wants to tell Mr. Ragle, after he has completed his testimony, what he thinks of him, he is entitled to do so. And if Mr. Ragle feels the need to go and cry to his lawyers about it, he can do that, too. But that--none of it has anything that should be involving this court's time and attention and energy, which are already sorely taxed by a very difficult and lengthy case. This is absurd. These people want to put on everything they can think of, whether it is relevant or not, to slime the police department. I understand the motive. We have seen it in every case. This one is no different, just a slight bit more, and it is more extreme. But to say that it is relevant, that Detective Vannatter voices an opinion of someone he feels to be unethical, he is entitled to do that, as am I. He did not try to dissuade the witness. This witness completed his testimony, went up to Detective Vannatter and wanted to do the same thing that all these witnesses do, excuse me, for basically lying on the witness stand or saying things that I--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, wait, wait, wait. Miss Clark, that is not called for.

MS. CLARK: I apologize, your Honor.

THE COURT: And that is not going to be tolerated

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

THE COURT: Miss Clark, let's have an intelligent discussion here.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier raises the issue of bias and habit and custom. He raises two legal issues that you have not addressed. If you don't want to address those, then I will assume those grounds to be well-taken.

MS. CLARK: As to habit and custom, your Honor, Mr. Ragle went over to Detective Vannatter. He approached Detective Vannatter; not reverse. He was the one that sought out interaction with Detective Vannatter. He was the one who went and made the overture, wanted to say let bygones be bygones or whatever he wanted to say. Detective Vannatter gave him his opinion. There is no habit and custom shown here. There is no code of silence shown here. Detective Vannatter, if called to testify, would say that many of the statements made were misrepresented by Mr. Ragle. And I can understand where there would be misunderstanding between two people when tempers flare; however, habit is more than one occasion, your Honor. There is no habit shown here. There was one encounter that Mr. Ragle didn't like that the attorneys wish to capitalize on. Habit has not been shown. As for bias, Detective Vannatter has an opinion of the witness' testimony. That doesn't reflect bias in terms of his relevance as a witness in this case. He has an interaction with someone who has completed his testimony. And the fact that a witness in a case has an opinion as to guilt or innocence or has an opinion of a witness' credibility does not make him biased as a witness in terms of giving his testimony. He is entitled to it. He is not on the jury, your Honor. He does not have to withhold his opinion. And I don't understand how this could possibly be relevant to his bias, quote-unquote, as a witness, when he testified, what, six months ago at this point. Detective Vannatter is entitled to have an opinion about someone else, to voice that opinion when the person approaches him to have an interaction, without that being called habit and custom, code of silence or bias as a witness. And if we have to, then we will convene the mini trial of Detective Vannatter and Larry Ragle, then we have to recall Detective Vannatter to set the record straight, say his true state of mind, which would make relevant his opinion of Mr. Ragle's credibility and the nature of his testimony. That is what this would open up. Obviously none of it is relevant. One witness' opinion of another's demeanor on the witness stand is their opinion, and when that witness approaches another and asks for the interaction, there is no reason why he can't voice that opinion, but to do so once certainly is not a habit or custom.

MR. BLASIER: Detective Vannatter, when he testified, made many statements about the actions of other police officers, Detective Fuhrman and others, in terms of what they did or what they did not do, whether things were done properly or improperly. His state of mind, as evidenced by his statement yesterday, is relevant and that is that you don't say anything negative about another police officer and that is directly relevant to his credibility, and we offer it for that purpose.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And the statements made were twisted to be offered for that purpose. As I understand it from Detective Vannatter, that is not what he meant or what he said. He simply offered his personal opinion of the witness' credibility and demeanor on the witness stand; not you don't criticize another police officer. It was rather--I will tell the court what it was. You haven't investigated a crime scene in twenty years. How could you possibly know what you are talking about? I dare say that there might be one or two others in this country that might share that opinion, but it certainly has nothing to do with code of silence or habit and custom, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm concerned that attorneys from both sides have referred to what other people around this country may think. That causes me to believe that the lawyers are pandering to the cameras and that causes me to believe that probably I ought to pull the plug on the cameras. I'm contemplating doing that because I'm tired of this kind of argument. All right. Any other comment?

MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the objection as to the recall of this witness for this reason: The probative value, since we have a dispute to what that statement actually was, I find the probative value to be minimal. It will prolong this trial by requiring the Prosecution to recall Detective Vannatter to explain why it is that he holds this opinion, plus pro or con with regards to Mr. Ragle, which will get into all sorts of inadmissible hearsay. And I think that given the--this isn't even remotely collateral and I don't see any point in prolonging this trial. I think it is an undue expenditure of the court's time to engage in this type of thing, so I'm not going to allow it.

MR. DARDEN: May I inquire of the court, your Honor?

THE COURT: Let's have Dr. Reichardt.

MR. COCHRAN: There is another witness here from Chicago, Mr. Berris, your Honor, and again I wanted to briefly take up with the court, as an offer of proof, Mr. Berris is the officer who flew in last night from Chicago who responded to the room at the Oak Park Hilton hotel at eleven o'clock, and along with some technicians from the Chicago Police Department.

THE COURT: I recollect who he is.

MR. COCHRAN: Ultimately took possession of a glass.

THE COURT: Glass.

MR. COCHRAN: Shards of glass.

THE COURT: Towel.

MR. COCHRAN: The towel, et cetera.

THE COURT: I know who he is.

MR. COCHRAN: Luper of course took it up. I expect to ask him some questions limiting it to just those things, not even that part of his investigation, and I'm just pointing it out to this court so we can have this same limit you talked about with regard to cross-examination and that sort of thing.

MR. DARDEN: Umm, let me see what my cross-examination looks like?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: I intend to ask him about his observations in the room. What is it that he is asking me to limit?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm not--

THE COURT: I think he doesn't want to go into the forest searches or anything of that kind of stuff.

MR. DARDEN: Or means of escape from the hotel and all of that good stuff?

THE COURT: I suspect.

MR. DARDEN: I would think that that would be relevant.

MR. COCHRAN: I think not, your Honor. That is the reason I'm making this motion at this point so we can limit it and move on and we want to get this case to the jury by labor day, too. We are trying to do that. I'm calling it up front to get some understanding of where we are so we can move ahead.

THE COURT: The problem is we have a witness--this witness is a witness from Chicago that is not easily recalled.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand that.

THE COURT: That is the problem.

MR. COCHRAN: What does that have to do with anything, your Honor, if we are calling him? It is our case and you said we can try the case a certain way. We are the ones who brought him out here.

THE COURT: Let's see where it goes. Let's see how you lead him into this.

MR. COCHRAN: I already told you how I'm going to lead him into this, your Honor, and I'm just trying to give the court a head's up on this.

THE COURT: If he is there conducting an investigation in that room at that hotel, it depends on what he was doing.

MR. COCHRAN: He was there conducting an investigation into that room and that is exactly the operative words, "In that room," and that is what I'm trying to get to, your Honor.

THE COURT: That is what it sounds like to me.

MR. COCHRAN: I need five minutes. He just got here this morning. We would need five minutes. He would probably be the first and then Reichardt and then Weitzman. We could do the Menzione motion if the court would care to hear that at this point.

THE COURT: I would like to get to the jury and get some testimony under our belts.

MR. COCHRAN: We would like to do that also. I'm ready to finish with these two witnesses and ready to roll then.

THE COURT: Who is going to do Mr. Reichardt?

MR. COCHRAN: I am.

THE COURT: Are you ready? I would like to get Mr. Rubalcava out of here.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to do that, your Honor, Reichardt and Berris, to finish talking with them.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, before you leave the bench--

MR. COCHRAN: It appears you are about to.

THE COURT: You are assuming I'm going to give him ten minutes.

MR. DARDEN: I don't think he needs the time, but Judge, before I was cut off I wanted to inquire of you, now that the Defense case is going to be prolonged a number of days, what day should we be prepared to have rebuttal witnesses appear?

THE COURT: Well, I mean this--this tape motion, I mean, we are talking about eighteen incidents and thirty other incidents.

MR. COCHRAN: Forty other incidents. Forty and at least eighteen or more--

THE COURT: Well--

MR. COCHRAN: --I will indicate to you.

THE COURT: So we are talking about individually, you know, fifty or sixty individual rulings and arguments that I'm going to have to hear. This is going to be much like the domestic violence issue where we have to deal with dozens of issues, each of which is entitled to a separate ruling by the court, each of which the court has to weigh under 352, so you are talking about a significant argument and then time for me to think about it and then sort it out, so from that--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor--

THE COURT: From the experience in the domestic violence issue, since you handled that argument, I assume it is going to be similar, so my guess is it will probably--that endeavor alone will take a couple days' argument and then the court's analysis and ruling on the issue.

MR. COCHRAN: There is one difference, however, your Honor. In this instance we have tape-recordings. In addition to that you have previously ruled in January--

THE COURT: I seem to recollect during domestic violence we had tape-recordings.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, you had one tape, your Honor. In this instance you have an ongoing tape-recording of this person's voice. But you have ruled in January the proffer goes into the areas--only the areas--I mean, there is what, sixteen hours of tapes, so we have limited down to just the areas you talked about that are relevant, so I just wanted to point that out. But whatever date you say is fine. What date?

THE COURT: Mr. Darden wants to know when he should start subpoenaing in his witnesses. My guess would be September 4th or 5th actually since that is after labor day. I don't see us resolving these issues and concluding the Defense testimony before then because we still have Dr. Lee.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach? May we approach?

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you take your fifteen minutes. Ten o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: Ten o'clock. That is fine. May we approach?

THE COURT: Ten o'clock.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, with regard to our earlier--with regard to our discussion at side bar, the court I think indicated that perhaps the People should subpoena their witnesses around the 30th of August for rebuttal?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I think maybe the court is aware of the timing of this, that we filed our points and authorities in response to the initial proffer made by the Defense. At the same time as we filed, the Defense filed points and authorities. What I wanted to ask the court is whether it would prefer that we file a response to those points and authorities, because obviously our papers couldn't be responsive--they were filed simultaneously--to the Defense points and authorities in writing, or orally argue it?

THE COURT: Well, that is up to you, but if you are going to do it, you need to file it by Friday close of business, noon.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Okay. We will do our best to--

THE COURT: Because obviously this is going to consume my entire weekend.

MS. CLARK: Right, right. Just to offer some ray of hope, because I personally am very upset about the extension of time of this case, I would--and I apologize to the court for losing my temper earlier this morning. The extended time and delay--

THE COURT: Isn't it amazing how much smoother things go when we address the specific issues?

MS. CLARK: I agree, your Honor. I'm certainly not arguing with the court. I'm apologizing to the court.

THE COURT: Just an observation; not a criticism.

MS. CLARK: Yes, and I'm going to try and rein in my personal aggravation at things we can't help, but by--

THE COURT: We are all tired.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel again. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. All right. The Defense may call their next witness. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. We will call Dr. Christian Reichardt.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Reichardt, would you come over here and stand by the court reporter, please, and face Mrs. Robertson, the clerk.

Christian Reichardt, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: 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.

DR. REICHARDT: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Sit back and pull the microphone toward you, please. All right. Thank you. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Dr. Reichardt.

DR. REICHARDT: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Reichardt, what is your occupation sir?

DR. REICHARDT: I'm a doctor of chiropractic.

MR. COCHRAN: For how long have you been a doctor of chiropractic?

DR. REICHARDT: I graduated in 1983.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you graduate from, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: National college of chiropractic in Chicago.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you start to practice thereafter?

DR. REICHARDT: I practiced for one year in Chicago and then moved to California.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you presently in the active practice of chiropractic practice here in southern California?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: And where are your offices, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: I have an office in Malibu and another office in Santa Monica.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I would like, sir, to direct your attention to the gentleman over to my left here, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson. Are you acquainted with him?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I sure am.

MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury when it was that you first met Mr. Simpson?

DR. REICHARDT: I met Mr. Simpson in the early summer of 1993.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And thereafter did the two of you become friends?

DR. REICHARDT: Yup, sure did.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you see him socially?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did there come a time in 1994 that you had occasion to enter into some kind of a business relationship vis-à-vis a video that Mr. Simpson was to be in?

DR. REICHARDT: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Did that happen?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: When was that, approximately?

DR. REICHARDT: Well, actually in the later part of `93 we were talking about health care and exercise and then an opportunity came up to do a video for playboy magazine that was about jet lag and health care for the frequent flier and frequent traveler.

MR. COCHRAN: And this was something that you and Mr. Simpson discussed, putting on a video to aid travelers with regard to jet lag and that sort of thing?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What role did you play in helping to get this video ready and helping Mr. Simpson in that regard?

DR. REICHARDT: Umm, I wrote about a sixty-page outline for him talking about nutrition and exercise and things that a traveler could do while they were on the plane, what to eat, what not to eat, things like that. We actually made up a little exercise piece of equipment, a little rubberband that the traveler could take with them in his suitcase to be able to continue a workout program in his hotel room.

MR. COCHRAN: So you spent a number of hours on this project?

DR. REICHARDT: I would say about 60, 65 hours.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you paid for your efforts?

DR. REICHARDT: I was paid at the moment when the video was--there was agreement made that playboy will go ahead with the video and then I was paid.

MR. COCHRAN: How much were you paid?

DR. REICHARDT: I was paid $5,000.

MR. COCHRAN: So you did a number of hours for $5,000; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Definitely more hours than I would have made the $5,000 in my practice.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to that video, have you ever seen that video?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: You never saw it afterwards?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: But the part that you participated in had to do with how one would overcome jet lag and drink water and get up and walk around and things like that?

DR. REICHARDT: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, the--your relationship and friendship with Mr. Simpson, did it continue then in 1994?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And specifically I would like to ask you on the date of Sunday, June 12, 1994, did you receive a phone call from Mr. O.J. Simpson in the evening hours of that day?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you tell us approximately what time that call was?

DR. REICHARDT: That was about nine o'clock in the evening.

MR. COCHRAN: Nine o'clock P.m.?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us where you were when you received this call?

DR. REICHARDT: On the couch at home.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you alone at that point?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what happened during that phone call.

DR. REICHARDT: Umm, O.J. called to check up on me and see how I was feeling because he knows--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask a question. Mr. Simpson called and you of course recognized his voice, did you not?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to the tone of his voice, I want you to describe how Mr. Simpson's voice appeared during this conversation at nine o'clock p.m. on Sunday evening, June 12, 1994.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

DR. REICHARDT: He seemed a little bit more relaxed than in the recent months. He seemed very jovial.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recall this specifically?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he seem--did he seem downcast or sad at all during this conversation?

MR. DARDEN: This is leading.

DR. REICHARDT: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking the question. Well, I can ask it another way.

THE COURT: Yes, you can.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury--

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry, there is a motion to strike.

MR. COCHRAN: --how O.J. Simpson seemed to you?

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor.

THE COURT: That answer is stricken since I sustained the objection as being leading. Ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for this jury how Mr. O.J. Simpson seemed, how his voice seemed to you during this conversation at nine o'clock on June 12th?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah. Like I said, he seemed more jovial, he seemed relaxed, he was packing his bag to go to Chicago and we were talking about the fact that he was going to--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Doctor, please listen very carefully to the question. It was just describe his tone of voice; not what he said.

DR. REICHARDT: Okay.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard what was said.

MR. COCHRAN: Anything else you can say regarding his voice?

DR. REICHARDT: Just more relaxed than usual.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. How long did this conversation last?

DR. REICHARDT: I would say about fifteen minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you talked about from 9:00 until about 9:15?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And during this conversation, without telling us the substance of the conversation, did you and Mr. Simpson make any plans to get together later in that week?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah, we talked about--

MR. DARDEN: This is hearsay as well.

MR. COCHRAN: That is not hearsay. He can answer that yes or no.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You made some plans?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: What date, if any, were you going to get together after that date?

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that question.

DR. REICHARDT: The following Wednesday.

MR. COCHRAN: The following Wednesday which would be I guess Wednesday, June 15th, what were you and Mr. Simpson going to do?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: What were you going to do, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: We were going to go and have dinner.

MR. COCHRAN: That would have been where, in what city?

DR. REICHARDT: In L.A. he was going to come back and we were going to have dinner.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard--you have described for this jury Mr. Simpson's voice of how he sounded, more relaxed and upbeat during this conversation. Did that voice ever change at all during this conversation?

DR. REICHARDT: No. It was a very friendly, very open, happy conversation.

MR. COCHRAN: It was a happy conversation?

DR. REICHARDT: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Is that yes?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, Dr. Reichardt.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, sir.

DR. REICHARDT: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: You consider yourself a close friend of the Defendant's?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I would.

MR. DARDEN: And you say you met him in early summer of 1993; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Do you consider yourself the Defendant's best friend?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: You and he have gone to dinner on many occasions?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: He has taken you to dinner?

DR. REICHARDT: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: You have to answer out loud.

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. He has taken you on vacation?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Took you to Cabo San Lucas?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: He paid for the trip?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, he did.

MR. DARDEN: Did he take you to aspen?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. DARDEN: Did he take you anywhere else on any other vacation?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: When were you are taken to Cabo San Lucas?

DR. REICHARDT: In Easter, `94.

MR. DARDEN: How long were you there?

DR. REICHARDT: I was there for four days.

MR. DARDEN: That is down in Mexico?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You also knew Nicole?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely. I knew Nicole first.

MR. DARDEN: I'm sorry?

DR. REICHARDT: I knew Nicole first.

MR. DARDEN: She was also a close friend of yours?

DR. REICHARDT: I would say so, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: When you told us that you had heard the--when you told us that the Defendant sounded jovial and more relaxed than he had in several months--by the way, was that your testimony, that he sounded more relaxed than he had in several months?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes. Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And he hadn't been relaxed over the prior several months; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Could you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: Well, he hadn't seemed particularly relaxed over the prior months; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. It is vague as to time.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That he seemed more relaxed that evening than previously?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And that is because during the week leading up to that phone call the Defendant had been depressed because of his failing relationship with Nicole Brown; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I wouldn't--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: I wouldn't say depressed.

MR. DARDEN: Well, have you ever described to anyone the Defendant having been depressed?

DR. REICHARDT: At times, but he wasn't depressed all the time.

MR. DARDEN: Well, during the week leading up to this phone call did the Defendant, in your opinion, seem depressed over his failing relationship with Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: At times, yes.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, he seemed upset? He was upset with Nicole Brown during the week leading up to that phone call; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: At times, yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he was upset because Nicole Brown didn't want to see him any longer; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: No, that is not correct.

MR. DARDEN: You were interviewed by the LAPD on June 23rd, 1994; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You spoke with the officers about the Defendant and his relationship with Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you tell the officers that the Defendant had been upset because Nicole Brown had changed her mind about having a relationship with him?

DR. REICHARDT: She changed her mind frequently about having a relationship with him or not having a relationship with him, and that is what he was upset about.

MR. DARDEN: Now, please listen to my question carefully.

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh, I am.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, are you here to help the Defendant?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. He is here to testify.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Are you here to help the Defendant?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you tell the officers that the Defendant was upset because Nicole had changed her mind about having a relationship with him?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. I would like to approach with counsel.

THE COURT: That question was already asked and answered.

MR. DARDEN: Well, it wasn't answered actually.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

THE COURT: What have you got, Chris?

MR. DARDEN: Just what I gave him. What is the objection?

MR. COCHRAN: The question he is talking about--you are talking about somebody being upset. The point you asked I don't find in here.

MR. DARDEN: Here it is right down here, (Indicating). "After that Nicole's attitude changed, that O.J. was aware of the change and seemed upset and depressed."

MR. COCHRAN: I was reading from the statement and I was just saying that this certainly opens the door to some other stuff because I've tried to limit it.

THE COURT: It will create a 356 issue.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what I'm saying.

MR. DARDEN: Absolutely. I have more, so--

THE COURT: All right. Let's go. All right. Let's go. So the point is counsel is aware of where the statement is coming from.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I think Mr. Darden was asking the question regarding the changing of the mind.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, the Defendant and Nicole Brown, they had a number--they had an off and on relationship on a number of occasions; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Sometimes she broke up with him?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Sometimes he broke up with her?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And it went like that for a couple of years, right?

DR. REICHARDT: The last year and a half that I was privy to, correct.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant gave Nicole Brown an expensive gift for her birthday in nay of 1994; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: She returned that gift to him?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, she did.

MR. DARDEN: He had given her some earrings on an earlier occasion; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to this whole line of questioning. This is beyond the direct examination.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know what date it was, the date that Nicole Brown decided finally that she would no longer have a relationship with the Defendant?

MR. COCHRAN: I would object to the form of that question. Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: You told us a few moments ago that Nicole Brown was also your friend; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Is it your opinion, Dr. Reichardt, that Nicole Brown deserved to have had her throat cut?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, just a moment.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is not an appropriate question, Mr. Darden. Have a seat, Mr. Cochran. Not an appropriate question.

MR. DARDEN: Can I be heard at side bar with discovery, your Honor?

THE COURT: Discovery?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: It is not an appropriate question.

MR. DARDEN: There was a 1054 submission to the court on that issue, as I recall.

MR. COCHRAN: Speaking, your Honor.

THE COURT: With the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. COCHRAN: May I say something?

THE COURT: Where are we going--I am interested--Mr. Darden, you are the one pursuing this line of questioning. Where are we going with this?

MR. DARDEN: My basis is a statement he made to Candace Garvey back in the first week of July, 1995.

THE COURT: Which was?

MR. DARDEN: Which was that they deserved that they got. Quote, "They got what they deserved."

MR. COCHRAN: That is hearsay. Your Honor, that is--

MR. DARDEN: The question is did he say that and if he says he didn't say that, then I will bring somebody in who will say that he did say that.

MR. COCHRAN: Just watch the jury. I would like to be heard on this.

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

MR. DARDEN: And I mean I mentioned earlier this morning that I would pursue his attitude, questions regarding his attitude toward these proceedings. These aren't questions I'm making up. This is the evidence and information that we have.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: I haven't seen that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you shown this to Mr. Cochran?

