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