MR. DARDEN: I am about to.

THE COURT: All right. Before you start asking questions, I thought our agreement was you were going to show him.

MR. COCHRAN: That was exactly the agreement, plus this is hearsay, I haven't even seen it. But hearing the question, it is totally improper and I would ask the jury to totally disregard.

THE COURT: What is the context? That Reichardt said they got what they deserved because they were--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is--

MR. DARDEN: Umm--

THE COURT: Because they were out dancing all night all the time?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. I mean, Reichardt buys into the whole issue that they should all be home, I guess that includes Faye Resnick and Cora Fischman, and they are all dejected, all three of them, they are having problems with their women, they can't control them, they--their women apparently have no longer any interest in them, and--

MR. COCHRAN: This is so preposterous, hearsay, totally improper. It is totally improper and I want the court to admonish the jury regarding this.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, our agreement was before you launched into something that involved a report you would show counsel the report before you launched into the question. All right. This is a July 11th phone interview of Candace Garvey regarding Christian Reichardt and I'm referring specifically to paragraph 4, the relevant item, which says as follows: "During a conversation with Reichardt Garvey talked about what had happened to Nicole Simpson, Cora Fischman (Her affair with a grocery clerk) And Resnick (Being suicidal and believing that someone was after her). Reichardt's response was, quote, `they got what they deserved,' unquote. He stated he sounded very bitter. Reichardt also asked Garvey how she would feel being one of them, meaning one of the husbands or boyfriends. He said they were, quote, `going out to 4:00 in the morning and acting the way they did. They were all mothers,' unquote." All right. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: I think that is--I mean, how he gets from that to the fact that she got what she deserved by getting her throat cut, that is highly improper. If he would come up here--he knew we would come up here. That is an improper question and I think the jury should be admonished regarding that. This is a hearsay statement alleged and he didn't even say that.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, is that a 352 objection?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I'm sorry.

MR. DARDEN: I asked the witness if that was his opinion, that they deserved what they got. I did not introduce any hearsay. I did so in good faith. And you read the statement and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to ask this witness about his attitude toward this action.

THE COURT: All right. At this point I think you have a good faith reason to ask the question, given this report, but I think it is subject to a 352 objection because I don't think it is probative of anything. I will sustain the objection.

MR. DARDEN: Before you go, so I'm not being precluded about asking him about the book he was going to write?

THE COURT: That is a different issue. Whether or not he has any financial motive in this case, that is an a different issue.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we hear the question?

MR. DARDEN: No.

THE COURT: No. I just told that you that is a different issue and that is proper, if he has a financial interest, obviously.

MR. DARDEN: You have indicated to the jury that the question was highly improper, or words to that effect. I take it you don't still feel that way?

THE COURT: I feel that you had a good faith basis to ask it, but I'm sustaining the objection to it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But would you admonish the jury?

MR. COCHRAN: No.

THE COURT: No, no. Let's go.

MR. DARDEN: Very unfair.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Darden, you may continue.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Reichardt, Candace Garvey is a patient of yours; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Was she someone you treated during the first week of July, 1994?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this question. Beyond the scope of direct examination. We didn't mention Candace Garvey at all.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Were you planning to somehow make some money off of this case, doctor?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. DARDEN: You were planning to write a book, weren't you?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct, a book on personal ethics.

MR. DARDEN: You were planning to write a book about Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: You were planning to write a book about the Defendant and Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: You were planning to write a book about what you knew about the Defendant's relationship with Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. DARDEN: And you were planning to have a co-author on that book?

DR. REICHARDT: Excuse me?

MR. DARDEN: Were you planning to have a co-author on that book?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely not.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that you told Candace Garvey that you--

MR. COCHRAN: I will object to the form of this as hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that you told Candace Garvey that you were going to do a book, write a book regarding Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: That is not correct.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever visit a lawyer, speak to a lawyer about writing a book?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: The first time that you were interviewed by the Prosecution was what, June 23rd--I'm sorry, by LAPD was June 23rd, 1994?

DR. REICHARDT: About a week and a half afterward.

MR. DARDEN: Had you, prior to that, agreed with someone else that you would not speak to the police regarding any information you had regarding the Defendant and his relationship with Nicole Brown?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question, doctor?

DR. REICHARDT: Whether I--could you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, had you and some other person agreed that you would not speak to the LAPD or the Prosecution regarding any information you had regarding the Defendant?

DR. REICHARDT: I had made agreement to not talk to the media but do whatever is required by the court.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you had no agreement not to talk to the D.A.'s office?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: You had no agreement not to talk to the LAPD?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: But didn't you tell Candace Garvey both of those things, that you had an agreement with someone else that would you not speak to the police or the D.A.'s office?

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. 770 and 1235, counsel.

DR. REICHARDT: I had an agreement to not talk to--

MR. DARDEN: Can you please answer my question yes or no?

MR. COCHRAN: He cut the witness off.

THE COURT: Let him finish answering the question.

MR. DARDEN: Please, sir.

DR. REICHARDT: I had an agreement to not talk to the media.

MR. DARDEN: So is the answer to my question no?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I did not have a agreement to not talk to the LAPD.

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

MR. DARDEN: Now, the conversation you had with the Defendant, the conversation you say you had the night of June 12th--

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh.

MR. DARDEN: Is that yes?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you have a phone record to indicate the time of that phone call?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't have one. Mr. Simpson called me.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you have a phone bill that will indicate the time of that phone call?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't think it would show up on my phone bill.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you have any record at all that will establish the time of that phone call?

DR. REICHARDT: I'm sure it could be established if Mr. Simpson's phone records would be checked.

MR. DARDEN: Well, have you seen any record that will establish the time of that phone call?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. DARDEN: Have you seen any record that will establish that that phone call ever took place?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. DARDEN: You say you were alone in your home when you received this telephone call?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you say it was approximately nine o'clock?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You are not sure of the exact time?

DR. REICHARDT: About nine o'clock.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. It could be earlier; it could be later?

DR. REICHARDT: Give or take a few minutes because I looked at the clock.

MR. DARDEN: You also looked at the clock?

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question as argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You were also the Defendant's chiropractor; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I have seen him as a friend, yeah; not a former business arrangement.

MR. DARDEN: You have treated him?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: For free?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, this telephone call you say you received from the Defendant about nine o'clock that Sunday night, how long did the call last?

DR. REICHARDT: I would say approximately fifteen minutes.

MR. DARDEN: Fifteen minutes?

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh.

MR. DARDEN: Is that what you told the LAPD when they interviewed you back on June 23rd?

DR. REICHARDT: I believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Have you seen your statement?

DR. REICHARDT: Excuse me?

MR. DARDEN: Have you seen your statement to the LAPD?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I have not.

MR. DARDEN: And so you received this call and he seemed jovial and relaxed, more relaxed, right?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Had you spoken to him the day before at all?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. DARDEN: How about the day before that?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. DARDEN: The day before that?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Had you spoken to him at all during the seven days prior to Nicole Brown Simpson's murder?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I hadn't.

MR. DARDEN: How about during the two-week period prior to the murders had you spoken to the Defendant?

DR. REICHARDT: I talked to him about ten days prior.

MR. DARDEN: That was after the Defendant broke up with Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: I think that was still at the time we were trying to figure out what to do.

MR. DARDEN: And he seemed depressed and upset at that time?

DR. REICHARDT: He seemed upset at the time and he was going to go out of town.

MR. DARDEN: Now, given the fact that you didn't speak to the Defendant for another ten days, you can't tell us then what his demeanor was like during the ten-day period leading up to that phone call; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. Speaks for itself.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: No, I cannot.

MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell us what the Defendant's demeanor was after he hung up the telephone with you; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I cannot.

MR. DARDEN: Can't tell us whether or not he was putting on an act or faking when he called you at approximately nine o'clock?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question as argumentative.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: You understand that the Defendant is an actor, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that. Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: The form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Has he had any formal training that you know of?

DR. REICHARDT: Not that I know.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever discussed that issue with him?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not he was acting or putting on an act when you spoke to him on the telephone?

DR. REICHARDT: Can one ever?

MR. DARDEN: Pardon?

DR. REICHARDT: Can one ever? How would I know?

MR. DARDEN: Well, you know him.

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah. I mean to me he was not acting. Can I prove it?

MR. DARDEN: To you he wasn't acting?

DR. REICHARDT: Excuse me?

MR. DARDEN: To you he wasn't acting?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: So you can tell then?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Argumentative. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Would you agree that a person, a perfect stranger here, didn't know the Defendant before, would have trouble telling if he was acting?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. This is irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: You can't tell us whether or not the Defendant was cut at 9:15 or nine o'clock can you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: You didn't see him physically on that date, did you?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I did not.

THE COURT: That is the only testimony that is in the record, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant tell you what he was wearing at the time?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Tell you whether or not he had a pair of gloves with him at the time?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you and the Defendant, you planned to go into business together; is that right?

DR. REICHARDT: That is not right.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you had--you had had a prototype of a certain exercise contraption made; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And what was this contraption called or did it have a name?

DR. REICHARDT: We hadn't given it a name yet. We were going to call it something like the exerciser or something like that.

MR. DARDEN: Or port-a-gym or something like that?

DR. REICHARDT: One of the names that we flew around.

MR. DARDEN: When did you have that prototype made?

DR. REICHARDT: That was in February of `94.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you and the Defendant had discussed producing this item, hadn't you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Hearsay.

DR. REICHARDT: If the video would be a success and that was a possibility.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So my question is you and the Defendant had discussed producing this particular item; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Possibly, yeah. We had possibly discussed possibly producing it. I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: You possibly discussed something?

DR. REICHARDT: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: You had possibly discussed?

DR. REICHARDT: No. We discussed possibly producing the item.

MR. DARDEN: You discussed producing the item prior to your having the prototype made; is that right?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You did have the prototype made in February of `94; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Uh-huh, for the video.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And you were going to include that exercise gadget or contraption with the video that you say that you and he were going to produce for playboy; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: We weren't the ones making that decision; playboy would be the one making that decision.

MR. DARDEN: You were going to off or suggest to playboy that they include your exercise gadget along with the video?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Now, I take it you weren't going to give this exerciser to playboy for free; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: You and the Defendant were going to manufacture these items, correct?

DR. REICHARDT: If playboy would accept it, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were going to sell them to playboy; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Now, in may and June of 1994 you and the Defendant were planning to manufacture 100,000 units of this prototype; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Possibly, yeah, if it would be included in the video.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were discussing the production of 100,000 of these units?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah. Not the Defendant and I. Actually the person that helped me manufacture it, yes.

MR. DARDEN: But you and the Defendant were discussing the production of these as well, correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah, but not of a hundred thousand pieces.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant was going to kick in some money to the project?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: You never discussed with the Defendant him putting up money?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: For this project?

DR. REICHARDT: No, no. I was going to put up money.

MR. DARDEN: You were going to put up the money to produce 100,000 units?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you had that kind of money?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did you have that kind of money, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

DR. REICHARDT: We wouldn't have made a--

THE COURT: Sustained.

DR. REICHARDT: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Well, have you produced this item?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: In fact, you were talking to someone about producing this item all the way up to the last week before Nicole Brown's murder; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Umm, probably, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You were speaking to someone about producing this item up until the Defendant's arrest, correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't recall.

MR. DARDEN: But close to that date?

DR. REICHARDT: Probably.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you haven't discussed it with that person since the Defendant's arrest, have you?

DR. REICHARDT: I have thought about it, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You have thought about it?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: But you haven't discussed it with the person who produced--

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: So the project is no longer viable, that is, without the Defendant; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. This is beyond the scope of direct examination, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled, but we are going--about at the end of it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay.

MR. DARDEN: When you spoke to the Defendant that night, he asked you about Nicole, didn't he?

DR. REICHARDT: Actually, no.

MR. DARDEN: The Defendant didn't ask you if you heard from Nicole?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Did the Defendant ask you during that telephone conversation if you had heard from Nicole?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a copy of a statement.

THE COURT: Have you shown this to Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Let me point out where he is, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran has a copy of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Whereabouts is it?

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, why don't you show--

MR. DARDEN: Page 2, paragraph--

THE COURT: Also Mr. Rubalcava needs to have a copy.

MR. RUBALCAVA: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Counsel, why don't you step over to the podium here, confer with each other and then show Mr. Rubalcava, please.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: I haven't seen it either, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a copy of a statement prepared by the LAPD, purportedly contains your comments to them on June 23rd, 1994. I would ask you to look at paragraph 2, page 2.

THE COURT: The witness is nodding affirmatively.

DR. REICHARDT: I'm sorry.

MR. DARDEN: Does that refresh your recollection, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: The focus of the conversation was not about Nicole, so I am--

MR. DARDEN: Well, did the Defendant ask you during that phone conversation whether or not you had heard from Nicole Brown?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't recall right now, but as it is there in the paper, probably did.

MR. DARDEN: But you don't recall now?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, let me ask you to read this statement. Let me ask you if anywhere in the statement did you tell the LAPD that the conversation lasted fifteen minutes?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. It doesn't indicate that. I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: And your question was? Could you repeat it again?

MR. DARDEN: Does the statement indicate that you told the police that you spoke to the Defendant for fifteen minutes?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question.

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: It doesn't say anything about it.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: I object to the speaking objection.

MR. DARDEN: Did you read the complete statement, by the way?

DR. REICHARDT: Was I ever--did I ever read--I never received the statement.

MR. DARDEN: My question is did you read this complete statement just now?

DR. REICHARDT: I glanced over it, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you feel like you are familiar with what is contained therein? I mean, do you have a grasp of it?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Seems accurate to you?

DR. REICHARDT: In order to be accurate, I would have to read it more in detail. I was just trying to see whether somewhere it said I talked to him for fifteen minutes.

MR. DARDEN: After the Defendant and Nicole Brown broke up, did the Defendant tell you that he was concerned that she was seeing someone else?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. This is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And this was during that time period in which he was upset and depressed; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Object to the form. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't--could you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: This is during that same time period in which the Defendant was both upset and depressed at having broken up with Nicole?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And this was during the end of may; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: At about the same time that she returned the jewelry to him, correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't know exactly when she returned the jewelry to him.

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

MR. DARDEN: Do you know what the Defendant did with the bracelet after Nicole Brown gave it to him?

MR. COCHRAN: Object. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

DR. REICHARDT: I have no idea.

MR. DARDEN: That is all I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Dr. Reichardt, Mr. Darden asked you some questions and he didn't finish asking the questions about the statement. Have you ever--

THE COURT: Counsel--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me--

THE COURT: Rephrase that.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I will rephrase it.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this alleged statement that was reported by the Los Angeles Police Department on June 13th, 1994--from June 13th, 1994, do you recall talking to the police at some time after June 13th?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you cooperative when you talked to them?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely, yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In that statement to the police you told them that--about this conversation with Mr. O.J. Simpson; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, that's right.

MR. COCHRAN: You told them that Mr. Simpson was packing for his trip to Chicago, that he returned on Wednesday; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Just like you told this jury, right?

DR. REICHARDT: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And that they would get together when he returned?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Just like you told this jury, right?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. DARDEN: I object to the form of the question, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you--

MR. DARDEN: You can have the witness--

THE COURT: You can ask him testimony or about his statement, but what he is doing in front of the jury, the jury is here to observe that.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, do you recall in this conversation whether or not this police officer--by the way, was that a telephone conversation that you had with the LAPD?

DR. REICHARDT: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: Was that conversation over the phone?

THE COURT: You mean phone interview?

DR. REICHARDT: No, they came to my office.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You sat and talked with them, right?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely, yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall them ever asking you how long this telephone--this--your conversation with Mr. O.J. Simpson was?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

DR. REICHARDT: I don't recall.

MR. COCHRAN: But as you sit here now you recall how long that was, don't you?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: It was fifteen minutes?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And if they had asked, you would have told them fifteen minutes, right?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the statement about whether or not you talked about Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, that was not the thrust of any of that conversation, was it?

DR. REICHARDT: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, do you recall that Mr. Simpson had said that--to you that he was out of the loop, that he was glad to be out of the loop and that he had gotten his life together with his new lady? Do you remember him telling you that?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was that new lady?

DR. REICHARDT: Paula Barbieri.

MR. COCHRAN: You knew about Paula Barbieri; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Also, Mr. Simpson had told you that he began dating Paula Barbieri on a regular basis; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And that you had said and indicated to the police in the interview that Mr. Simpson seemed to like Paula a lot and seemed happy or at least happier than he had been before once he was with Paula; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct, yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you told the police; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you talked to the police, Dr. Reichardt, were you telling them the truth?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you are coming here today to testify to this jury, are you telling them the truth?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Darden asked you some questions about treating Mr. Simpson and you said, yes, you did. Do you recall that?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you treat Mr. Simpson for?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: He opened the door.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you treat him for?

DR. REICHARDT: For his knee problems.

MR. COCHRAN: And what knee problems are those?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: I observed him one day in the morning walking down the stairs and--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: He can answer.

MR. COCHRAN: Please do.

DR. REICHARDT: That he had a very hard time walking and I said, "Come on and we'll start taking care of that."

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?

DR. REICHARDT: It must have been early summer `93.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did you take care of him for his knee problems?

DR. REICHARDT: Sporadically when he was in town.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that continue on until 1994?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely, yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Darden asked you about writing a book. Do you have any plans or have you ever tried to profit one iota on this case, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: I refuse to.

MR. COCHRAN: And every time the District Attorney's office has asked you to come down and talk with them, you have talked with them; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you did a rather lengthy interview with Mr. Darden himself; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point; isn't that right?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: You came down voluntarily and talked to him?

DR. REICHARDT: He came to Mr. Rubalcava's office.

MR. COCHRAN: And you talked to him?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to these trips, you and Mr. Simpson were friends; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have been on various trips together?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Been out to dinner together?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And back in 1993, when you first had occasion to meet Mr. O.J. Simpson, at that time was he seeing Miss Nicole Brown Simpson at that point? Were they together?

DR. REICHARDT: They were trying. They were trying to see whether it would work out or not.

MR. COCHRAN: And who was pursuing who at that point, if you recall?

DR. REICHARDT: At that time Nicole was trying to put her family together.

MR. DARDEN: Speculation, objection. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: She was trying to get back with him?

DR. REICHARDT: Right, to have a family for her children.

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

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions, your Honor, if I may.

MR. COCHRAN: Dr. Reichardt, when you would go on trips with Mr. Simpson, you would pay your own way, would you not?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah, if--at times.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And sometimes Mr. Simpson would provide lodging or rent a house or a villa for everyone?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And you would pay your own way to get there?

DR. REICHARDT: For the plane tickets and food and things like that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to your knowledge of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson, you have described for us that Mr. Simpson--Mr. Darden asked you a question about at some point they stopped seeing each other and that Mr. Simpson started seeing Paula Barbieri. Do you recall that?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that misstates the question.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: And was there a time when you were aware of--was there ever an argument where Miss Nicole Brown Simpson called you up and argued with you about--after she had broken up with Mr. Simpson or they had broken up?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, there was.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that have to do--

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to object at this time as hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: He has opened the door, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not to a statement by somebody else.

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't ask the statement yet. May I ask another question?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there an occasion when Mr. Simpson started to date Paula Barbieri that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson became upset?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: And that there was a conversation--you received a telephone call from her?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is obviously hearsay.

THE COURT: That is also a speaking objection and you are not standing either, counsel. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. I have nothing further at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cochran.

MR. DARDEN: Just a few questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Recross, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Reichardt, was the Defendant dating Nicole and Paula at the same time?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know that for a fact?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't know that for a fact.

MR. DARDEN: Now, in talking to you about Nicole Brown, isn't it true that on many occasions that you and the Defendant would often--that you would often talk about the problems the Defendant was having with Nicole Brown?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is vague.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, you and the Defendant would go out on occasion, right?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And on those occasions you and he would talk about your respective relationships, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is hearsay, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: He would talk to you about his relationship with Nicole Brown; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And he told you how hard--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form.

MR. DARDEN: --he had been trying to make Nicole Brown happy?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of this as beyond the scope of direct examination, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: He told you how hard he had been trying to make Nicole Brown happy; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: And he told you that she--she wasn't happy in that relationship, didn't he?

DR. REICHARDT: At times, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And in fact this was a recurring theme in conversation you had with the Defendant, wasn't it?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, "Recurring theme."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You told us a moment ago that you treated the Defendant for his knee; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's right.

MR. DARDEN: You are not a medical doctor?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I'm not.

MR. DARDEN: You saw the Defendant and you felt he had a problem with his knee?

DR. REICHARDT: It was pretty obvious, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you didn't stop him from doing that exercise video in late may, 1994, did you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Were you present during the shooting of that video?

DR. REICHARDT: No, I wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You weren't present at that video to make sure the Defendant didn't injure himself?

THE COURT: He has already indicated he wasn't there.

DR. REICHARDT: No, I wasn't there.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ask to be there so that you could--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form, your Honor, argumentative and immaterial.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Are you--strike that. Do you know a woman named Gretchen Stockdale.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: I don't believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Were you ever introduced by the Defendant to a woman who was a lingerie model for Victoria's Secret?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: To the best of your knowledge was the Defendant seeing anyone else during may, 1994, that is, other than Nicole Brown and Paula Barbieri?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. This is all immaterial, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. REICHARDT: Can you repeat the question?

MR. DARDEN: Was the Defendant seeing anyone else, any other woman, during may, 1994, in addition to Paula Barbieri or Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. REICHARDT: Not that I know of.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions if I may, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Dr. Reichardt, there were occasions when you and your lady friend would go out and double date with Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And on occasions--who was your girlfriend?

DR. REICHARDT: Faye Resnick.

MR. COCHRAN: And on occasion would you talk--would the four of you talk about domestic matters?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And on occasions, as I understand what you've told this jury, as with all couples, there were times when Miss Nicole Brown Simpson wanted to get back with the family, right?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, exceeding the recross.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: And there were times when Mr. Simpson wanted to get back; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And they tried to get together and make it; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And they didn't make it; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: They didn't make it.

MR. COCHRAN: After they didn't make it you became aware that Mr. Simpson was seeing Paula Barbieri; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And he seemed happy and more relaxed, right?

DR. REICHARDT: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: And that is what you told us here today, right?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, sir.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: You also told us that Nicole Brown cut that relationship off?

MR. COCHRAN: Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: It was Nicole Brown Simpson left Mr. Simpson and not the other way around?

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I think they were into a difficult time.

MR. DARDEN: Dr. Reichardt, isn't that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Can he finish?

THE COURT: He can finish the answer.

MR. DARDEN: It was Nicole Brown Simpson that broke up with the Defendant, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled. Just answer the question.

DR. REICHARDT: I don't think it is a question that could be answered with yes or no.

MR. DARDEN: After that occasion, after that occurred, the Defendant was depressed and he was upset about it, right?

DR. REICHARDT: I think at the time when they both mutually figured out that it is not going to work, yeah, they both were depressed.

THE COURT: Anything more, Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: (Shakes head from side to side.)

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Dr. Reichardt, did you find it unusual, after a 17- or 18-year relationship finally ends, that both of the parties might feel a little bit down?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. What is he, a doctor of psychology now?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that is speaking.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you find that unusual?

DR. REICHARDT: I don't find that unusual at all.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you find that quite normal, doctor?

DR. REICHARDT: They have two children, and yeah, I find it quite normal.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, doctor.

MR. DARDEN: I get a second shot, your Honor. May I have a moment?

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

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Do you profess to be some doctor of love now, Dr. Reichardt?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, argument, silly.

THE COURT: Counsel, we have to remember that we have an intelligent jury here who has common sense with human experience.

MR. DARDEN: I would like to ask the witness about a psychological term. May I?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. DARDEN: Have you ever heard of estrangement rage theory?

DR. REICHARDT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never read about that?

DR. REICHARDT: Nope.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. May he be excused, your Honor?

THE COURT: Doctor, thank you very much.

DR. REICHARDT: You are welcome.

THE COURT: You are excused. Mr. Rubalcava, thank you, sir. All right. Next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me just inquire. Anybody need a comfort break? All right. While we are getting your next witness, we will just excuse a juror quickly.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach on a 352 issue on the record?

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Who is the next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Howard Weitzman. He is here, too.

MR. DARDEN: Weitzman, okay. I thought it was going to be Berris.

MR. COCHRAN: Howard is here and he as got to get out by lunchtime.

THE COURT: He's big man.

MR. COCHRAN: Making a million dollars a year and he has got to get out of here. Don't put that on the record.

MR. DARDEN: It is in the record.

MR. COCHRAN: Don't put that on the record.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I have seen the transcript, and yes, there was testimony to it. I think--I acknowledge that there was. This is going to extend rebuttal, I can certainly promise the court that. The People will lodge an objection under 352. What is going to happen is that we are going to have impeachment of Mr. Weitzman. I don't want to do that. Could we go off the record for a minute, your Honor?

THE COURT: Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right, folks. I'm going to take a brief recess at this point, so let me have you enjoy our facilities there. Remember my admonitions and we will be back with you in probably about ten or fifteen minutes.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel. The People are represented. The jury is not present. We also have counsel, Mr. Weitzman and Mr. Tarlow present. Mr. Cochran, you had to--something to bring to the court's attention.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I do, your Honor. Good morning again, your Honor. We have had, during this break, an opportunity to talk to Mr. Weitzman who has come here today, and I thank him and his counsel, Mr. Tarlow, for doing that. He is cetera willing to testify. We have conferred with your Honor and actually with Mr. Simpson and we have decided at this point not to call Mr. Weitzman. He is available to testify if we need him. We don't think it is necessary at this point. And if it becomes necessary later, he will come back, but and we thank him for coming.

THE COURT: We know where to find him.

MR. COCHRAN: I think we can now find him, yes.

MR. TARLOW: Your Honor, might we have the subpoena quashed and he will be available through either his office or mine?

THE COURT: If that is your representation, counsel, that you will make him available upon reasonable notice, I will accept that.

THE COURT: I will accept that.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. COCHRAN: The next witness will be Mr. Berris, your Honor.

THE COURT: I suggest we take our lunch recess at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: The court knows we have Berris and we would like to resolve the matter of Menzione before Dr. Lee testifies because it will be determinative of whether we have her come out so at some point are you going to let us argue that. Miss Shawn Chapman will argue that.

THE COURT: All right. I will be delighted to hear the argument.

MR. COCHRAN: Remember we are this close. You recall that?

THE COURT: I recall that.

MR. COCHRAN: Let us know when to do that. Thank you.

THE COURT: I anticipate doing that sometime this afternoon then.

MR. COCHRAN: She has to get here from Chicago if she comes in.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Do you want to take care of that one other issue before we stand in recess?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, Mr. Klein Al'n.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you have him step in.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Douglas would like to approach and do it at side bar, if at all possible.

THE COURT: I would like to have him step in first.

MR. COCHRAN: That will be fine, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, just so I can inform Mr. Goldberg, the next witness up after the lunch hour will be Mr. Berris and then we will go to Henry Lee; is that right? So then we have a couple of issues to argue with respect to Henry Lee.

THE COURT: I understand that. All right. Mr. Douglas is also present with Mr. Klein Al'n who was present and ordered back to return today. Mr. Douglas, what is your pleasure?

MR. DOUGLAS: I would like to approach, your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

MR. DOUGLAS: And Mr. Al'n.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Mr. Al'n is here pursuant to a subpoena for items in his presence. He had first appeared on the 9th. He was then placed on call and asked to return. He--I am informed he has possession of a tape-recorded interview between he and Mr. Kato Kaelin. I have not heard the tape-recording yet. I asked him about it today and whether or not he still had it in his possession. He did not bring it to court with him today, nor did he bring it when he was here earlier. He suggests to me that it is obtainable, that it is secreted in a location of safety and he chose not to bring it with him. I would ask that he be ordered to bring it tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right. If you want to do this in this manner, what I suggest you do is draft a written order for the court to serve upon him directing him to bring the matter here.

MR. DOUGLAS: Very well.

THE COURT: But you can have Mr. Blasier whip up and printout in all of about twelve seconds.

MR. DOUGLAS: Okay.

THE COURT: Serve him with it and I will sign it.

MR. DOUGLAS: Can I ask him to remain here?

THE COURT: Sure. I will stay for ten, fifteen minutes.

MS. CLARK: Could we see a copy of that tape if he brings it in?

MR. SHAPIRO: On scheduling off the record?

THE COURT: Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, as far as the court session is concerned, we will stand in recess until 1:30. Mr. Al'n, I'm going to ask you to remain to consult with counsel for a few moments. All right. After we've cleared for the day--excuse me, for the morning--we will reconvene at 1:30.

THE COURT: All right. I will be in chambers, counsel.

(At 12:02 p.m. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1995 1:35 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 following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Darden, are you going to handle Mr. Lee or Mr. Goldberg?

MR. DARDEN: Who's next?

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Berris.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to handle Mr. Berris. He's on his way down in the elevator.

MS. LEWIS: He's right here.

THE COURT: Are you ready?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera--

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. I would like to approach just on one matter here.

THE COURT: What's that?

MR. COCHRAN: One matter I would like to bring to the court's attention regarding this witness.

THE COURT: All right. Well, do we have to do it at the sidebar? We don't have a jury. With the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. COCHRAN: We talked about this and went through it. I made a 402 Friday to limit this to the ruling, and I'm going to do that. There's one other area I wanted to ask the court about. I'm going to mark--those are the pictures I'm going to mark. To save some time, I've got a couple blow-ups. The other area is, this is--

THE COURT: You've shown Chris the blow-ups already?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Shawn showed Chris the blow-ups.

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. There's an objection actually to the blow-ups.

MR. COCHRAN: You want to object to it now?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. I tried to before, but we went to something else. My only objection is this. When you look at the actual photos--

THE COURT: We've seen these.

MR. DARDEN: Yeah. I mean, there's photos like this admitted into evidence, and I can see that. But these seem like they've been filtered somehow in the blow-up. The colors have been changed to accentuate I suppose the blood. Maybe it's me.

MR. COCHRAN: I just want to show these. It's the same blow-up of this picture and of the bedding. This is the one I'm interested in (Indicating).

THE COURT: All right. What we need to do is--

MR. COCHRAN: That's all I'm interested in. The color--

MR. DARDEN: It has been improved.

MR. COCHRAN: It's not improved. It's just blown up. Graphics blew it up and brought it down here. I don't want to put it on the elmo.

MR. DARDEN: He was talking to me. But I have a 352 objection to these pictures, which I think have been somehow enhanced and modified to make the blood appear more apparent.

THE COURT: So the record is--what is the next Defense exhibit?

THE CLERK: 1331.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, the one that is in controversy right now, I'm going to mark the small photograph--

MR. COCHRAN: 1331?

THE COURT: Defendant's 1331, and we'll mark the blow-up of the same photograph as 1331-A.

MR. COCHRAN: Thanks, Judge.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Darden, your objection is that the blow-up seems to have--and I agree that the blow-up has a green tint to it in the background whereas the photograph, the small 5-by-7 photograph has a grayish tint to the marble and the washcloth appears to be white with what appears to be reddish staining, and in the blow-up, it appears to have a greenish rather than a grayish tint.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's correct, which I would suggest--and I am--that the blow-up--blowing up process somehow has been used to enhance the colors to bring out the redness of the blood, if that's what it is on the washcloth, and I would point out, there have been no confirmatory tests what is or is not on that particular washcloth, and we should use the photographs taken by the Chicago Police Department which have not been filtered or enhanced or otherwise altered.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, is 1331 the Chicago Police Department photo?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, for the record, I had this photo enhanced for the cross-examination of Dr. Baden when Mr. Kelberg on direct examination did not show this photograph to the witness, and we took it out to a lab overnight, that we asked them to reproduce it. We did not have it enhanced, change colors, do anything other than have it enlarged. This is the way it came back to our recollection, and so we did not use it because on redirect examination, Mr. Kelberg came back and brought that up as--you know, in his last question because he put in all the photos.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, are you objecting to the other two photos as well, the other two blow-ups? I don't understand why we're doing this.

MR. COCHRAN: No. That's not why we are up here. I have one request, simple request.

MR. DARDEN: I think we have the same problem with the other two photographs, but I'm not going to object to the other two photographs since the blood is so minimal and distortion I think is so minimal. And I'm not suggesting by my objection that someone is guilty of some impropriety. I'm just saying somehow through this process, you know, things are different.

THE COURT: All right. I have before me two issues. The issue as I see it is the amount of blood that is relevant to the or what appears to be blood, which is relative to the nature of the injury that Mr. Simpson suffered and was bleeding in Chicago because these are photographs from the Chicago hotel room. And examining 1331, I see a streak of blood or what appears to be blood at the bottom of the folded washcloth. There appears to be then an area that shows something reddish, but not distinct, and then a more distinct reddish portion to the top of that. And I'm indicating that there's a small piece of glass to the lower right-hand corner of the washcloth just so that anybody reading this record can tell how the court has oriented the photograph. I'm holding it. I see the same markings although perhaps less distinct in the blow-up. I don't think it's a misrepresentation. The jurors will have both photographs and can compare one with the other. I think this is for illustrative purposes. Objection overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: The reason I asked to come up, just briefly, in talking to Mr. Berris--

THE COURT: Counsel, I've ruled.

MR. COCHRAN: No. As I told you, this is why I'm up here. He brought this up. Mr. Berris, in one of the questions in talking to him, he says that the--when they got there, the laundry bags were missing in the room; and I'll bring that out, but any testimony about what the maid said about putting them in or whatever would be hearsay.

THE COURT: Hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just trying to clear that up for the record and go forward.

MR. DARDEN: I'm going to cross-examine him. So you'll have to make your objection when the time comes. Why are we having these previews of cross-examination?

MR. COCHRAN: Because I'm trying to avoid lawyers getting dressed down in front of the jury for improper stuff.

MR. DARDEN: Would you reconsider advising the jury that my question this morning was not completely improper given the finding of factual basis for it--

THE COURT: No.

MR. DARDEN: --as being inherently unfair?

THE COURT: That's something you've already asked me about. I've declined to do that and won't entertain it again. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thanks, Judge.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Cochran, you may call your next witness.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. Good afternoon again. We will next be calling Detective Ken Berris to the stand. Detective Berris.

MR. BERRIS: Good afternoon, Judge.

Kenneth Berris, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. 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.

MR. BERRIS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat in the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you pull the microphone closer to you. Thank you.

MR. BERRIS: Yes. My name is Kenneth Berris. My last name is spelled B-E-R-R-I-S.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Berris.

MR. BERRIS: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: And what is your occupation, sir?

MR. BERRIS: I'm a detective assigned to area 5 detective division, Chicago Police Department.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long have you been so employed, sir?

MR. BERRIS: I've been a police officer over 26 years and a detective over 18 years.

MR. COCHRAN: In that connection, have you come here today to be with us here in California to--pursuant to a subpoena issued by this court?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: And you arrived in Los Angeles when?

MR. BERRIS: Last night.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The first time you and I have had an occasion to talk was when?

MR. BERRIS: Earlier today. This morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I'd like, sir, to direct your attention back to the date of Monday, June 13th of 1994. Do you recall that date?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: At some time in the morning hours of June 13th, were you assigned some duties in connection with the O'Hare Plaza Hotel in Chicago, Illinois?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: Approximately what time did you get a call or were you assigned some particular duty?

MR. BERRIS: At approximately 11:00 o'clock in the morning on that date, myself and Detective Anthony Bongiorno--if you'd like, I'll spell the last name.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you spell that for us, please?

THE COURT: Please.

MR. BERRIS: Of course. B-o-n-g-I-o-r-n-o. He's also assigned to area 5 detective division where I am also assigned. We were assigned to go to the O'Hare Plaza Hotel by Sergeant Vernice Jones, a supervising sergeant in our unit.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And thereafter, after you and Detective Bongiorno were assigned to this particular hotel, what time, if you recall, did you arrive at the O'Hare Plaza Hotel?

MR. BERRIS: We arrived shortly after 12:00 noon.

MR. COCHRAN: And is that--would I be correct in assuming that that hotel is near the airport in Chicago?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. It's nearby.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you arrived there at the hotel around 12:00 noon, did you have occasion to go and speak with a general manager at that hotel?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: Without telling us the conversation at that point, tell us the name of that general manager, sir?

MR. BERRIS: Mr. Peter Phillips.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you and your partner officer have occasion to talk to Peter Phillips?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how long did that conversation last, sir?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, approximately half an hour.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And during the course of that conversation, did you obtain some information about a room 915 in the O'Hare Plaza Hotel? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. BERRIS: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you able to ascertain whether or not that room had been secured that morning prior to your arrival?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it had been.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after--thereafter, at some point, did you and your partner have occasion to go up to room 915?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. Detective Bongiorno and I accompanied by Mr. Phillips went to room 915.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you got there--did you have a key to that room?

MR. BERRIS: Mr. Phillips had a key.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so would you describe for the jury what kind of a key did you have for that particular room?

MR. BERRIS: It was a--what I might refer to as a card key. It's put into a slot. It's a card coded and it's put into a slot, and the code unlocks the door.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And are those the kind of doors that have some kind of little computer in them?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. I think that would be a fair description.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me see if I can give a word picture. You slide the little card into it and a little green light comes on, you push the handle and the door opens up; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that's what happened with Mr. Phillips, correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what time was that, that you did that?

MR. BERRIS: I would approximate that to be between 1:30 and 1:45 in the afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to that particular room, did you ever have occasion to check to see whether or not there was in fact a computer that would tell the number of times anyone had entered that room on June 13th, 1994?

MR. BERRIS: I never determined anything like that, that there was such a computer as part of the locking device.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. At any rate, you gained entrance into there some time around 1:30 to 1:45?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And who went inside that room, if anyone?

MR. BERRIS: Myself, Detective Bongiorno and Mr. Phillips.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At that time, sir, did you have occasion to look around or look inside the room?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. We visually inspected the room.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And how long would you say you stayed in the room at that time?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, approximately 20 minutes or so.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you pick anything up at that time at all?

MR. BERRIS: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You just had a visual observation of the room; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And would I be correct in assuming that there was no one in that room at that point?

MR. BERRIS: No. When we arrived, there was nobody in the room.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to the bed in the room, did the bed appear as though someone had slept in that bed the night before?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. The bed wasn't made. The covers were tossed back as if someone had been sleeping in the bed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so the--the bed hadn't been made by the maids at that point, is that correct, sir, the best you could tell?

MR. BERRIS: I'm sorry. I don't--

MR. COCHRAN: I said, the bed had not been made by--

MR. BERRIS: Oh, it had not been made. Yes, that's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you said--you told us that you stayed in there approximately a half hour. And then did there come a time when you then left and went someplace else to make a phone call?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. The three of us, myself, Detective Bongiorno and Mr. Phillips left the room or mini suite of rooms, if you will. We--the room was secured and locked, and we then went to Mr. Phillips' office where I called the--our crime lab, which is called police department crime lab, and requested crime lab technicians to come to that location.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And about what time was this now, sir?

MR. BERRIS: I made that call between 2:00 and 2:15 I would estimate.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you requested some crime lab technicians?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did there come a time when the crime lab technicians arrived at the hotel?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And approximately what time was that?

MR. BERRIS: 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: So by 3:00 o'clock then on June 13th, 1994, the crime lab technicians arrived. And tell the jury their names, sir, please?

MR. BERRIS: Uh, crime lab technicians John Stella, S-T-E-L-L-A, and crime lab technician John Naujokas, N-A-U-J-O-K-A-S, they responded to that location.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who went back up to room 915, if anyone, at that point?

MR. BERRIS: Uh, myself, Detective Bongiorno, the two crime lab technicians and Mr. Phillips.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Now, I want you to just describe generally for the jury in brief fashion how this room was laid out, the hotel room. Can you do that for us?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. Room 915 could be described as actually a mini suite of rooms, if you will. It consists of a living-dining area combination. And after passing through a doorway, you would be in the bedroom of the suite, and then passing through another doorway, you would be in the bathroom of the suite.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The first time when you were there with Mr. Phillips, did you ever go in the bedroom the first time?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, yes. We had gone into all the rooms.

MR. COCHRAN: And the bathroom also; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you went back this second time with Naujokas and Stella, the criminalists, was Mr. Phillips accompanying you at that point?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, he was. However, he did stay in the living-dining area with Detective Bongiorno.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So there were like five of you; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you went back in--you described for the jury this particular room--at some point, you--and I think you described for us the bed appeared as though it was unmade still; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then you had occasion, did you not, to go into the bathroom area of that suite of rooms; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And in that bathroom area, did you have occasion to see--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me seek to rephrase that, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. In the bathroom area, can you describe for the jury what, if anything, you saw in the sink of the bathroom area there of suite 915?

MR. BERRIS: In the basin of the sink was a broken drinking glass. It was a clear--clear glass that was broken and in the base of the sink along with a paper doily that--those are usually on top of the glass when they're in the room.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And this glass was inside--in the sink in the basin area, right?

MR. BERRIS: In the basin.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any other remnants or shards of this glass on the so-called vanity area in and around the sink?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. There were--there were at different locations along the vanity several small--and I'll describe them as chips because they were very small--of broken glass.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And now, what about towels? Did you see any large towels in this same general area near the sink, basin area?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. On top of the vanity directly to the right of the wash basin was a towel that was not folded. It appeared to have been used. It was wrinkled and left on top of the vanity to the right of the basin.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to lift that towel up at some point?

MR. BERRIS: I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the technicians lift that towel up at some point?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. When--in the course of their processing that scene.

MR. COCHRAN: And when the towel was lifted up, did you have occasion to see another a washcloth or a face cloth?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe for the jury what you saw with regard to this washcloth or face cloth.

MR. BERRIS: Uh, that washcloth had reddish--a reddish stain on it which I suspected to be blood.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you saw--describe for us how you saw that washcloth or face cloth.

MR. BERRIS: Uh, it was--well, it was underneath the towel is the best I could describe it to the right of the sink bowl. When I initially had gone into the bathroom, I didn't see it since the towel was on top of it concealing it from view.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So would I be correct that, Detective Berris, you couldn't see the smaller face cloth until the towel was lifted up by the technicians? Is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the things you just described for our jury, were there photographs taken of that bathroom area and the sink area which might be illustrative of what you just talked about?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. There were photographs taken of the entire mini suite.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. I want to show you--

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would like to--I've shown these to counsel. I'd like to show the witness a couple of these if I might, and then I'll put them on the elmo if I might.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm going to show you what's first been marked--I think we've marked these starting with 1331. Let's see.

(Deft's 1331 for id = photograph)

MR. COCHRAN: I want to place before you several photographs--Mr. Darden has seen these. I want to place before you Defendant's 1331, and I want you to describe what's depicted in 1331, sir.

MR. BERRIS: That is a photograph of the washcloth with the red stain on it which was suspect blood that was found to the right of the wash basin in the bathroom of that mini suite of rooms.

MR. COCHRAN: And is that a fair and accurate portrayal of the way that--that washcloth appeared after it was removed--after the towel on top of it was removed?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, I would like to place this on the elmo if I might.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll place the others before him also.

THE COURT: All right. This is 1331.

MR. COCHRAN: This is 1331, your Honor. Thank you. And I'd like also to have Mr. Harris--I believe we've blown up 1331. We have 1331-A also.

(Deft's 1331-A for id = photograph)

THE COURT: I think we need to clear the power point there.

MR. DARDEN: There's a 352 objection to both, your Honor.

THE COURT: It'll be overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, while Mr. Harris is moving 1331-A in position, that's the way that particular face cloth looked after the towel that had been on top of it had been moved; is that correct, sir?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've seen 1331-A also, have you not, the large photograph of that?

MR. BERRIS: Are we still speaking of the washcloth, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, the washcloth. Have you seen this 1331-A?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, the large poster, yes. Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: And 1331-A is a blow-up of the photograph on the elmo; is that correct, sir?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: If I might now, your Honor--

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to ask you in turn about the other photographs. Will you look at 1332 and tell us what's depicted in 1332.

(Deft's 1332 for id = photograph)

MR. BERRIS: In that photograph, it's a photograph of the wash basin and vanity of the bathroom in room 915, and you--it depicts in the basin the broken drinking glass and white doily cover, and atop the vanity to the right is the wrinkled towel which was there upon our inspection.

MR. COCHRAN: And is that the towel you described for us earlier that had the--that had the--that covered the face cloth?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll place this on the elmo, your Honor. It's 1332, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: So 1332 is a fair and accurate portrayal of the way the towel, the large towel looked while it covered the smaller face cloth depicted in Defendant's 1331; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Would it be better to describe that as a hand towel? Doesn't appear to be a bath towel size.

MR. COCHRAN: You're talking about the larger?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I think that's fine, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Would we call that a hand towel then?

MR. BERRIS: I was just referring to it as a towel myself.

MR. COCHRAN: If the Judge says call it a hand towel, I think generally we'll call it a hand towel. Let's call it a hand towel.

MR. BERRIS: I agree.

THE COURT: Well, they give you three kinds of towels in a hotel. They give you wash cloths, hand towels and bath towel. These are experts on hotel towels.

MR. COCHRAN: And apparently so are you. So I'll go along with you.

THE COURT: And they know about those locks too.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thanks, Judge.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. With regard to that, let's move quickly through this then. The hand towel was covering the face cloth; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And to the left of that is the glass you've described, the broken glass that's in the wash basin; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to put 1331 back up for just a moment and ask you a question. You had mentioned there were some chips of glass, and I want you to look at 1331 and point out to us, if you can, the--whether you can see some--a chip of glass to the left of--upper left of this particular face cloth.

MR. BERRIS: Yes. That's one of the chips of glass tat was on top of the vanity, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described that for us earlier?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that was--that's basically to the left and above the foot of the basin; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And moving along then, with regard to 1333, what's depicted in 1333?

(Deft's 1333 for id = photograph)

MR. BERRIS: That is a photograph of the wash basin in the bathroom of room 915 with the broken drinking glass inside the basin with the white doily cover.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Is the doily--and the doily's fairly well depicted in there, 1333?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Put this up quickly, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: And in 1333, you can see the doily mixed in with the broken glass; isn't that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, you can.

MR. COCHRAN: And in the bottom of that glass, does there appear to be something, some kind of white substance or something in the bottom of the broken part of the glass?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, there was. A cloud--I'll describe it as a clouded liquid. Not a clear liquid, but a clouded liquid.

MR. COCHRAN: Very little liquid in there?

MR. BERRIS: Very little though. Very little.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's depicted in 1333?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Moving along to 1334 and 1335, you previously described the bedding. Tell us what's depicted in 1334.

(Deft's 1334 and 1335 for id = photographs)

MR. BERRIS: That is a photograph of a bedding--I'm not sure whether it's the top or bottom sheet that I see before me here in the photograph. However, that is the bedding in the room of 915.

MR. COCHRAN: And is there a spot of some kind, a red spot on the bed?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. There was a red spot, which is suspect blood on--which is photographed here.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And in looking at 1335, what is depicted there?

MR. BERRIS: It's another photograph of the bedding for that room, and that--there's also depicted a red stain, which was suspect blood.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: So I'll just show these quickly to the jury, if I might. This is 1334, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: The red spot is the red spot you just described for us; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And let's take a look at 1335. All right. And that was also a spot, red spot on the bed; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: If I were to look at 1331-A and wanted to look--can you see this? Is this the fragment of glass that was depicted in the smaller photograph?

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, the photograph that's on the elmo does not correspond to the exhibit.

MR. COCHRAN: No. No, it doesn't. I was moving to another subject, your Honor. Thank you. You can take that down, Mr. Harris. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. I'm saying, the witness can't see what you're pointing at.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. BERRIS: I can step down if it's--

MR. COCHRAN: May he step down, your Honor? Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I just wanted to ask one quick question about--. Looking at 1331-A, can you point out for the jury where this area of fragment of glass is located on that?

MR. BERRIS: It would be right here (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: In the upper left-hand corner?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right, sir. You may resume the stand. Now, approximately how long did you and Detective Bongiorno and the other two criminalists remain in room 915 the second time that you went there?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, we were there quite a long time. I'd say we left, oh, a couple of hours later, perhaps 5:00 o'clock. I'd be estimating though, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you were there for a couple hours at least; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And one other question. With regard to this kind of white substance in the bottom of that glass, did it appear to you that could have come from someone brushing their teeth and--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: May I finish the question?

THE COURT: Sustained. Leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Even before you heard it?

THE COURT: It's leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did it appear that it was.

MR. COCHRAN: That was enough for you?

THE COURT: That's leading.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Good.

MR. COCHRAN: During the time that you were in that room, did you ever have occasion to check the sink trap for anything that may have been washed down that particular drain at all?

MR. BERRIS: No, we did not.

MR. COCHRAN: In the course of your investigation, that didn't happen?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct? Now, with regard to the items that were in that room that we've just seen, the broken glass, the towel, the bedding, the pen, did the criminalists, Stella and Naujokas, in some way take those items into their possession, the Chicago Police Department?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you there when this took place?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And thereafter, where did they take these particular items? They took them from room 915 to some location; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. Uh, they took them--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: They took them--

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MR. BERRIS: I'm sorry. They took them from this scene to the police--Chicago police crime laboratory at the Chicago police headquarters.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were they booked there for--and held there until the arrival of some members of the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was done--they were taken on the 13th I presume in the evening hours to the Chicago Police Department; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know at some point thereafter, did a Detective Luper and a Detective le Fall from the Los Angeles Police Department come to Chicago in connection with their investigation of this case?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know at what point or which date Detective Luper took possession of the items recovered by you and the criminalists in room 915?

MR. BERRIS: Offhand, I can't recall the exact date that they took custody of the items.

MR. COCHRAN: It would be sometime after the 13th obviously?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, yes. Perhaps was Friday. That sort of sticks in my mind, but I can't be sure.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Possibly Friday the 17th?

MR. BERRIS: Possibly Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: And prior to the time they took custody of these times, they had been held in the custody and control of the Chicago Police Department, right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And since you've been in California for this short period of time, have you had occasion to see the box that purportedly contains these items?

MR. BERRIS: I was informed that that box contains some of the--or the items from the room 915.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what we've shown the jury are photographs of those items that had been in that particular room; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: The items depicted in the photographs?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to that particular room--and so we're clear, the broken glass fragments were all picked up and brought also; is that correct? They were retained as best you could?

MR. BERRIS: As best I recall, yes, I believe they were taken also.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to that particular room, if you recall, the other bedding or anything that you didn't see that had any discoloration on it, I presume you left that intact; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Things that didn't manifest anything that was a suspect stain or--is that what you mean, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BERRIS: No. That would not have been taken.

MR. COCHRAN: You only took things that may have had some stain and the broken glass, et cetera; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you able to--did you look around the room, did you see whether or not there were any laundry bags at all in that room?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, we did look around.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see any laundry bags?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the photographs which we've shown our jury here were photographs that were taken out of the direction of the Chicago Police Department; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. They were taken by crime lab technicians Stella and Naujokas on that date.

MR. COCHRAN: The people who actually took the things, and they were taken on June 13th of 1994; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: 1994. Yes, sir.

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Can I have--there's one other photograph I'd like to have marked. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Have you shown that to Mr. Darden?

MR. COCHRAN: He's seen these, but I'd be glad to show it to him.

THE COURT: Mark that 1336.

MR. COCHRAN: 1336, your Honor.

(Deft's 1336 for id = photograph)

MR. COCHRAN: And I would like to approach the witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I want to place before you a photograph that's Defendant's 1336 and ask you to describe for the jury what is depicted in that photograph, sir.

MR. BERRIS: It is a photograph of the bedroom area of room 915 that shows the bed in that suite of rooms with the covers--how I've described tossed back, the bed being unmade as if it had been slept in.

MR. COCHRAN: And that's the--that's the way you observed that bed on June 13th, the time you were in there in the afternoon hours; is that correct, sir?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And I notice to the left of the bed and area of the bedding there, there's a phone. Is that the way that phone was there?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that phone, do you recall whether or not you ever had that phone fingerprinted?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. I made a request for fingerprints to be taken.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You did that yourself?

MR. BERRIS: Yeah, I made that request to the crime lab technicians Stella and Naujokas.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they dust it for prints?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever make a check of the phone calls, if any, made from that phone?

MR. BERRIS: Uh, there was a record of the calls made from the telephone, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, this--

MR. COCHRAN: If I might place this on the elmo, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, that is--there's a glare. That is a fair and accurate portrayal of how that unmade bed appeared when you were there on June 13th, the afternoon hours?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And the phone is in the upper right-hand corner of that photograph; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it is.

MR. COCHRAN: And the bedding we see on that bed where you saw those red spots, that was--the bedding was still on the bed at that point and was subsequently taken and we have photographs of that; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. That would be the same bedding, and that was taken by the technicians.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've come to California last night pursuant to a subpoena to testify; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: I have nothing further of this witness at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cochran. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, while 1336 is up there.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Detective, could you indicate for us the approximate locations that you saw bloodstains on the top and bottom sheet, if you would direct the arrow which is about to appear?

MR. BERRIS: You mean from this--from the photograph that's here (Indicating)?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. Or can you?

MR. BERRIS: Not from this photograph I can't.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: You can take it off.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you were shown a series of photographs by Mr. Cochran?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You were shown some photographs of the broken glass at the scene?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Let me put 1333 up on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Could you point out the blood on the glass?

MR. BERRIS: I observed no blood on the glass.

MR. DARDEN: There was no blood on the glass, detective?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's argumentative the way it's phrased.

MR. DARDEN: Did you look at the glass?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, I visually inspected it, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you visually inspect it to see if there was blood on it?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: The glass is clear, correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You saw no blood nowhere, no place--

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

MR. DARDEN: --on that glass.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: I observed no blood on the glass, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you also described a moment ago for Mr. Cochran that you saw shards and pieces of glass on the basin, is that correct, around the wash basin?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. There was broken pieces of glass in the wash basin along with the base of the drinking glass.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. BERRIS: Along with the white doily cover that often covers these type of glasses.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see any blood on those pieces of glass, the pieces of glass that you saw inside the wash basin?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you saw pieces of glass around the basin?

MR. BERRIS: On top of the vanity?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. BERRIS: I observed at different locations small--as I described before, small chips of glass at different spots along the vanity, top of the vanity.

MR. DARDEN: And on how many pieces of small chips of glass located on top of the vanity did you see a red stain consistent with blood?

MR. BERRIS: I didn't observe any red stains or suspect blood on any.

MR. DARDEN: Now, did you see chips of glass on both sides of the vanity?

MR. BERRIS: Uh, the small chips of glass?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

MR. BERRIS: I believe there were--I believe they were on both sides. I remember specifically I saw--on the right-hand side, I can remember two spots that I saw and I think there were some on the left also.

MR. DARDEN: Now, you don't know how that glass got broken, do you?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know who broke that glass?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You don't know why that glass was broken?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained, the way it's phrased.

MR. DARDEN: You saw a red stain on a washcloth; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: 1331.

MR. DARDEN: And that's the washcloth you found?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: It was underneath the towel?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it was underneath.

MR. DARDEN: And was it folded neatly as it is in the photograph here (Indicating)?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: Do you see any blood spots on that towel?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.

MR. BERRIS: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Do you see any spots?

MR. BERRIS: On the--on this washcloth? No. Just the stain and--actual spots? No. Just the stains as they appeared on the washcloth here (Indicating).

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So you don't see any drops of blood on that washcloth, do you?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, do you see the little mark on the--at the edge of the wash basin to the upper left-hand portion of the photograph?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That's not a stain you consider consistent with blood, right? That's just discoloration on the wash basin?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. Excessively leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: It gave me an impression of a nicotine stain as if someone had at some time--

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Speculative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: --that possibly at some time, someone had laid a cigarette, a lit cigarette on the edge of the wash basin and the nicotine had stained the edge of the Formica.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you say you entered the room at approximately 12:00 o'clock Chicago time, right?

MR. BERRIS: Uh, entered the room? Would be approximately between 1:30 and 1:45 in the afternoon Chicago time. We arrived at the hotel shortly after 12:00 noon.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, did you know at the time that the Defendant had a cut on his left hand?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to the form of that question. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: I don't recall having any knowledge such as that.

MR. DARDEN: And with regard to the stain depicted in the photograph here on the elmo--

MR. BERRIS: I beg your pardon, Mr. Darden. I might have misunderstood you. Could you ask me that question again? I'm sorry.

MR. DARDEN: When you entered the room that afternoon--

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --were you aware at that time that the Defendant had a cut on his left hand, middle finger?

MR. COCHRAN: I object again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: Yes. We had been informed--

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Object to what he was informed, your Honor.

THE COURT: Just, detective, were you aware of that?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. DARDEN: And Chicago time is two hours ahead of us here in L.A.; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Chicago time would be two hours behind.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Two hours behind?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

THE COURT: Depends on how you look at it.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. If it's 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon here in L.A., what time is it in Chicago?

MR. BERRIS: It would be 11:00 o'clock or would it be?

MR. DARDEN: You got jet lag, detective?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. It would be--it would be later. It would be later there. If it's 1:00 o'clock here, it would be 3:00 o'clock there.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you. Now, the stain that you see here on the washcloth, you don't know if that stain was caused by a cut the Defendant suffered here in Los Angeles, do you?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. That calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Well, by looking at that washcloth and the stain on the washcloth, can you tell us the exact time at which the injury was suffered that resulted in that stain?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hold on. Were you able to determine when that stain occurred on the washcloth?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. DARDEN: And when you entered the room, you enter into a living room area?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: There's a sofa?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And a dining table?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Is there a television set in that room?

MR. BERRIS: I believe there was a television set in the dining area or living area, living-dining area if you will.

MR. DARDEN: And the living-dining area was neat for the most part; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, yes.

MR. DARDEN: No furniture turned over?

MR. BERRIS: No.

MR. DARDEN: No indication that anyone had had a temper tantrum or anything of sorts?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: It was in neat condition.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And then you entered into the bedroom; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: The bed was pulled back, that is the covering was pulled back?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: As if someone had been sleeping in the bed, correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you saw bloodstains on the sheet; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. On the bedding.

MR. DARDEN: The top sheet and the bottom sheet?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you didn't find--strike that. The bloodstains you saw on the sheets were located toward the middle center of the bed as opposed to the top of the bed near the headboard; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. It would be toward the center.

MR. DARDEN: And a location consistent with someone who had a cut on their hand having slept in the bed; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: When Mr. Cochran asked you questions, you told us that you have to use a card key to enter the room?

MR. BERRIS: Yes. As means of entry.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you didn't check to see whether or not that card key mechanism recorded the time, the time of entry; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: No. No, I did not check that.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know that the LAPD did?

MR. BERRIS: No, I don't know whether they did or not.

MR. DARDEN: You also told, also in response to Mr. Cochran's questions, that the room was absent or missing two laundry bags; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, did you attempt to determine whether or not laundry bags had been in the room immediately prior to the Defendant's checking into the room?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. If he attempted to determine, it's not hearsay.

MR. BERRIS: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And did you make that determination? Yes or no?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Objection to the form of that question. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: I received information.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. It's hearsay.

THE COURT: No. He received information is not hearsay. It's an appropriate answer. Next question.

MR. DARDEN: So you did make that determination?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you search for the bags?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Were you able to locate the laundry bags inside the room?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Do you know what happened to those laundry bags?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Those bags remain outstanding even today; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: They're unaccounted for.

MR. DARDEN: Can I have one moment, your Honor? I just need a few more minutes.

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

MR. DARDEN: You also recovered a newspaper on the bed; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I can't hear the question.

THE COURT: A newspaper.

MR. DARDEN: That was a U.S.A. Today newspaper?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it was.

MR. DARDEN: And that was dated June 13th; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir. June 13th, 1994.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And where was that newspaper? Where exactly was it?

MR. BERRIS: It was on top of the bed. It wouldn't have been on the sheets where the--it would have been on top of the comforter or bedspread if you will. It would be toward the left-hand side as you're looking at the picture, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you 1336 up there on your monitor. Could you direct the arrow to the location of the newspaper, if you can?

MR. BERRIS: Can I do that on here?

MR. DARDEN: Just--

THE COURT: Just tell us where to go. See the arrow?

MR. BERRIS: Oh, to the left a little bit. A little bit more, a little bit more, slight bit more and then down. Be right there (Indicating).

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. BERRIS: I think the arrow is right on the newspaper at this time.

MR. DARDEN: Can we print that, your Honor, and mark it? Would you like to mark it Defendant's exhibit?

THE COURT: Prosecution 590.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Can we print that and mark it Prosecution 590?

(Peo's 590 for id = print out of photograph)

MR. DARDEN: Now, the newspaper is actually covered over by the blankets; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: Partially, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Now, this glass that you saw in the sink, it was shattered, wasn't it?

MR. BERRIS: It was broken into a number of pieces.

MR. DARDEN: And you knew that the Defendant had a cut on his left hand, right?

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Did you determine whether or not he was left-handed or he was right-handed?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form--I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: I have no knowledge whether Mr. Simpson is right or left-handed.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any blood-stained tissues inside the room?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Any blood-stained toilet paper at all?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any blood drops on the bathroom floor?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any drops of blood around the wash basin on the vanity?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any drops of blood on the carpet?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any next to the bed?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Did you find any on the telephone?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you an additional picture if I may. This is 581-B. Showing you 581-B on the monitor, detective.

THE COURT: All right. This is--581-B appears to be a wide shot of the bathroom sink area.

MR. DARDEN: You told us earlier that the living room area was neat when you--when you first arrived. Is that the condition in which you found the bathroom?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, any redirect?

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Now, a few questions if I might, sir. You were asked by Mr. Darden whether or not you were informed whether or not Mr. Simpson had cut his hand or his hand was bleeding. You remember you said yes to that, that you were informed?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You were informed by an employee by the name of Carol Gobern, were you not, Mr. Simpson--that she had given Mr. Simpson a Band-Aid for his hand when he came downstairs, his hand was bleeding?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. It's hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me ask--you talked to a Carol Gobern who was a clerk at the desk downstairs where you check in when Mr. Simpson came in that hotel; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Exceeds direct. I would like to approach.

THE COURT: Overruled. Did you speak to Carol Gobern?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, I did, Judge.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you had a conversation with her prior to your ever going upstairs in that room; isn't that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And as a result of that conversation, without telling us what she said, you found out that Mr. Simpson had had a cut hand; isn't that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard that question and answer.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--let me ask this, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point, did you ever ascertain whether or not Miss Gobern had given Mr. Simpson anything to put--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. All hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: May I approach?

THE COURT: No. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, did you see any toothpaste in and around the sink that morning; do you recall?

MR. BERRIS: No, I didn't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you were asked some questions or a question or two about a laundry bag. And I presume you're staying in a hotel somewhere now; is that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. We won't mention where. And it probably has a laundry bag or two in that room; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: Yes, it does.

MR. COCHRAN: And it's not unusual when you leave a hotel room to use your laundry bag on occasion, is it?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: It's not unusual to use your laundry bag on occasion when you're in the room; is that right?

MR. BERRIS: No, I wouldn't say so.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You say it's not unusual, right?

MR. BERRIS: Not unusual.

MR. COCHRAN: Other than talking to Carol Gobern who was the desk clerk, you also had occasion to talk to this manager, Mr. Phillips, isn't that correct--

MR. BERRIS: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: --before you ever went in the room?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you gained or garnered information from talking to both of those two people--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. This calls for hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: This is not hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You gained or garnered information from Carol Gobern and from the manager, Mr. Phillips, prior to the time you ever went inside that room; isn't that correct?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir, that's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to Miss Gobern, can you tell this jury what hour she had come to work that day?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, this is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's based on hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: Asked what time she came to work, your Honor?

THE COURT: It's based on hearsay, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, do you know what Miss Goldburn's working hours were to your own knowledge?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

MR. COCHRAN: He can answer that yes or no.

THE COURT: Yes or no, do you know?

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know her working hours?

MR. BERRIS: I know when she starts work. I don't know when she finishes her shift. I'm sorry, Judge. I didn't know how else to answer.

THE COURT: It's all right.

MR. COCHRAN: What time did she start work?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: What time did she start work?

MR. BERRIS: 7:00 o'clock in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: 7:00 a.m. on June 13th, 1994?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you for coming.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. BERRIS: You're welcome.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: So what happened to the Defendant's laundry, detective?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. Argumentative, speculative.

MR. BERRIS: I don't know, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Is there any indication at all that this Defendant had his laundry sent out while staying at that hotel?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: If you know, detective, what did the Defendant use the laundry bags for?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question was if you know.

MR. BERRIS: I don't know, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: You never found those bags, did you?

MR. BERRIS: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: That's all I have. May the witness be excused, your Honor?

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: You don't know of your personal knowledge whether there were laundry bags there or not or how many there were, isn't that correct, sir, of your own personal knowledge?

MR. BERRIS: From my own personal knowledge, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you very kindly.

MR. DARDEN: Just one question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Did you interview the maid that prepared the room immediately prior to the Defendant's arrival?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: No. He can say whether or not he interviewed the maid. Yes or no?

MR. BERRIS: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Detective Berris, thank you very much for coming out.

MR. BERRIS: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. You're excused, sir. All right. Next witness.

MR. SCHECK: Defense calls Dr. Lee. Dr. Lee.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a couple of matters I need to take up with the lawyers before we hit the next witness. So I'm going to ask you to step back into the jury room, and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you have some matters to present with Mr. Lee. Any 402 issues we need to take up, photographs, et cetera, et cetera?

MR. SCHECK: I don't believe so. The only thing that I would note, your Honor, is that the Prosecution filed this afternoon, this morning really, a motion to exclude an experiment Dr. Lee performed on drying of swatches.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: I would note that Dr. Lee's report was turned over quite some time ago and the Prosecution waited until this morning to serve it.

THE COURT: Here's Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Scheck, why don't you give us those last two sentences again.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I was just saying, as Mr. Goldberg filed this motion this morning concerning the blood swatch experiment, it's something--

THE COURT: Hold on. We need to take a break. Let's take 15.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Mr. Goldberg is present for the People. Mr. Scheck is present for the Defense. And the Defense has announced that the next witness is Dr. Henry Lee. And as I recollect from our discussions earlier this week, Mr. Goldberg, you had some objections to make. But first of all, let's--any evidentiary hearings that we need to resolve in the nature of 402 issues with the display of exhibits?

MR. SCHECK: Well, one matter maybe I could just eliminate so we can get to the jury. And that is, the Prosecution filed their motion to exclude Dr. Lee's blood transfer experiment, the wet swatches on the bindle.

THE COURT: This is the one that Dr. Lee said he didn't think he was going to be testifying to.

MR. SCHECK: No. That's precisely incorrect. Mr. Goldberg is mistaken in his affidavit as Dr. Lee informed him, and it's also in Dr. Lee's report, there was a swatch weighing experiment which he indicates in his report because of the inability to weigh the swatches on a scale, he couldn't do so. The swatch drying experiment is something we definitely intend to introduce. If Mr. Goldberg was mistaken in his understanding of the conversation, Dr. Lee has discussed that at length with Dr. de Forest. As I indicated, they spoke for four hours on Saturday, and I think as reflected in the motion, there is some other misunderstandings as to precisely how it was conducted. Be that as it may, they waited until the very last minute to file this objection even though they had the report for quite some time. And just as an indication, on page 2 of the motion, they indicate that the court excluded evidence of the blood drying experiment conducted by the Defense on 352 grounds based on for lack of substantial similarity. So this is a brief that's been in the word processor for so long that they didn't even correct the fact that the glove drying experiment was admitted.

My only suggestion is that we are not going to get to that until I think, by present scheduling, Friday morning. So we could take that up Thursday afternoon, we could take that up Friday morning, but I don't think there's any need to waste court time arguing about that this afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, if you recollect, a while back, I advised you that on August 23rd, which is tomorrow, one of our jurors has a dentist appointment that will cause us to conclude tomorrow at 3:45. So, Mr. Goldberg, I'm going to accept--I'm inclined to accept Mr. Scheck's suggestion that we have this argument on the swatch drying experiment at approximately 4:00 o'clock tomorrow afternoon so that we can use all the jury time today. Is that acceptable to the People?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. That seems to be reasonable. And anyway, I think it would make more sense to bring up the issue of discovery violations first.

THE COURT: All right. Any other evidentiary issues you think we need to resolve at this point?

MR. SCHECK: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: There were some other issues after discovery violations, your Honor, I wanted to--

MR. SCHECK: You want to know about the boards? Maybe you should make your board objections if any.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, whatever order the court wants to handle these in. If the court were inclined to accept our arguments, as we think your Honor should, about discovery violations, it's possible that this witness would be precluded or delayed, and I think there are some very substantial issues here.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, then we'll take up the discovery issue at this point. What I have before me, what was provided to me this morning was a sheaf of what appear to be reports, and there's an index on the top, items 1 through 11, and it's entitled, "Late discovery by Defense," and that was given to me this morning, although I have not inspected the package as I've been busy with other matters today.

MR. GOLDBERG: I understand, your Honor. And I'd ask the court after argument to take a look at the package because I think it will make things more understandable. Let me just start by saying that we are not in any way implying through this motion that Dr. Lee was in any way responsible for any of the violations here and it does not in any way negatively reflect upon him.

I compiled a list--I actually had a list compiled for me of 11 items that we received that says "Late discovery by the Defense" and itemizes each one of the particulars, the date that the report was generated and the date that it was received, and I'd like to just make some comments about the items on the list. Nos. 1 and nos. 2 deal with crime scene visits on June the 25th and June the 26th by Dr. Lee, Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf and detail things in the nature of what they've identified as being possible additional shoeprints, that the Defense intends to introduce evidence as to cigarette butts, that they intend to introduce evidence as to additional items that were found in the foyer of the Defendant's home that they intend to introduce evidence on. This is what I would describe, your Honor, as being a violation. Obviously, it's less egregious than many of the other violations that I'll be talking about, but the point is, your Honor, that we are entitled to pretrial discovery 60 days prior to trial, and this doesn't even come close. I don't see any excuse or justification for why when Dr. Lee was on the witness list, as were Drs. Baden and Wolf, this material could not have been turned over to us much earlier. So this is a discovery violation.

I don't think that there can be any issue about that legally and factually. It is not as significant in my view. It is significant, but not as significant as many of the other more egregious ones I'd like to discuss. Next, we have an examination report of Dr. Lee relating to an August the 19th examination. The report's dated August the 22nd. And this--I don't know how significant this is because this one particular one relates to the knife that the court has previously ruled evidence would not be admissible on. And I'd assume that that is still going to be the ruling, and if that's the case, the materiality of this violation would be less significant. The next one we have, item no. 5, is a very significant violation relating to the piper tech visit by Drs. Lee, Baden and Wolf. There's seven pages of notes, and I'll discuss that in conjunction with no. 6, if I may, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm just trying to correlate which package of notes it is we're talking about here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry.

THE COURT: No. 5, what's on the first page? What's on your first page?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. I'm going to tell you that, your Honor. The first page says, "Defense 1028, Lee, Baden, Wolf, 3-4-95 piper tech visit," and then there's a series of typewritten notes starting with 1029.

THE COURT: Got it.

MR. GOLDBERG: This examination deals with a number of pieces of evidence that will be the subject of testimony here today, including hair and trace evidence, including some of the bindles and the packaging material. More particularly, it deals with bindle no. 47, which the court is going to be hearing a lot more about in the evidence. It mentions bindle 47 and some of the other bindles. Those are also mentioned you'll see in some other notes that I'll talk about later. And the examination of the bindles is one of--what the Defense considers to be the pivotal aspects of Dr. Lee's testimony insofar as they are attributing an enormous degree of significance to certain transfer stains that occurred on bindle 47 and suggesting that this is evidence of a conspiracy to plant evidence. I don't think Dr. Lee is going to be testifying to that per se, but that will be the circumstantial evidence that they are going to be asking the jury to draw from his testimony. Maybe even more than that. I don't know. It depends on exactly the questions that are asked, but this is some very significant evidence. And it's a volume of material here and it touches in a number of different areas. It deals with the conspiracy aspects of the Defense case. It deals with the evidence integrity aspects of the case. It deals with the competency aspects of the case and that they're saying they're numerous items of hair and trace evidence that were not collected by Douglas Deedrick and Susan Brockbank, that the implication being that they should have been collected. So it really touches every aspect and every theory of the Defendant's case. Item no. 7 relates to a report of seven pages of February the 16th of 1995. The February the 16th visit to the Los Angeles Police Department involves the socks. And I'd just like to find that report. This report, your Honor, which starts with Defense 1055 relates to various notes that were taken at the time that the socks were examined. And the court knows the significance of this material. This goes directly to their planting issue and their planting theory and is the only piece of physical evidence that the Defense contends supports their planting theory, and that was turned over to us on the 8th.

No. 8 is a series of 20 pages, reports relating to examinations that were performed by Dr. Lee at his home laboratory on March the 9th of 1995, and we received that on the 8th of this month. And that starts on page 1063. And your Honor can see that there are quite a few notes covering a wide range of topics, most particularly, the bindle no. 47 which is discussed on page 1065, which is again evidence that the Defense considers to be powerful evidence, where they are going to be arguing is powerful evidence of a conspiracy because of the transfer stains. It also contains an examination of item 78, which are Ron Goldman's boots and will be testified to by Dr. Lee. Apparently he saw some staining to the exterior of the package and they're going to be addressing that as part of the evidence integrity issue. And just to give the court an example of the kinds of things--and I'm sure your Honor knows as a trial attorney and as a Judge, that an advocate would want to do in this kind of situation is to have the opportunity not only to go back and look at these items again, to trace the history of these items again, when they were packaged, when they were repackaged, to try to figure out under what circumstances these kinds of transfers could have occurred, but we also want to send these notes to our experts, our hair and trace people, our footprint people, our people at the laboratory at SID for the purposes of getting their input to prepare for cross-examination. There's an enormous amount of work that is entailed in the receipt of these kinds of materials. The next item is another discovery violation of Dr. Lee's visit to cellmark where he apparently weighed the swatches and looked at the swatches. The primary significance of this in my estimation is that Dr. Lee measured the swatches in item 47, bindle 47, and I suspect would be integrating that into his testimony about that bindle. Item no. 10 is the photographs from all of the examinations that I just mentioned, the February 16th examination, the Albany examinations that started on February the 16th, the home visit examination on March the 9th, and the photographic material entails a stack of material which we received color Xeroxes of. Your Honor has heard about this in part already, and starts on page 1099 of discovery and ends on page 1226. And to give the court just a rough idea of the kinds of things that are contained here, there are pictures of items that were contained in the bindles. There are photographs of bindle 47 which I've discussed. There are pictures of the boots that I discussed, item 78, and the transfer stains that the Defense is going to be presenting evidence about. There are photographs of virtually every piece of evidence that the--well, every piece of evidence that the Defense will be talking about. There are photographs showing imprints on some of the evidence, including the eyeglass envelope. There are photographs indicating that there was a hole in one of the packaging materials containing the eyeglass envelope and so on and so forth. These are the kinds of photographs, just to give the court an idea, where you cannot simply look at the photograph to say, okay, this is a shoe, this is a stain, this is a bindle. These are the kinds of photographs, as many of the photographs in this case, where you have to take out your magnifying glass and study them and look at each little mark and each little dot and each little irregularity and try to figure out what is the Defense going to be making of this, how are they going to be hinging some kind of a theory on the existence of four transfer stains in a bindle, what is the configuration of those stains, do they match up to the swatches that were put in the bindle, what about this footprint that was seen that was discovered on the walkway several weeks after the crime, carefully looking at the tiles trying to figure out what other anomalies in the paving surface the Defense could claim are footprints and so on. It's very detailed work and it involves not only the attorney, but also the assistance of our experts. And we have sent these things and they are preparing materials for us, some of which we have not received yet. And then we have the last item, item no. 11, which deals with Dr. Wolf's testi--excuse me--I believe these are Dr. Wolf's notes in Albany. Dr. Lee did not take his own notes. He delegated that responsibility for the purposes of speeding things up. The court will recall the circumstances of that examination. And I believe that Dr. Wolf took the notes during that examination. These notes, again, cover a very significant amount of material. Your Honor, what I'd stress to the court is that virtually all of the items I'm talking about, 5 through 11, were turned over on August the 8th or the photographs on August the 9th. The--excuse me--the last notes August the 9th and the photographs August the 3rd. All of them were turned over a very significant period of time after they were taken and very shortly before Dr. Lee is testifying.

This to me seems like the clearest example of a discovery violation that the court could ever hope to have. And I know that your Honor has made numerous admonishments about gamesmanship, about games playing, and I don't want to try to get into motives or what people are up to. But in determining sanctions, and this is the only reason that I'm mentioning it, as the court recalls from some of the briefs that we filed previously, in determining the question of preclusion, it has been held, and we previously cited the court this case and a very similar points and authorities relating to Dr. MacDonell where the court also found discovery violation, in People versus Jackson, the court held that if the admission is willful in hope of obtaining a tactical advantage, the court may exclude the witness' testimony. So the question of tactical advantage--and that's the only reason I'm raising it at all--is a legal issue for the court to decide, and there does not seem to be any reason whatsoever why these materials were not turned over much more promptly. I know that Professor Uelmen at one point used the term "Immediately" means immediately. I quite frankly--although that phrase obviously is very helpful to us here--believe that it is possible that some minor delay could be excused or could be explained. I don't think "Immediately" necessarily means that if the examination is completed on the 16th of February, that it's mandatory that we have received it on the 17th or the 18th. I can understand how counsel would like to look at them for the purposes of perhaps seeing privileged materials or might want to review them themselves. It might take time to Xerox and so on. But there is no possible conceivable definition, whether you accept Professor Uelmen's strict definition or my somewhat more liberal definition of what "Immediately" means, that these are turned over immediately, your Honor. And this is a case where we have been prejudiced. I have tried to tell the court in previous instances where I have claimed violations, yes, there's a violation here, your Honor. But in all honesty to the court, I cannot represent that we have been prejudiced because I have been able to evaluate it and, therefore, the sanction that I am asking is something less than preclusion or less than even a delay, because I have had the opportunity to look at it. This is a situation where we have been flooded with extremely detailed material, a tremendous number of photographs at the very last minute and I have not had the capacity to review these fully. Our experts have not. We have been prejudiced, and this to me is about as clear an example of a situation where witness preclusion is an order that I think we could imagine. Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, your Honor. I would like to respond to this since I've been dealing with expert discovery since about March. All this talk about violations, as an example, no. 4 is a report concerning the examination of the knife in the envelope. There's not going to be any testimony about that. That's not even discoverable. That obviously can't be a violation. We're not required to turn over anything that we don't intend to rely on or don't intend to offer. I would remind the court that in March of this year, I met with the court in chambers. I submitted a memo at that time in camera explaining what we felt our position was on discovery, what the law required and what it did not require, and we quoted penal code section 1054.3, which talks about expert discovery and includes "Results of physical or mental exams, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the Defendant intends to offer." I explained what our position was to you at that time. We had all those notes there. We sat down, we went over all of then. If there was any instance of any of our experts doing anything to the evidence, doing a phenol test, examining Mr. Simpson, doing something other than just writing down what they see, that was turned over at that time. The rest of it was not. The rest of it is not discoverable at that time. Any other notes that an expert intends to rely on, they're entitled to when the expert--to see those when the expert testifies. If he relies on notes of things that he made to himself, they can see that then. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to turn over all of this stuff, most of which there's not going to be any testimony about at all. Photographs, the court has consistently ruled that photographs are real evidence. The code requires that we turn over any real evidence that we intend to offer. We have provided photographs that we intend to use with Dr. Lee and those were provided back on the 8th or the 9th, sometime ago. All the other photographs that we gave, we didn't have to turn those over. Those can't be violations because we didn't have to turn them over. We made them available however. In every one of these events, I believe without exception, the Prosecution was present. They had representatives there, and every time any piece of evidence was examined, they were there. They had the ability to take their own notes, to watch the notes that we were taking, to take the same photographs that we took. They had the same opportunity as we did to examine this evidence.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: In Albany, they took a videotape. Any time we looked at a piece of evidence, they photographed it at the same time that we photographed it. And I might also add that if we're supposed to provide things 60 days before trial, most of these things didn't exist even when the trial started. These are--all of these events or most of them relate to things that happened after the trial started. Finally, we're not required to decide 60 days before trial what issues an expert is going to testify about and what issues an expert is not going to testify about. Those decisions certainly were not made--

THE COURT: Don't I have some indicia of that from the opening statement?

MR. BLASIER: Well, certainly, yeah, it's certainly obvious that we intended to call Dr. Lee from the beginning. It's not obvious at all as to what issues he was going to testify about and not testify about. And that decision was not made until the Defense case started and it wasn't made right at the time. It's been made continuously. But we've made all that stuff available that--much of which, as I said, he's not going to testify about. The notes that we turned over recently are notes of observations of evidence. Nothing was done--any time some trace evidence was removed from an item, we turned that over. Any time that any kind of a test was performed, that was all turned over a long time ago. So I--I take real issue with the notion that these are all violations of the discovery law. They aren't. We gave them too much. And I'm getting a little bit tired of standing up here and explaining why I haven't violated the law when I've given them stuff they aren't entitled to. So I don't think there's any violation here at all. He said that they haven't been prejudiced by anything. I think we're wasting our time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, actually--

THE COURT: Well, let me--actually, Mr. Blasier, of these items that Mr. Goldberg has listed in his list, items 1 through 11, are there any of these matters that you are not going to be presenting? For example, item 4, you've indicated you're not going to be presenting any of the evidence with regards to that item, correct?

MR. BLASIER: Right. Most of what is contained in these notes, we're not going to be presenting. I mean, in Albany, they examined, I don't know, 75, a hundred items. There's only going to be testimony about a couple of those, and any notes about those are just, you know, we looked in this package and that's what was in there. That's all it was. We weren't allowed to do anything else other than just look at stuff. So most of this is not going to be covered.

THE COURT: Well, how do you suggest we do this, because obviously I shouldn't bother to deal with discovery issues on items you're not going to be offering or observations that you're not going to be offering. Can you let me know here what's pertinent?

MR. BLASIER: I have not gone through the notes to try and isolate that. I don't think that's my responsibility. Mr. Goldberg hasn't--I don't think he's pointed to any specific instances of something he knows that Dr. Lee's going to testify about that he's been surprised about. I--it would take me quite a long time to sit down and cross out all those parts of the notes that weren't discoverable in the first place. I didn't take the time to do that. I just gave him everything. They've talked to Dr. Lee. They know what he's going to testify about. They've seen all the boards. They know exactly what he's going to testify about.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, we need to narrow this down a little because there's a lot here that may not even be relevant to the presentation.

MR. GOLDBERG: I understand that, your Honor, and I specifically mentioned that in the case of item 4, where I said in all probability, there could be no prejudice there because the court has previously ruled that that item was inadmissible. Just to clarify the record--and I think the court hears the--understood this, I said that there were severely--

THE COURT: I don't recollect that I said it was inadmissible. I thought there was clear indication it wasn't going to be offered. But be that as it may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, whichever. I thought we had some litigation. I wasn't directly involved in that. But at any rate, I did point that out to the court.

THE COURT: My recollection is, it is not suppressed evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the point is, your Honor, I pointed out that I didn't feel that we were prejudiced. I also said that I felt that we were severely prejudiced and tried to detail why as to everything else. I tried to highlight some of the things that are contained in these reports that I know they will be testifying about. One is bindle 47, which the court saw referenced in a large number of these notations, including the Albany visit, including the cellmark visit and I believe including Dr. Lee's home visit--excuse me--home analysis on March the 9th. Another item that we know they're going to be talking about is the imprint evidence, for example, on Ronald Goldman's jeans, the imprint--they claim there's some imprint evidence on his jeans. They claim there's some imprint evidence on the eyeglass envelope. They claim there's some imprint evidence on that little triangular piece of paper that wasn't collected. All of these items are contained in these notes, the analysis photographic enhancements, blow-ups, additional photographs that they took in the set of photographs that's listed as having been taken--as having been turned over in discovery on August the 3rd, `95. What I would say to make it simple is that from looking at the boards--and that's the only indication that I have as to what he's going to be testifying to--there is nothing that he's going to be testifying to that isn't contained in the items that we are complaining about discovery violations with the exception of item no. 4. In other words, that there will be no subject matter that he will address in his testimony of which I am aware that is not in some fashion discussed in one of the other 10 reports that I have listed here. So that makes it very simple, your Honor, and I have tried to list the ones that I know about and the ones that we also believe that the Defense is going to be attributing an enormous amount of significance to. Now, we have argued the question of discovery obligations over and over and over again and the court has ruled on this at sometimes I guess what could be described as advisory type rulings that the court made. And we know that the plain language of the statute says that we are entitled to "Reports or statements, including the results of examinations, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the respective parties intend to offer in evidence."

Examinations is exactly what we are talking about with respect to looking at these items carefully, microscopically and then rendering opinions about them. We are also talking about comparisons when we're talking about imprint evidence. And Dr. Lee will testify that in the case of some of the imprint evidence, that he made efforts to look at some of the items that were at the crime scene to determine whether or not those could have been responsible. So the plain ordinary language of the statute plus the case law that interprets it, the key case being the Hines versus Superior court case, which has been cited over and over again--by now, I'm sure your Honor probably has at least partially memorized the law--and the Defendant's legal obligation is very, very clear. They have to turn over results of examinations. They have to turn over results of comparisons, and that is precisely what we're talking about. Now, in terms of real evidence, the statute also talks about real evidence. So you can characterize photographs in two ways I believe and I believe both characterizations are correct. One is a photograph--

THE COURT: Excuse me a second. Mrs. Robertson?

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. GOLDBERG: I think two characterizations can be applied to the case of expert witnesses. Number one, I believe that counsel is correct, you can characterize a photograph as being real evidence. But real evidence is one of the five categories of items that come under 1054. So if counsel is correct in his interpretation, I believe that he is--at least in part, he is obligated to turn those over to us pursuant to those provisions of 1054. The other way that I believe that it is appropriate to characterize photographs--and maybe I'm making the issue unnecessarily complex because I think counsel has conceded at least they fall under one of the categories. But the other way of characterizing them is as notes or documentation. The court in this case has heard the phrase "Photo documentation" testified to over and over and over again by criminalists. Mr. MacDonell was asked why he didn't write certain findings down in his notes, and he said, "Because I photo documented them so I didn't need to."

A photo is worth a thousand words, so criminalists can use the technique of photography as a supplement to or a substitute for documentation. So it also falls under the category of laboratory reports. But maybe I'm being a little bit too analytical here, your Honor, because no matter how we want to look at it, we're entitled to these under 1054. And your Honor has previously ruled on this kind of material in the context of Mr. Deedrick's blow-ups where we were simply taking evidence that the Defense had analyzed at length and blowing it up, and the court said that the Prosecution had violated our discovery obligations as I recalled and had to undertake an analysis as to the effect of those violations. So they clearly have violated their discovery obligations here. Now, in terms of people being present, Ron Raquel was present from the crime lab at the Albany visit, but he was told and instructed that he was not supposed to look over the shoulders of experts, but simply supposed to observe the transaction between when the evidence left his possession and went into the expert's possession; and there's no way he can tell us the results of microscopic examinations and conclusions that were reached and things that were observed by Dr. Lee and his colleagues under the microscope. Also, I do not believe anyone was present at the time that certain examinations were made at Dr. Lee's home laboratory; and in no case did the presence of any experts in any way aid the Prosecution or lessen the amount of prejudice that we have suffered in terms of identifying issues or determining what the Defense was looking at. If you're looking at an envelope under a microscope, we know--we may know they're looking at the envelope under the microscope, but it doesn't tell us anything about what they're seeing, what they're finding, what they're concluding. That kind of material is in their notes. The statutory language of the law, your Honor, does not make any exception for which items are going to be testified to and which are not. Saying once an expert has been identified as someone that they reasonably expect to call, at that point, the entire report needs to be turned over. They don't say part of the report or a portion of the report. If there was any portion of the report that was not discoverable at that time, the only procedure that could be taken under 1054.7 would be an in camera hearing, and the only exception that I think the court would allow under that statute would be if there was work product. In other words, if he said on cross-examination, ask the Prosecution's expert this, or in argument you might want to point out that. That kind of material could be deleted by the court. But other than that, there is no legal basis whatsoever for saying, well, this part of the report they can get, but not that part of the report. We get the whole report and we're entitled to see things in context and we're entitled to see what was going on at the time that these examinations took place, what else they might have looked at that could have affected their examination of the evidence that they're testifying to, what kind of cross-contamination might have occurred and the like. I mean, if the Prosecution were only going to introduce evidence as to three of the items on the Bundy walk, three of the bloodstains, would we be able to say that we don't need to give them discovery as to the other two because it's not relevant when they were processed at the same time and looked at the same time, part of the same case and somehow sever that out of our report? The law makes absolutely no provision for that whatsoever. Your Honor, I believe that the legal issues and factual issues here are absolutely clear. There is a violation and exclusion is the appropriate remedy.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, 1054.3 does not say "The results of any examinations." It says "Physical or mental examinations." That's why we turned over the examinations of Mr. Simpson. That's why we turned over some psychological test results, because it fell under that particular category. 1054.3 also says it's limited to things which we intend to offer. In spite of Mr. Goldberg's desire to have everything that we might have done in the entire case, he's not entitled to that. I would remind the court that we weren't even allowed to get pictures that Gary Sims took of the work that he did because we had someone there available to take the same kind of pictures. We make a decision on what we intend to use as exhibits. I thought we were operating under a rule that it was either one day or three days before we would present any exhibits, any real evidence. We provided these photographs that are on the boards long--much longer ago than three days, and I think we've complied with the standards that the court has set up. All of these notes, I think almost every category, these were all reviewed by the court and the court concurred in our assessment as to what we had to turn over and what we think we didn't have to turn over.

THE COURT: Refresh my recollection so I can get my notes as to the in camera hearing. When did we conduct that?

MR. BLASIER: I think that--actually, I think there were a couple. My recollection is, the first--I didn't bring my notes on this because I didn't know they were going to make this motion. But I think the first one was March 17th and I think that there was another one on March 24th if I recall. And I specifically asked--as to the Albany visit, I explained to the court that the only thing that we actually did where we did something to the evidence was remove some trace evidence from some things and put them in bindles, and you suggested we turn over a list of that, which we did. That was it as far as the Albany notes are concerned. But I think those were the two days that we met in chambers.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: And I remind the court that Dr. Lee's report, once it was written, was turned over actually prior to Mr. MacDonell's report. And again, they were present at all of these things. They could take their own pictures. They looked at what we were looking at and they can take their own notes, and we weren't allowed to do anything except remove some trace evidence in Albany.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, what is the--what is your schedule for the first issues that you're going to address with Dr. Lee?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I'll show the court and we'll see.

THE COURT: No. Just tell me. Just tell me.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I intend to--you have the boards, the list of boards. We're going to go through his qualifications. We're going to have a discussion from his textbook of the chart they have dealing with crime scene procedures, recognition, documentation, preservation, et cetera, and a short discussion of the procedures in this case, but not very much. And then we're going to go right into the imprint evidence, imprint evidence, their photographs on the walkway, their piece of paper. All these--half of these pictures on the boards are their pictures. Half of them are their pictures. They spoke to Dr. Lee. Dr. de Forest sat down and went over this four hours with him on Friday. They spoke to him when he was in Indonesia. Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Goldberg have spoken to him on the telephone.

THE COURT: I'm not--counsel, I'm not interested in that. I just asked you a very simple question; what are you going to present? I'm not interested in hearing the argument. The reason for this is simple. I have to get my notes and review the transcript of our in camera hearing back in March--

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: --before I can rule on this. But my recollection right now is, I don't recollect that in camera hearing. So what I'm going to do is present Dr. Lee, we can go through his qualifications, the other generic stuff, and then we'll get to--I'll see.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'd like to go at least through the imprint evidence and I'll--there can't be an issue about that. Those pictures were turned over by their own version--

THE COURT: No. I heard a very distinct objection to the imprint evidence.

MR. SCHECK: I understand, but it's specious, and it's specious--

THE COURT: Well, counsel, I'm not listening to argument.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm just asking you what your agenda is because I'm not going to rule on the sanction request until I've had the opportunity to review my notes and review the transcript. I don't recollect this. And what's presented to me here by the Prosecution is a pile of reports and a list of dates that makes no sense to me. So I need to go through this and see what it is and compare it with my notes. This is another incoherent presentation. All right? But I'd like to use what part of the court day we can use, and that's what we're going to do.

MR. SCHECK: We'll go through the qualifications. We'll go through the basic theory. I'd like--well, I'll do what you want.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Only one factual point, if you permit me, just one; and that is the present state. If you're going to consider this in terms of the records as to these visits, I was there for a few of these. And Dr. Lee will examine something and one of our people examined something, Mr. Taggert or somebody or Mr. Wilson comes and they take a picture. They have all their criminalists there. So we're talking about the pictures and--

THE COURT: Counsel, you're arguing again.

MR. SCHECK: And I'd like to know this. We're in this bizarre position. We go, we get permission to look at the evidence in the middle of the trial. We finally get an opportunity to take pictures of it. We take the pictures, we turn over our pictures to them. Now, this happened with Dr. Blake. They have all of Dr. Blake's pictures, we have none of garrison's pictures--

THE COURT: Let's have the jury, please.

MR. SCHECK: They have all of our pictures.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, sit down. Sit down. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, could I just be heard briefly?

THE COURT: Nope.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there some way I can supplement the record, your Honor?

THE COURT: What part of no don't you understand? Let's have the jury, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Scheck, you may call your next witness.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the Defense calls Dr. Henry Lee.

DR. LEE: Good afternoon.

Henry C. Lee, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: 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?

DR. LEE: Yes, I do.

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

DR. LEE: Thank you. Henry C. Lee, L-E-E, Meriden, Connecticut.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you tell us what present position you hold?

DR. LEE: Currently, I'm the chief criminalist for state of Connecticut. Also, I'm the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory. However, today, I come here as a--act as an independent consultant, nothing to do with my official capacity.

MR. SCHECK: And, Dr. Lee, are you here by way of a subpoena?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, where were you born?

DR. LEE: Uh, I was born in china 1938, long time ago.

MR. SCHECK: And did there come a time when you left mainland china and went to Taiwan?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And is that--did you grow up in Taiwan?

DR. LEE: Uh, during the civil war--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: I'll get there in a second.

THE COURT: Proceed.

DR. LEE: During the civil war, my family left mainland china when I was seven years old. We went to Taiwan. My father passed away. My mother raised us up.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. SCHECK: Did you--what line of work did you--well, where did you get--you began your formal education in Taiwan?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And could you please describe that for us.

DR. LEE: I grow up in Taiwan. In 1957, I joined the police force, national police in Taiwan. I graduated from central police college in Taiwan in 1960. Subsequently, I become a police captain assigned in Taipei Police Department.

MR. SCHECK: And when you became a captain in the police department, did you develop then an interest in forensic science?

DR. LEE: Uh, yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And when you worked in the Taiwan Police Department, did you actually do cases?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Did you do crime scene investigation?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Did you do evidence comparison?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you interview people, suspect interrogations?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did there come a time around 1964 where you left Taiwan and went somewhere?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you tell us about that?

DR. LEE: Uh, I went to Malaysia. My wife, we met in college, we got married.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's not relevant.

THE COURT: Went to Malaysia. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And when you got to Malaysia in 1964, what occupation did you pursue?

DR. LEE: Uh, I working in newspaper.

MR. SCHECK: As what?

DR. LEE: As a--initial as a reporter and subsequently promoted as assistant editor, final editor of the paper.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In 1965, did you come to the United States?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And when you arrived at the United States, what kind of work did you pursue?

DR. LEE: Uh, I did a lot of jobs.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's really not relevant unless we're going to get into something forensic in nature.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I work in restaurant as a waiter and teach self-defense, kung fu, also gardening and to support myself to go through the school and my family.

MR. SCHECK: And while you were doing these jobs, did you attend the city university?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you attend an institution known as John J.?

DR. LEE: Yes. John J. College of Criminal Justice.

MR. SCHECK: And did you also work during this period of time as a lab technician?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And where was that?

DR. LEE: I work at NYU medical center as a lab technician.

MR. SCHECK: And did you receive a scholarship to go to John J. College of Criminal Justice?

DR. LEE: Yes. I received some financial aid from the school.

MR. SCHECK: And what--at that time--and this is around 1968?

DR. LEE: Between `70, something around `70, 1970.

MR. SCHECK: And what was this degree that John J. Was offering?

DR. LEE: Offer bachelor's in forensic science.

MR. SCHECK: And was that the only one then in the country or--

DR. LEE: That's one of the better known schools at that time.

MR. SCHECK: And at that time, did you meet a gentleman named Peter de Forest?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what was he?

DR. LEE: Dr. de Forest was my professor that time.

MR. SCHECK: And since that time, what has been your relationship with Dr. de Forest?

DR. LEE: We develop a very close friendship and worked together on numerous research project, work on couple books together. We become close friends.

MR. SCHECK: Now, has Dr. de Forest been hired as an expert by the Prosecution in this case?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And in the course--in preparing for your testimony here, have you had conversations with Dr. de Forest about what you were going to tell this jury?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you show him various boards and other things that you prepared for purposes of your testimony?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Did you discuss with him the details of exactly what you were going to testify to in front of this jury?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained at this point.

MR. SCHECK: All right. When did that--did you have an extensive conversation with him recently about your testimony?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained at this point.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you told us that you were working at--you got this degree in 1970 at John J. College for Criminal Justice. At that time, were you working at NYU?

DR. LEE: Yes. I'm still work full-time, goes to school at night.

MR. SCHECK: And were you--did you then pursue a degree at New York University?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And what was that?

DR. LEE: Uh, a master degree in biochemistry.

MR. SCHECK: And with whom were you working on your master's degree in biochemistry?

DR. LEE: Dr. Sylvia Lee Wang and Dr. Severo Ochoa.

MR. SCHECK: And did Dr. Ochoa--was he a Nobel Laureate in medical genetics?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And were you his lab technician?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Then in 1975, did you obtain a doctorate from New York University in biochemistry and molecular biology?

DR. LEE: Yes. I--in 1975, I receive my Ph.D. in biochemistry with a concentration in molecular biology.

MR. SCHECK: And at that time, did you then develop an affiliation with the University of New Haven?

DR. LEE: No. That's afterwards.

MR. SCHECK: Afterwards. Well, please explain how that occurred.

DR. LEE: Uh, I received my Ph.D.. Meanwhile, I'm still working at University--New York University medical center. Subsequently, I was promoted as research scientist. After receiving my Ph.D., I start exploring looking for other positions. In 1975, University New Haven offered me a position as assistant professor in forensic science.

MR. SCHECK: And did you then begin a program at the University of New Haven in forensic science?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And could you describe that?

DR. LEE: We--initially in 1975, we have a very small program, only few students. I'm the only faculty. Subsequently, in two years, I become associate professor, and another year, I become full professor, also the director of forensic science program. In meantime, we receive some grants and we develop a highly respect forensic science program. Now we have student come from all different state, other country. At the highest time--

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Narrative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: At the highest time, we have four full-time faculty, about a dozen part-time faculties.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in this program at the University of New Haven, starting in 1975, did you do work as--in criminal cases?

DR. LEE: Yes. We also start a forensic laboratory, a teaching research and casework laboratory. In 1975, I start assist public defender's office first, exam physical evidence, assist attorney with their cases. In 1976, I become a consultant for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory to assist them preparing a lot of cases, exam physical evidence.

MR. SCHECK: And in 1979, did your relationship to the Connecticut State Police change?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And how did that happen?

DR. LEE: At that time, late Governor Grasso offered me a position. And at that time, the police commissioner, Donald Long, and Colonel Rice persuaded me to join state police. So I took a salary cut, left university full-time, goes to police laboratory and become the first chief criminalist for the state of Connecticut.

MR. SCHECK: Was this a job that essentially was created for you, a position they created for you?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And in 1980, did you--was another position created?

DR. LEE: Uh, in 1980, we start develop the laboratory. When I joined the state police laboratory, we have 27 uniformed police officer and two sergeants, one lieutenant assigned to me, and the laboratory, little later, convert men's room, very little equipment. And so gradually, we built a laboratory. So formally, state passed a statute called state forensic laboratory. I was named the director of that laboratory.

MR. SCHECK: And what kind of facility do you have now in your laboratory?

DR. LEE: In this year, we just built a modern facility and the criminalistic section of my laboratory just move into the new facility.

MR. SCHECK: And how many Ph.D. scientists and sections do you have in your forensic laboratory in Connecticut?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: That's compound.

MR. SCHECK: All right. How many Ph.Ds work at your laboratory?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Right this moment, I have six Ph.Ds and one Md. work in my laboratory.

MR. SCHECK: How many scientists altogether?

DR. LEE: We have 36 forensic scientists. They all finished their terminal degree.

MR. SCHECK: How many different sections or areas do you have in the lab?

DR. LEE: We have 14 sections in two major divisions. Identification is one division, criminalistic is another division. I have total together, I have 14 sections including fingerprint, document, firearm, tool marks, imprints, of course serology, immunology, DNA, chemistry, arson, reconstruction, a full-service laboratory.

MR. SCHECK: And your laboratory handles cases in the state of Connecticut; is that right?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And for how many police departments do you handle cases?

DR. LEE: We serve all 174 police department in our state, 189 fire department and fire marshall's office in our state. In addition, of course, state police, we have 13 troops. Also, we serve other state, local, federal agency in Connecticut.

MR. SCHECK: Now, has your lab been asked by other states to come in and participate in investigations that are being conducted on a state or local level?

DR. LEE: Uh, our laboratory being asked to assist many other laboratory department, police department, sheriff department or fire department around the country and around the world to assist them in case investigation.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of the New England area, do you frequently get requests from those states?

DR. LEE: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, all the--of course, Massachusetts. All the New England states.

MR. SCHECK: And what about states outside the New England area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right now, what states do you have cases with?

DR. LEE: Uh, right now, personally, myself alone, I have about 370 active cases, just myself have to handle, including cases from Hawaii, including cases from New Mexico, cases from California, cases from New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and many other state.

MR. SCHECK: For example, in California, Mr. Clark, George Clark, from the San Diego area, are you doing something for the San Diego people?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound, irrelevant, unintelligible.

THE COURT: It is compound. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms--you mentioned California. What jurisdictions are you doing cases with in California?

DR. LEE: Umm, I'm just assist. I'm not in charge by all means investigate a case. Just some time, a sheriff department, some other time, a victim's family asking me to assist, a case currently in l--Los Angeles Sheriff Department, another case in San Francisco area.

MR. SCHECK: That's Alameda County?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Where Mr. Harmon is from?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what about San Diego as well?

DR. LEE: San Diego, we just finished a case.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you describe a little bit, how does it--what--are there three different ways that you would come to get a case? Could you please explain that to the jury?

DR. LEE: The cases--of course, the Connecticut cases is submit to us. Our major obligation, my major responsibility is state of Connecticut. However, when other state government or other police department ask for assistance--for example, one state governor ask our governor or another police commissioner ask my boss, the commissioner. So that's an official request and we assess the situation, we'll assist it. The second type request is come through university. I'm still teaching at university, and through the university, cases submit, we work on those cases. The third type of a cases is asking me personally as an independent consultant and sometime by family of the victim or family of the accused or the police department directly contact me or foreign government contact me. Usually, I assess, again, situation of state department or justice department, will look at my schedule whether or not can fit in. Of course, obviously I cannot do every case myself.

MR. SCHECK: You mentioned the federal government. Let's discuss a little bit your working relationship with the federal government. Do you have a working relationship with the forensic people at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

DR. LEE: Yes. They're very, very nice, good laboratory, highly respect in the field.

MR. SCHECK: And what is the nature of that relationship and how long has it gone on?

DR. LEE: Very long now. I used to be their chairman of researching committee. That's Asclad director and FBI research training center, a joint committee. I used to be the chairman of that committee. I taught for FBI academy for several times. Also, I took at least eight training courses of symposium offered by FBI, including different subject area.

MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the lectures at the FBI, have you lectured there in the area of crime scene reconstruction?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Trace evidence?

DR. LEE: Uh, basically in that nature. Not specifically in trace evidence.

MR. SCHECK: And also, with respect to your involvement with the federal government, have you ever been asked to do crime--forensic work for the defense department?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And could you explain a little about that?

DR. LEE: For example, a case happened in Korea. Enlist man was charged for rape, homicide, and I was asked by--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this really isn't relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: --by the trial advocate, the Judge, to look into the case.

MR. SCHECK: What about the Department of Justice of the United States government, the Federal Department of Justice? What role have you played with them in terms of forensic laboratories?

DR. LEE: Yes. I've been involved as a grant reviewer to review grants proposal, research proposal. Also, currently, I am serving committee call new technology, law enforcement. And also, once a while, when they have dispute, I being asked to review the casework, try to see the merit of this dispute.

MR. SCHECK: Again--now, recently, have you been asked to do something by Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who is investigating what is known as the Whitewater incident?

DR. LEE: Uh, by his assistant, Mark Tuohey, to look into death of Vincent Foster.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you can't discuss that?

DR. LEE: I cannot discuss that.

MR. SCHECK: But you have been asked to do that just recently?

DR. LEE: I cannot discuss the matter.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of work on an international level--well, I guess this is sort of a crossover--have the state department, Amnesty International, ever asked you to do any forensic investigation?

DR. LEE: Yes. Sometime, Amnesty International or American Care and other civic groups organization ask me to assist, to look into certain aspect of a case.

MR. SCHECK: And did one of these involve some nuns that were murdered in El Salvador a few years ago?

DR. LEE: Yes. My involvement is very limited. Just identification, grouping of some bone remain.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of international work, other countries, have you been asked to assist in cases in the Netherlands?

DR. LEE: Right this moment, yes, I have a case from Netherland.

MR. SCHECK: Brunei?

DR. LEE: Brunei involving homicide, some type homicide.

MR. SCHECK: Taiwan?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is that homicide case currently going on?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Canada?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is Canada frequently asked--Canadian authorities frequently ask you to assist them?

DR. LEE: We work closely sometime for the Defense, sometime for Prosecution.

MR. SCHECK: Germany?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Scotland Yard?

DR. LEE: We had a case before and we work with Scotland Yard.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have any involvements in identifying remains dealing with the unfortunate events in Croatia?

DR. LEE: Yes. And as matter of fact, probably this October, we'll have to go to Croatia.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the side that you're usually on in criminal cases in terms of percentages, what percentage of the time are you called by the Prosecution and what percentage of the time are you called by the Defense?

DR. LEE: Uh, approximately 95 percent is for the Prosecution, less than five percent for the Defense.

MR. SCHECK: And ordinarily, that's in your role as--in your position in Connecticut, the state of Connecticut?

DR. LEE: Matter of fact, state Connecticut almost 99 percent of time for Prosecution. Once in while, our funding involve exploratory type of physical evidence and Defense will ask me to testify.

MR. SCHECK: Now, when you're working for the Prosecution on cases in your laboratory in Connecticut, what are your policies with respect to letting experts hired by the Defense come to your laboratory and join in experiments and examine evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained at this point. This is establishing credentials for testimony. That's not relevant at this point.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the different areas that you have testified in as an expert for the Prosecution and Defense, just to get through it briefly, does that include hair examination?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Does it include enhancement and examination of footprint evidence?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Arson investigation?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Rape?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Homicide?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Trace evidence?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Crime scene reconstruction?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And something that's called blood spatter or blood splatter interpretation?

DR. LEE: It's blood pattern interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Doctor, I would like to turn for a second to your writings. How many books or monographs or chapters in textbooks have you written?

DR. LEE: Including books or booklet, monographs or chapter, more than 20, more than 20 now.

MR. SCHECK: Are some of these books used as textbooks in forensic science?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And I think we've had some reference to some of them here. One of them is a book called introduction to criminalistics?

DR. LEE: Yes. That book I co-authored with Dr. de Forest and Dr. Gaensslen.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is there another text known as physical evidence in forensic science?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is that one a bit more widely distributed?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Have you recently published books in china?

DR. LEE: Uh, my book was translated in different languages, including china, Korea and currently Mexico.

MR. SCHECK: You have a new book on crime scene investigation?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to the area of DNA, first of all, I believe--

MR. SCHECK: I don't know the exhibit number on this. I'm not sure if this is marked. May I mark this next in order? We'll conform it if we have to. This is the monograph.

THE COURT: I hate to have more than one of these things floating around.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Go ahead. Proceed. What's our next--1337. I just hate to have more than one of the same thing floating around.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, maybe we won't mark it. I'll just ask him about it and I'll substitute an exhibit number later.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Have you authored with Dr. Gaensslen and members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation a--what would you call this, a booklet or a monograph?

DR. LEE: Can I look at it?

(Brief pause.)

DR. LEE: Yes. This just a monograph I co-author with other people, Dr. Gaensslen, that my co-worker at the University New Haven and Dave Bigby and Jim Courney, they work in the FBI academy. We together put together this guideline of collection, preservation of DNA evidence.

MR. SCHECK: And so that--that deals with how to collect DNA evidence at crime scenes?

DR. LEE: That's not the book. Just a monograph.

MR. SCHECK: And was that later published in substantial form in a journal?

DR. LEE: Yes. This paper subsequently was published in two different journals.

MR. SCHECK: Now, there's an organization known as Twgdam. What's that?

DR. LEE: Uh, Twgdam, that's a technical working group on forensic application of DNA. That's FBI and the crime laboratory community put together, try to set up the guideline to improve the DNA testing services, application for forensic usage.

MR. SCHECK: And did you also serve on a commission put together by the office of technology assessment?

DR. LEE: Yes. That's a part of the--under the congress. Uh, I was a member of that DNA committee.

MR. SCHECK: And are you at--did you--withdrawn. There's a book that we've discussed at some length during this trial known as DNA technology in forensic science, and that is a report of the national research council of the national academy of science. Are you familiar with it?

DR. LEE: Uh, I know about it. I don't remember everything in the book.

MR. SCHECK: Are you one of the authors of that report?

DR. LEE: I'm one of the committee members.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Not responsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you signed it and at the time that it was out, it was produced, you read it?

DR. LEE: We're one of the committee member. So there are couple committee member work on it.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of your work as an editor, have you served as an editor of any journals in the area of forensic science?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What are they?

DR. LEE: I used to be on editorial board for nine different journals, but I just don't have enough time anymore. Currently, I serve on Journal Forensic Science. That's official publication of Academy of Forensic Science. Journal of Forensic Identification, that's the official publication for International Association of Identification. Also, I'm an editor for Forensic Review, and that was published by Taiwan Central Police College and the University Alabama. It's a review journal. And also, I'm an editor for Journal of American Pathology.

MR. SCHECK: What is the American--what is that Journal of American Forensic Pathology?

DR. LEE: That's a journal basically dealing with forensic medicine and forensic science.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if we could turn briefly to your teaching. You've indicated that you still have a position at the University of New Haven?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And are there other institutions where you have either had part-time affiliation or been asked to give lectures?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what are they?

DR. LEE: Currently, I'm an agent professor at Central Connecticut University. And also, I team teach with some judges at University Connecticut law school. Also, I give lecture at Yale law school and some other medical school and also involved--I was involved in teaching at Northeastern University, John J. College of Criminal Justice, Bridgeport University, Western Connecticut University and numerous other higher education.

MR. SCHECK: People's University in Beijing?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Have you been asked to give lectures to--at medical schools?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Police--

DR. LEE: Medical school, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Police academies?

DR. LEE: And police academy from almost every state in the country.

MR. SCHECK: National District Attorneys' associations?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Public defender's groups?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are you asked to give lectures at international meetings of police investigators?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes. I was asked to talk to international group police organization, forensic scientists, medical examiners, sometimes judges' meeting, all different variety of professional organization.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let's talk briefly about the professional associations where you're a member. What professional associations are you a member of and that you're active in?

DR. LEE: Approximately 20 some different professional organization. Most are dealing with forensic science. To name a few, Academy of--American Academy of Forensic Science, England Forensic Society, England Fingerprint Society, International Association of Identification, International Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Association, International Homicide Detectives Investigators' Association and Northeastern Forensic Scientist Association, of course American Crime Laboratory Directors Association and some other organization.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn for--briefly to the International Association of Identification. What is this group involved in? What kinds of things do they focus on?

DR. LEE: This probably the largest body, an international organization to promote new technique in identification involving education, training of their members. It's a very active group involving fingerprint, footprint, voice analysis, document examination, any technique and--such as crime scene investigation, all encompassed by that organization.

MR. SCHECK: And do they have a certification program for crime scene analysts?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And what are the different steps in that program?

DR. LEE: If I remember correctly, they have a basic crime scene technician level, intermediate level, then have a senior crime scene analyst level.

MR. SCHECK: Do you teach in that certification program and serve as an advisor to the committee that sets the standards for certification?

DR. LEE: I'm a member--was a member or still am member I guess. I don't know what my status now in the committee, but I was advisor for that certification program. Also helped them review the testing question.

MR. SCHECK: Now, does the International Association of Identification--they have different kinds of memberships; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And is there something known as a distinguished member?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are there--is that something that you have to be nominated to achieve?

DR. LEE: Yes. Nominated and--by the board and review your qualification. It's a peer group review. It's honor basically. They award you for your compliments and your contribution in forensic identification.

MR. SCHECK: And in this international association, are there less than 10 distinguished members?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are you one of them?

DR. LEE: Yes. I'm one of that--it's very dear to me and means a lot.

MR. SCHECK: And there's also an award that is given by the International Association of Identification known as the Denaro award?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And I think that Professor MacDonell talked a little bit about this one and who received it, but is this the highest award given by this organization?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you receive that, the so-called Denaro award?

DR. LEE: Yes, I did receive.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to the American Academy of Forensic Science. Could you tell us what that organization is?

DR. LEE: American--American Academy of Forensic Science, that's the highest forensic professional organization in the United States. However, its membership is not limit to the forensic scientists from United States. We have international membership. So become almost international body. And that's the largest forensic gathering every year, exchange new information, have excellent scientific program. We discuss our research, casework and it's a promotion of forensic science as a profession.

MR. SCHECK: And does the American Academy of Forensic Science have different membership classes, provincial members, members, fellows and some--a class of people known as distinguished fellows?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And are you one of those distinguished fellows?

DR. LEE: I'm one of the few receive distinguished medallion, and that's--again, it's a great Honor to give it to you by your peer. It's not like other award. It's a peer recognition.

MR. SCHECK: And in addition to that, is there something known as the distinguished criminalist award?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So--and is this an award given by the American Academy of Forensic Science?

DR. LEE: Yes. Criminalistic section, yes.

MR. SCHECK: The criminalistic section. And is that the highest award that the criminalistic section gives?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you receive that?

DR. LEE: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I hate to--

MR. GOLDBERG: Object to counsel's editorial.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you the only person that has received both the Denaro award from the international group and the distinguished criminal award from the American Academy of Forensic Scientists?

DR. LEE: Well, it's distinguished criminalist, not distinguished criminal.

MR. SCHECK: Did I say that?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: My apologies.

DR. LEE: Distinguished criminalist award. At this moment, I'm the only one. I'm sure in the future, a lot of young men, young women will definitely receive those award.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. I think that--I think you mentioned that you're--well, you're regional vice president of International Association of Bloodstain Analysts.

DR. LEE: I was.

MR. SCHECK: A member and advisor to the International Homicide Investigators Association?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Let's talk a little bit about what's known as Asclad or the--what does that stand for exactly?

DR. LEE: American society of crime laboratory directors.

MR. SCHECK: And what is that organization?

DR. LEE: This is an organization for the laboratory director. There are 391 crime laboratory in the country. So we have an organization. Every year, usually FBI hosts a meeting in FBI academy. We together exchange information about laboratory management, how to improve the forensic services to our user group and how can we develop forensic science as a true profession. It's non-bias type of profession.

MR. SCHECK: And are you a--on the issue of accreditation, are you an inspector that goes out and accredits laboratories?

DR. LEE: Yes. I was one of the early inspector for accreditation team.

MR. SCHECK: Do you believe accreditation is important?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is your laboratory presently accredited by Asclad?

DR. LEE: No, it's not.

MR. SCHECK: Why not?

DR. LEE: Our laboratory will have the limitation as our physical building. We're working in a dorm, converted laboratory. We don't have safety shower, emergency exits, and a lot of stuff violate OSHA regulation. So obviously our physical plan will not pass. However, our new laboratory just built, half of us already--we're already move in, and our Governor Roland and the legislature very supportive to have a second phase to build. Once that complete, we're going to definitely apply for accreditation.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Greg Matheson testified about--we've had some testimony about a group known as the American Board of Criminalists.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with that group?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you tell the jury what that is?

DR. LEE: Uh, this is a group to certify criminalists, have a certification program in the forensic criminalistic area.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are you certified?

DR. LEE: No, I'm not certified by that group.

MR. SCHECK: Well, why not?

DR. LEE: Uh, it's a history. Long time ago, National Institute of Justice, justice department first develop this program, I'm one of the peer reviewer, develop questions to test other people in the country. That's in 19--late 70's or early 80's. Subsequently, this American Criminalist Board of Certification established, was one of the board members. And also, I reviewed the question, test the question, so-called pretest. So if I took the--know what's on the test, I feel not fair for me to take the test again. It's not fair, you know, you already know the questions. So that's why I did not take the test.

MR. SCHECK: And I take it that--last question in these areas. From just walking around your office, it appears that--do you receive like hundreds of appreciation awards from police departments and crime labs around the country for your work with them?

DR. LEE: It's approximately 400 different commendations, citations, certifications, award from all over the country and all over the world.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, how is it that you got involved in this case?

DR. LEE: This case, in June 14, I receive a phone call from attorney Shapiro, Bob Shapiro, asking me to assist in this case.

MR. SCHECK: And at that time, did you contact anyone in the Los Angeles Police Department or the SID about contributing your services in the investigation?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, did you ask for an opportunity to have access to evidence as it was being tested by anybody at the SID to participate in that process?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I did call LAPD laboratory. I know some scientists there. We're good friends, and I did call the lab director, Michelle Kestler. As she was busy, we talked briefly, and subsequently she asked me to talk to Greg Matheson.

MR. SCHECK: And did you speak to him?

DR. LEE: Yes. He's a very nice gentleman and good scientist. I talk to him, but I know he's concerned and reservation. We had a brief discussion. Basically I have to go through the attorneys.

MR. GOLDBERG: At this time, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. SCHECK: Well, without telling us the content of the communication, were you directed to go through the attorneys in terms of your offer and desire to get access to the information?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay and it's also leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to policies in your own laboratory concerning Defense experts, when you were working with the Prosecution in investigating evidence as it comes in in a case, what is your policy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Irrelevant. Same objection from this morning.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Could we discuss this at another time?

THE COURT: It's not likely. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, do you have a regular fee for consultations?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what is it?

DR. LEE: Uh, I have a regular fee. Basically is $300 per hour, my service.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And did you charge a regular fee in this case?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: What--do you--are you receiving any money personally for the work you did in this case?

DR. LEE: Only reimburse my traveling expenses.

MR. SCHECK: Was there--is there other money that is being given by Mr. Simpson for other purposes?

DR. LEE: Yes. Requested donation--

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: A request in lieu the consultation fee, half of the consultation fee--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

DR. LEE: --donate to--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Where the compensation is going? Overruled.

DR. LEE: Half of the--half of the compensation goes to University New Haven, have a scholarship fund for law enforcement officer, workshops or young students want to major forensic science. The other half goes to Department of Public Safety for the training, equipment, laboratory services.

MR. SCHECK: Now--and how much money to this point has been donated to these two--the University of New Haven and the Connecticut Police lab?

DR. LEE: Approximately--I don't remember exactly. The check just go direct. I just sign it. I don't want to look at it. It just goes to university. Approximately 25,000 each institution.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what were you asked to do in terms of this case for the Defense? What tasks were you asked to perform? What areas?

DR. LEE: Uh, basically involving review some physical evidence and exam, study the crime scene and crime scene pictures, photographs, try to find the scientific fact, what involved in this case. So my role is rather limited, not really involving other aspect of investigation. In addition, when the time I was called in, the crime scene already almost nonexist. So my involvement just so-called a limit review of the crime scene photographs and crime scene inspection. Physical evidence, that's my strength. I exam quite a few pieces physical evidence.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review the DNA evidence in this case, all the hybridization strips and autorads and everything that came out of LAPD, the Department of Justice and cellmark?

DR. LEE: No, I did not.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, what is forensic science?

DR. LEE: Forensic science is a general term, encompass a variety of professions. We basically apply the nature science to the matter of law, which encompass, for example, forensic medicine, pathology, forensic odontology--that's forensic dentistry--forensic anthropology, of course criminalistics.

MR. SCHECK: What is criminalistics?

DR. LEE: Criminalistics is a narrow field of the forensic science. In criminalistics, a criminalist is a person working criminalistic field, which we deal with scientific evidence, physical evidence. We deal with crime scene patterns, crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction. We study hairs, fibers, footprint, fingerprint, blood, DNA, variety of physical objects. Also, we're dealing with other so-called trace evidence, gloves, soil, metal, plastic, sometime hair fiber also list as trace evidence. We in addition also look at, for example, rape, seminal evidence, fire accelerant. Let's say building collapse. We look at construction. And if airplane fall down, we have to go there, look at body remain, try to identify and hopefully can assist to identify the cause.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the term "Crime scene reconstruction," would it be fair to say that after looking at as much evidence as you can, crime scene reconstruction would involve trying to figure out what happened, how it happened and the sequence of events?

DR. LEE: Uh, yes. In certain aspect, you're absolute correct. Crime scene reconstruction, just basically based on the physical evidence, result of study of physical evidence, analysis of physical evidence and crime scene study, try to put the piece of puzzle together to determine when it happened, how did it happen, what did happen, where it happen. So called six W, and of course, try to answer certain aspect of sequence of event.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are there degrees of reconstruction, complete versus partial and limited?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, were you able to do a complete crime scene reconstruction in this case?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Why not?

DR. LEE: I cannot make a complete reconstruction for this case.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll object getting into anything behind his qualifications at this point.

THE COURT: Actually we're going to take a recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a brief recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We'll be in recess for 15 minutes. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down. Return in 15, please.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, in our discussions about the discovery issues earlier this afternoon, I was trying to rack my brain to recollect the occurrences during the 1054.07 hearing that Mr. Blasier reminds the court that we did conduct with regards to a substantial number of the issues here. I have just received from my court reporters a transcript of that proceeding--of one of those proceedings--and apparently my recollection is now refreshed that we had three such in camera hearings within days of that particular hearing. I have not had the opportunity over the break to even--it is literally hot from the photocopier, so I have not had the opportunity to read this or refresh my recollection as to my discussions with Mr. Blasier with regards to this 1054.07. There are also two other transcripts that are being produced right now. So the problem I have is I'm not in a position to rule on discovery sanctions as to any of these items until I've had the opportunity to completely refresh my recollection by reading the transcript of the previous hearing.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, also the memo I referred to was also submitted to you at that time. I have it on my computer. I will fax another copy to the court, but it should be in the file. I submitted to you copies.

THE COURT: Here is the problem, counsel. It might have occurred to both parties here, that I have been concentrating a hundred percent of my efforts on another issue so--but since we have this witness here, I'm now going to stop my work on Fuhrman and turn all of my staff's attention to this issue, because I've got to go through now this stack of reports and correlate it with the in camera offer, because quite frankly, this happened in March and I have no independent recollection of what occurred then.

MR. BLASIER: Sure. I just want to make sure that you were aware of everything that was submitted, because there was also copies of reports with excerpts that were turned over that were provided to you in sealed envelopes that you should have somewhere back there.

THE COURT: I know I have a package of all sorts of things. The problem is the issue is when do you have the time to sit down and look at all this stuff? That is the issue. All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may I just inquire? We did not know about the in camera hearing. At this point can the People also have access to the transcript, since presumably if Mr. Blasier's representation is that the materials that were discussed herein were discussed then, I think that we would be entitled to it now since they have been disclosed to us anyway, if that is indeed the case.

THE COURT: You know, I don't know of any precedents regarding disclosure of 1054.07 hearings in the course of trial. Frankly, I have never heard of it. That doesn't say I won't do it, but I have just never heard of it before. Of course there are a lot of things I have never heard of before, so we are sort of at a dilemma here, counsel. I haven't had time to read this. It was just given to me.

MR. SCHECK: I have two proposals.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, I'm proposing to quit at 5:30 today.

MR. SCHECK: I understand.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: There are two areas that I would like to get into that I will just demonstrate what they are to the court. I have described them to Mr. Goldberg. He knows what this testimony is going to be from other sources anyhow.

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

THE COURT: I am listening to Mr. Scheck, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

THE COURT: One issue that we wanted to go into was the next logical step, just talking about steps in forensic examination. Now, this will involve what was done at the crime scene here in terms of recognizing evidence, some discussion of that.

THE COURT: I get the point.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: Let me ask Mr. Goldberg, do you have any objection to the basic suggestion of criminalistics?

MR. GOLDBERG: I told Mr. Scheck that if it was simply a generic discussion such as certain portions of the testimony that we heard yesterday, that I couldn't object on discovery grounds, but if he is going to then relate it back to the physical evidence in this case and his examination of what he saw of that evidence and what he didn't see and what he looked for and so on and so forth and what he saw in the photographs and the like and correlate this to his investigation, or some larger issue, that that does present the same discovery problem.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I mean what we intend to get into is his assessment of what they looked for at the crime scene, what they preserved, how they documented, how they collected it and how that affects the inability to do a complete reconstruction. We are going to be talking about the facts of the case. We are very eager to talk about the facts of this case, but I can't--

THE COURT: This is similar to what we heard from Mr. Ragle yesterday?

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think it is--it is similar, but I think it is more pointed because it is going to be going into the specifics. Dr. Lee, as you can see, is going to be talking about nothing but evidence, physical evidence, in his assessment of it and what we think are scientific facts and some matters of interpretation.

THE COURT: You didn't answer my question. My question to you is is this the same stuff that we heard--isn't this chart exactly what we heard from Mr. Ragle yesterday only in different order?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it is Dr. Lee's approach to it. It is similar. I'm not saying it isn't similar, but it is his approach. It is not that long. But it is what he need to explain why he couldn't do a complete reconstruction and to explain exactly what he could assess and what he couldn't assess and what his problems are with the way they preserved, documented and collected things.

THE COURT: All right. What is after this?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: What is after that?

MR. SCHECK: And then after that what I wanted to do is go directly to the issue of imprint evidence at Bundy, and the bottom three photographs here that deal with pictures that he took on June 25th that were turned over to the Prosecution a long time ago, the upper left-hand photo--the bottom photograph over here is one of their pictures. The jeans are jeans--a photograph taken of Goldman's jeans I believe at--in Albany, but they went and took the same photographs. They have their own photograph of that. And then the next two pictures are the envelope and the piece of paper which are their pictures. After that, your Honor, are just their pictures. That is an imprint on the piece of paper and a close-up of that, (Indicating), and the imprint on the envelope and a close-up of that, (Indicating). And then we also have, as I have shown Mr. Goldberg, these boards. We have larger blow-ups of these pictures. This picture is this one. This picture is this one. We will do a blow-up on the elmo of their own picture. And then for this other board we have another larger version of this piece of paper and another blow-up of their picture of the envelope, so basically we are dealing with their pictures and a set of materials that were turned over to them a long time ago.

THE COURT: All right. Where--

MR. SCHECK: My alternative--I think we should be allowed to do all of this under any ruling or anything conceivable to me in terms of discovery issues, but if--and this is the order in which we plan it--if worse comes to worse we will just do their pictures on imprint evidence at Bundy. But I mean, I see no reason, given these photographs, that they are their photographs and they received them months ago in March, they receive these photographs of the footprints. The imprint evidence--

THE COURT: How about the notes with regards to those?

MR. SCHECK: They received those, too.

THE COURT: In March?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I don't know. He should talk to that.

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure, Judge, I have all of that what we turned over and what was not turned over as do you. I'm not positive about whether notes about throws pictures were turned over, but the pictures were.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure that anything was done other than just take the picture.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, as to the first board which we've already discussed briefly, Mr. Scheck's proffer is to--by the way, may I have permission to stand here?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Scheck's proffer is not specific enough for me to be able to say whether or not we object. Obviously a very generic description may be appropriate. It may not get us into any areas where there are discovery violations, but I have a feeling he is probably intending on doing more than that, and it may be difficult for the court to rule on a question by question basis because the court hasn't had the opportunity to completely familiarize itself with this issue. As to the charts, we didn't discuss these because I didn't think we were going to get to them yet, but we had some objections to all the charts in terms of the word "Evidence." Because many of the things described, not so much on these charts, but some of the others more particularly, such as with respect to Ron Goldman's jeans, may or may not be evidence. I think it is going to be for the jury to decide, because there are possible impressions on the jeans and we can't even be sure that they are impressions. In many other cases the probative value of the evidence, if any, is concededly non-existent.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg let me ask you this, though--

MR. GOLDBERG: As to the discovery, I wanted to get into that, too.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All counsel is talking about is when we had the photos. First of all, if you look at the close-up photo of the imprint on the envelope, that photo we received on the 3rd of this month. This--and what they are doing is they are linking this photo, and also the close-up of it, in with the rest of this entire board as to this imprint evidence. And we didn't receive any documentation as to the significance of an analysis and interpretation that Dr. Lee rendered. I mean, he is a forensic scientist. He doesn't just look at photos and say here is a photo. He gives an opinion, he undertakes an evaluation, and he expresses that as an expert to a jury, and that is what he is going to do.

THE COURT: All right. Where in this pile of reports that you gave me is the report regarding this particular item?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this particular item the--the eyeglass envelope is probably going to be referred to in a number of different piles of documents, because they refer to it more than once. But let me see if I can find the specific one, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, did you prepare--did you or your law clerks prepare a chart to search one of these issues and cross reference it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the only thing that would be practical for us to do, your Honor, we will do as much as we possibly can at the court's direction. Would the court like us to take their charts and for the items of evidence on their charts begin to cross-reference them?

MR. SCHECK: I can--

MR. GOLDBERG: Because we can do that, but there are many other items that Dr. Lee may be testifying to that are not on the charts.

THE COURT: Well, my question right now is can you proceed with this one chart marked 3 of 3 "Imprint evidence at Bundy" and the steps in forensic examination? Can you start with at least those two charts today?

MR. GOLDBERG: Imprint evidence at Bundy?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

MR. GOLDBERG: Because this was one of the key ones and the most important ones that we objected to. We did not find out in discovery that they were claiming there was an imprint on the eyeglass envelope until this month.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think that Dr. Lee's report indicates it, but more to the point, here is the notes that were turned over on March 24th which describe these imprint--imprints found at Bundy by Dr. Lee. So it seems to me that what we are talking about on this first board are two pictures that they've had since March, notes concerning those pictures that they've had since March, with little diagrams of the pattern, if the court sees, their own picture from June 13, a picture of the jeans which they took--they saw themselves and they have had in their possession for all this time, and when we took a picture of it, their people were taking a picture of it, and then it is their own--everything else is their own pictures here. And it seems to me that what Mr. Goldberg is saying is they have an opportunity to have their own reconstruction experts, and they've had them, look at the same photographs, do close-ups, look at the same imprint evidence and draw their own conclusions. Basically this is Dr. Lee's interpretation of scientific fact. He has issued a report about it. All these raw materials and the notes have been long available.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this is the point, your Honor, just to drive it home. We had a witness by the name of William Bodziak testify on shoeprints. If the court--the court recalls his testimony, he really didn't do anything except take all of the crime scene photographs that the Defense had access to for months and months and put overlays on them and then he generated a report regarding his findings. If I stood here and said, well, Judge, I don't need to give them the report from Bodziak as to his findings because they had the same--the same photographs for months, they had the crime scene photographs--

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, hold on. Mr. Scheck, the report that you handed me which appears to be dated 6/25/94 does not include any observations regarding prints on the envelope that I can see here.

MR. GOLDBERG: It doesn't.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, no. That deals with the--the--the parallel line imprints on the walkway at Bundy. That is what I was--

THE COURT: I'm asking about chart 3 of 3 here, imprints on the envelopes. I'm trying to get something in front of the jury right now is what I'm trying to do.

MR. SCHECK: I understand. Well--

THE COURT: Would you help me? Would you tell me what report this is mentioned in?

MR. SCHECK: These, (Indicating)?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, it is mentioned certainly in his final report and these are their pictures. I mean, I'm at a loss.

THE COURT: No. Answer my question. Which report mentions the imprints, the finding of imprints on these two items on your board 3 of 3? Just tell me which report.

MR. SCHECK: It is in Dr. Lee's final report and also--

THE COURT: Which is dated what date?

MR. SCHECK: July 15th.

THE COURT: I don't think I have--all right. I don't think I have a copy of that.

MR. SCHECK: Oh.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, did you provide me a copy of that?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, I didn't--will I? Yes, I will.

THE COURT: All right. In Dr. Lee's notes where are the observations regarding these?

MR. SCHECK: In Dr. Lee's report of July 15th?

THE COURT: No, in his notes. Not in his report; his notes.

MR. SCHECK: His notes there is also observations of the imprint on the envelope on--from the Albany inspection on February 17th to 19th. There is also reference to the March 4th, 1995, visit to the LAPD crime lab where we examined the envelope, pictures were taken and Mr. Matheson and--was there. In fact, Mr. Bodziak I believe talks about imprints on the envelopes in his own reports. They were standing there while we took these pictures and made these observations. That is why I'm having trouble with all this. I thought that--

THE COURT: All right. So what is Mr.--all right. What is the date on Dr. Lee's final report?

MR. GOLDBERG: The date on Dr. Lee's final report is--

MR. SCHECK: July 15th.

THE COURT: When was that turned over?

MR. GOLDBERG: July 17th, but the point is, is that the notes were--weren't turned over until the 8th of this month.

THE COURT: Do the notes include an opinion that these are imprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: I--I believe that they do, and there may be a sketch and I would have to go through. I mean, the point is, your Honor, this gets us right into the heart of the discovery dispute.

THE COURT: Well, here is the issue, though. Do you have the evidence in front of you? Are you aware of it? The answer is yes. It is the Prosecution's evidence and the Prosecution's agency that collected it. Are Dr. Lee's opinions that he is going to testify included in his report dated in mid-July that was given to the Prosecution mid-July? Apparently the answer to that question is yes. That envelope and that--apparently that piece of paper, my recollection is, that nobody bothered to pick it up, so it is off somewhere who knows where. The issue is then what is fair at this point? If Dr. Lee's observations were--and final report was made available to the Prosecution in a timely manner, which it appears to be within days of the completion of the report, then I can't find a violation at this point and I'm not inclined to do that. Preliminarily I'm going to say that the Defense can use this board today with the jury. Let's proceed.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Let's have the jury, please.

MR. SCHECK: Oh. In that same regard, your Honor--

THE COURT: No.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Henry Lee is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Mr. Scheck. We will continue for another half hour.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to visit the Bundy scene on June 25th?

DR. LEE: 1994, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And before you went there were you able to look at some pictures that had been taken of the crime scene?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And what is the difference between a crime scene investigation and a crime scene inspection?

DR. LEE: A crime scene investigation involve more library type investigative procedure start from the beginning step-by-step to the end, usually involving an original scene or well-protected scene. A crime scene inspection usually for a limit purpose for certain specific reason usually not involve a lengthy process.

MR. SCHECK: Were you able to do a crime scene investigation at Bundy?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Why not?

DR. LEE: I arrive Bundy scene at 6:40 June 25th, 1994. My instruction is have to be complete before seven o'clock, so you only have 20 minute. In addition, that is not an original crime scene any more, already processed evidence, evidence already picked up, so I only can do a limit inspection, which is limit amount of specific purpose, not to do a complete reconstruction or a complete investigation.

MR. SCHECK: Was one of your purposes in going to Bundy to look for imprint evidence?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Your Honor, I would like to bring out a board.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Ask that this be board be marked next in order.

THE COURT: 1337.

(Deft's 1337 for id = posterboard)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you describe for us, please, what an impression is and what an imprint is.

DR. LEE: An impression is a three-dimensional representation, an object, leave an indentation, have the width, length and depth. For example, a footprint in snow, a tire track on the beach sand or a soft soil surface. Another good example, a bullet fires through a gun, the land and groove left an impression on the bullet, those call impression. Imprint is a two-dimensional representation only of the length and width, but no depth. For example, footprint left on a hard surface, such as walkway, hardwood floor, piece of paper; we don't have the depth, only have the length and width. A fingerprint left on a surface, a wood surface, that is another imprint; however, if a fingerprint left in soft material, putty or fresh paint, now you have an indentation. An imprint not limit to shoes, foot; can be fingerprint, can be ear print, can be lip, sometime people have big nose, can have a nose print, so variety of imprints evidence which a criminalist can find at the crime scene. We generally look at width, length and depth, determine that is an impression or an imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Now, were you able at your trip to Bundy on June 25th to identify certain imprint evidence in the walkway?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And could you please come down and point out to the jury where those were, and as you do that, I would like to mark two other--

MR. HARRIS: 38 and 39.

MR. SCHECK: Board or mini board we will call them, photographs, and I would like to make them a and B.

THE COURT: All right.

DR. LEE: Your Honor, may I step down.

THE COURT: Yes, you may. Mr. Scheck, which board do you have up there?

MR. SCHECK: We have 1557 up there.

MR. HARRIS: 1337.

THE COURT: What is the title of the board and what number?

MR. SCHECK: It is 1337. It is entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy,".

THE COURT: What number? 1 of 3?

MR. SCHECK: It is marked 1 of 3.

THE COURT: 1 of 3.

MR. SCHECK: And I would like to mark as 1337-A a blown-up photograph of the photograph that is in the bottom right-hand corner of this exhibit, and I would like to mark as 1337-B another blow-up of the middle photograph at the bottom of the board entitled "Walkway, 6/24--6/25/94."

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, there are no victim's remains on this board, correct?

MR. SCHECK: There are none.

THE COURT: Mr. Bancroft, may I see this, please.

(Brief pause.)

(Deft's 1337-A for id = blow-up photo)

(Deft's 1337-B for id = blow-up photo)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I don't--I thought we were going to do another one.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, could you please describe what it is you found on the walkway on June 25th.

DR. LEE: On June 25th, 1994, I arrive at Bundy. I found quite a few imprint evidence which consistent with footwear imprint. The majority have a specific pattern. Later was identify to be consistent with Bruno Magli type of shoe wear. In addition to those shoe wear evidence, I notice some--a different design, a parallel line design type of pattern, (Indicating). Subsequently I photographically document those and with a scale to demonstrate the existence of such imprint evidence.

MR. SCHECK: Are the photographs of 1337-A and 1337-B blow-ups of the photographs that are on the board 1337?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Could you, I guess starting with 1337-A and then moving to B and then moving to 1337-A, identify this parallel line imprint pattern you've described and indicate where it is on the board diagram and on the larger diagram? Photographs, I'm sorry

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

DR. LEE: In this small picture, (Indicating), labeled "Walkway June 25th, `94." The center photograph of lower set of picture, this one consistent with a heel print, consistent with A, subsequently agent Bodziak identify that is a Bruno Magli. Adjacent to that have a series of parallel line, (Indicating), of another imprint, have same type of appearance, (Indicating). This large photograph which shows this parallel line design, this Bruno Magli, in addition have some wiggly line pattern, but this parallel line shows a series linear design that is consistent with an imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you draw a circle around using a blue pen, the imprint--parallel line imprint that you are talking about?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, moving to the photograph on the bottom right of the board and the larger blow-up, 1337-A, could you describe what is on those photographs and their relationship to the one you've just discussed.

DR. LEE: This imprint was found in the middle row of no. 10 tile on the walkway, start from the first staircase, you counting the no. 10 tiles, have consistent with again parallel line design and this one is more complete, its pattern resembling on a shoe, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Could you--possible to identify here on 1337-A the design that you say is a parallel line imprint pattern that is--resembles a shoe?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, turning to the bottom left-hand photograph here, what is this?

DR. LEE: This is a photograph submit to me by attorney Shapiro, is a photograph took by LAPD photographer. I did not receive a photo log tell me which picture from where.

MR. GOLDBERG: Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. What is the significance--did you receive a photo log?

DR. LEE: No, I did not.

MR. SCHECK: Were you able to tell which pictures were taken in which order?

DR. LEE: I cannot make such determination.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you able to place where this photograph comes from in terms of the tiles on the walkway?

DR. LEE: Somewhere along the tile, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: All right. Would it assist you if I put this picture on the elmo in terms of being able to identify where the parallel line imprint is on this picture?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: There is a parallel line imprint on the picture taken on June 13th by the Los Angeles Police Department that is consistent with the other parallel line imprints you found on June 25th?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Harris, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Oh, could we mark this print 1337-C?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Deft's 1137-C for id = photograph)

THE COURT: This is the lower left-hand photograph.

MR. SCHECK: That's correct, your Honor. Thank you.

DR. LEE: Lower left.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, I know that we worked a little bit with the point maker. Could you please direct Mr. Harris and show the jury.

DR. LEE: This only a small portion area.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, Deirdra.

MR. SCHECK: I will do it.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

DR. LEE: Along this area, (Indicating). I'm not too good in drawing this. Is consistent a series of linear formation. It is a very small portion of imprint evidence.

MR. SCHECK: Could we--could you put "HLC" in the upper left-hand corner and we will print that out. Mr. Harris will do that, actually.

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: That is good.

DR. LEE: Okay. You do it again.

(Brief pause.)

DR. LEE: That is not my initial, HLC.

MR. HARRIS: I thought you said "HLC."

MR. SCHECK: Did I say "HLC"? My apologies.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you mentioned before impressions.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are there techniques available for recognizing, preserving and documenting shoe impressions in soil?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is the area depicted in the middle of this diagram that represents the closed-in area--you are familiar with that?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is the soil in that area the kind of surface where one could--a forensic scientist could recognize, and if it were present, do something to preserve a shoe impression?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What would one do?

DR. LEE: Generally we rely two technique: One photographic technique with a scale. Second called casting. Generally we rely on plaster of Paris, which is the stuff we put on the wall; however, we use much better quality. Generally prefer the dental stuff to make a cast, and that is a method commonly used for preserve a three-dimensional impression evidence.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are there techniques that you could have used on June 25th, 1994, to enhance the lines that you saw on the ground?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What techniques are those?

DR. LEE: We can use chemical technique or instrument, two methods: The chemical technique more effective. We could tetramethyl benzedine spray or orthrotolidine spray which will make a contrast react with the surface, especially contents blood or heat and reaction which shows up vividly in blue color.

MR. SCHECK: Were you--are those kinds of enhancement procedures essentially destructive of the imprints?

DR. LEE: No. It--you enhance the imprint evidence.

MR. SCHECK: But did you perform those on that day?

DR. LEE: No, I did not.

MR. SCHECK: And why not?

DR. LEE: The order is very strict. I only can photograph, measure and do simple tests, cannot add too many chemical or remove the whole walkway.

MR. SCHECK: I would like to move now to a--what would be called 1338.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And this is which number on the top right?

MR. SCHECK: It is marked "Imprint evidence at Bundy."

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: "Imprint evidence at Bundy," 3 of 3.

THE COURT: 3 of 3.

(Deft's 1338 for id = posterboard)

MR. SCHECK: And then we are going to do 2 of 3 eventually.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, what are the photographs on this particular board?

DR. LEE: This board consists of four photographs, four pictures.

THE COURT: All right. Hold on, Mr. Scheck. Are there any victims' remains on this matter?

MR. SCHECK: No.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, may I see this, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

DR. LEE: Consist of four pictures. The top two is original crime scene photograph provide to me by attorney Shapiro. The lower two photographs is a close-up to demonstrate certain area on those material present at the scene, which namely on the left-hand side one is a piece of paper. We say irregular shape, some bloodstain was observed on it. On the right-hand side is an envelope approximately four-inch by nine-inch in size with a number plate 104. That is again have some bloodstain material on the envelope. In a close inspection of this envelope and this piece of paper, I discover this imprint like pattern exist on the paper. Those imprint have similar linear design and those imprint make in blood. Some of the bloodstain covers portion of the imprint which indicative, this imprint has to be placed on this envelope, this corner before, prior to the blood apply to it, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, I would like to show you--how much more--how many more minutes? I would like to mark what would be 1338-A and is this A.

(Deft's 1338-A for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: What do you recognize that to be?

DR. LEE: This is an enlarged photo depict this piece of paper.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And 1338-B.

(Deft's 1338-B for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: What is that?

DR. LEE: This is a photograph shows a corner of this envelope, (Indicating).

THE COURT: I think Mr. Harris has them both upside down.

MR. SCHECK: In the interests of time can I just display these quickly to the jury?

(The exhibits were displayed to the jury.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are the parallel line imprint impressions that you have identified on the envelope and the piece of paper, could those have come from a Bruno Magli shoe?

DR. LEE: Well, it is an imprint; it is not an impression.

MR. SCHECK: My apologies.

DR. LEE: Two-dimensional pattern. This two-dimensional pattern cannot be come from a Bruno Magli shoe.

MR. SCHECK: Could the imprint impression--imprint--my apologies. The imprints on the envelope, could that have come from Mr. Goldman's boot?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: How do you know that?

DR. LEE: I study the boot, did some measurement, and sole pattern is complete different than this imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Are the imprints that you found on the piece of paper and the envelope consistent with the parallel line imprints you found on the Bundy walkway on June 25th?

DR. LEE: I only can give you a very limit conclusion with this--with regards to this issue, which the paper--I don't have physically the paper to study.

MR. SCHECK: And why not?

DR. LEE: This paper--

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Was this paper ever collected by criminalists or police officers at the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask him if he ever personally observed that piece of evidence in the custody of the LAPD.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever personally observe that piece of paper in the custody of the Los Angeles Police Department?

DR. LEE: No, I did not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: There is a photograph that you have seen where this piece of paper is depicted?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Your Honor, I would--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: It is already in evidence, 1080--is this one--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: And I believe this is cropped, so that--

THE COURT: Which photograph are we talking about?

MR. SCHECK: This is the photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the envelope with the piece of paper in it, but the body is cropped. This is Defense 1080. We have done--used this when Mr. Fung was on the stand.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: I direct your attention to the screen. Do you see the piece of paper here, (Indicating)?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

DR. LEE: I can see in the middle of the photo this tile and piece of paper have similar shape in this location near the corner. Also I can see this envelope.

MR. SCHECK: Is 1338-A a blow-up of that piece of paper?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Was this piece of paper with the parallel line imprint impression present, based on this photograph, at the Bundy crime scene on June 13th?

DR. LEE: I did observe on this photograph there parallel line exist in this location. Again there bloodstain on top of the parallel line make it difficult to see, but do exist. Subsequently a close-up shows this clearly, they are parallel line in this area, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, in your opinion would this piece of paper be an important item to collect in doing a processing this crime scene?

DR. LEE: Umm, I wasn't at the crime scene, so I cannot make an assessment, but if my crime scene I would collect it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is a piece of paper such as this, besides the imprint impressions you are talking about, is it possible to examine both the front and the back of this paper for fingerprints?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What about fingerprints in blood? Is that something in your experience that you can detect at a crime scene from a piece of paper such as this?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: How do you do that?

DR. LEE: Because blood is red, is visible. You have an imprint, a fingerprint, which commonly we can recognize. If a bloody fingerprint, it is not vivid enough, we can use an enhancement procedure. Those procedure been published, including my own paper, can enhance bloody fingerprint or footprint.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that is the time.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the afternoon. And Mr. Harris, can you take that down for me, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions. Do you don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow. Dr. Lee, you may step down. You are ordered to return tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please. Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Scheck.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Two things. Mr. Goldberg, the court reporters always hate lawyers who stand there and jingle change in your pocket, so if there is change in your pocket it will be confiscated by the court tomorrow. Secondly, can I have a copy of Dr. Lee's report, July report? And I need it tonight because I'm going to have to take this stuff home with me.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sure he can.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Make sure I have it before you leave.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I say something.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: I just want to remind you about the Menzione thing, and the reason I was trying to bring it up I was trying to say it and you told me to butt out and it was too late today because it is logistics, so just tell me when because I will have Shawn back down here again. I know you got other things and the plate is full so just give me a general idea.

THE COURT: Well, I don't think we are going to finish Lee today or Friday. I mean tomorrow or Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: No, no. The point, your Honor, is this--

THE COURT: I was trying to think.

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah.

THE COURT: Marcia, when do you--were you going to argue that?

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: When are you going to be ready to do that?

MS. CLARK: Whenever you want.

THE COURT: How about never?

MS. CLARK: I agree, but--

MR. COCHRAN: I don't agree.

MR. SCHECK: These pictures are the pictures from the--the record should reflect Mr. Goldberg has just handed the court a copy of Dr. Lee's report, and I just note that it is a Xerox and on the back of the Xerox there are what seem to be--Xeroxes of photographs, but they are illegible, however they are--reflect the drying experiment and I think you have the boards.

THE COURT: Well, I'm more concerned about the discovery issue at this point because that is what I want to resolve.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, could we just--for the record I should probably tell you the page numbers that I just handed you. It is--I can't read them.

THE COURT: Def 00942 and this is Dr. Lee's report that is dated July 15th which I understand was given to the Prosecution on July 17th. All right. Because I will need to look at this to determine what is what. Okay. The problem I have on this, Mr. Cochran, is I need to resolve this.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me know. Just I will--I will remind you again if you don't think about it.

THE COURT: Remind me tomorrow.

MR. SCHECK: I think it is minor issue, but my recollection is that there was a cover letter with this, Hank, that indicated that Dr. Lee had misstated a date here.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a copy?

MR. SCHECK: But it is not relevant.

MR. COCHRAN: Do we have a copy of it?

THE COURT: All right. See you tomorrow.

MS. CLARK: Okay. We have paper filed on the Menzione issue. You know about that. We had filed a motion awhile back on that with the court.

THE COURT: The Menzione issue, is there a PMA?

MS. CLARK: By the People.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(At 5:40 p.m. an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, August 23, 1995, 9:00 A.m.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the state of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, August 22, 1995 volume 210

Pages 42456 through 42746, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Dominick W. Rubalcava, Esquire Barry Tarlow, Esquire Howard Weitzman, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 210 pages 42456 - 42746

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Tuesday August 22, 1995 a.m. 42456 210 p.m. 42564 210

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

Motion in limine re Christian Reichardt 42456 210

Motion re recalling witness Larry Ragle 42472 210

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Reichardt, 42490c 42498d 42535c 42544d 210 Christian (Further) 42551c 42552d

Berris, Kenneth 42575c 42604d 42620c 42625d 210 (Further) 42627c 42628d

Lee, Henry C. 42666bs 210

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Berris, Kenneth 42575c 42604d 42620c 42625d 210 (Further) 42627c 42628d

Lee, Henry C. 42666bs 210

Reichardt, 42490c 42498d 42535c 42544d 210 Christian (Further) 42551c 42552d

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

590 - Photograph 42617 209 of a bed with red markings (Computer printout)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1331 - Photograph 42587 210 of a wash cloth with red stains

1331-A - photograph 42588 210 of a wash cloth with red stains (Enlarged photo)

1332 - Photograph 42589 210 of a sink with broken glass and a white towel

1333 - Photograph 42592 210 of a sink with broken glass

1334 - Photograph 42593 210 of a white sheet with a red stain and a pin

1335 - Photograph 42593 210 of a white sheet with a red stain

1336 - Photograph 42600 210 of a bed

1337 - Posterboard 42724 210 entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy"

1337-A - photograph 42726 210 of a tape measure on the ground with shoe imprint at the Bundy crime scene

1337-B - photograph 42726 210 of a tape measure on the ground with markings

1337-C - photograph 42730 210 of two rulers on the ground and a heel imprint at the Bundy crime scene

1338 - Posterboard 42734 210 entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy"

1338-A - photograph 42736 210 of a piece of paper on the ground at the Bundy crime scene

1338-B - photograph 42736 210 of the corner of an envelope on the ground at the Bundy crime scene