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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also present, James Hahn, city attorney, Mary House, assistant city attorney, Matthew Schwartz, Esquire and Ron Regwan, Esquire, representing Laura Hart McKinny; Kelli Sager, Esquire and Douglas Mirell, Esquire.)

(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--where is Mr. Shapiro today?

MR. COCHRAN: He will be here, your Honor.

THE COURT: There is Mr. Cochran, Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Uelmen. The People are represented by Miss Lewis, Miss Clark, Mr. Darden. Also present, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Regwan on behalf of Miss McKinny. Also present is city attorney James Hahn and Miss House, deputy city attorney. And I note the presence of my good friends Miss Sager and Mr. Mirell. All right. Mr. Neufeld, earlier you indicated you had a discovery issue you wanted to take up before we launch into our other scheduled matters today.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning, sir. How are you?

MR. NEUFELD: I understand both in my absence and now in my presence that there is a great concern to move this matter along and that is why I'm here this morning. Just so we are very clear on this, your Honor, with the completion of Dr. Lee's testimony yesterday, there will be no more scientific evidence emanating from the Defense during its presentation of its case. And we fully expect that the Defense will wrap up its case in the next few days once your rulings are made on the Fuhrman tapes. Consequently, we are looking forward to what we hope will be a brief rebuttal case by the Prosecution. However, we don't know anything about that rebuttal case yet. We don't know the names of any of the witnesses, we don't even know the subjects that will be covered by that rebuttal case or at least hope to be covered by that rebuttal case. But we do know that there are certain documents, certain notes that have been prepared, certain photographs that have been shot and developed by the Prosecution that have not yet been turned over. And that which we know about very simply at this time, your Honor, includes photomicrographs taken by Gary Sims of the socks on July 17th because they are referred to in a report of July 17th by Peter de Forest. We know that Peter de Forest from August 16th to August 18th examined the socks, the envelope and the item 47 bindle in his own offices back in New York City, and he informed me that during that time he took five rolls of pictures, three rolls of prints and two rolls of slides, all the negatives of which were forwarded to the Prosecution on he believes it was August 18th, but he is not positive, it could be one day later.

So they have all those negatives. We also know from what happened during the cross-examination of Dr. Lee yesterday that the FBI has taken some of the original negatives in this case and done enhancements. We would believe and suspect that Mr. Bodziak or others at the FBI have also prepared notes in connection with their new or reanalysis of the evidence and these new photographs. We suspect that Sims, de Forest and Bodziak will all be called or attempted to be called as rebuttal witnesses by the Prosecution, probably by certainly no later than the day after labor day, and we have not received any of these notes yet nor any of these photographs. We believe that given the Prosecution's position on other discovery matters involving the Defense, they took the position that those photographs, as soon as they come into existence, should immediately be turned over to the other side and so should the notes. We haven't gotten either yet. More importantly, from the court's point of view, it is just a matter of common sense, if we don't see those photographs and those photomicrographs immediately, we are going to need time while the witnesses are testifying to send them out to Dr. Lee, to Professor MacDonell, the same kind of opportunity that you were going to give the Prosecution when they didn't have certain things in a timely fashion what they perceived as a timely fashion from Dr. Lee. We will need those kind of postponements. We don't want to do that. We want to move the case along as quickly as possible. All we are asking the court to do is simply tell the People, since their rebuttal case is going to be starting almost immediately, to get that stuff to us certainly within the next 24 or 48 hours so that we can have our experts analyze it.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. People.

MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: We have a list of rebuttal witnesses that we have prepared that should be turned over today. With respect to photographs and notes, notes of course should be turned over as it--to the extent that the court finds that it comes within the category of witness statements under Izazaga, but Izazaga I think is very clear that with respect to rebuttal case, the People's rebuttal case, we are not required to turn over real evidence such as photographs. I'm not going to stand on the letter of that, your Honor. As soon as we have the photographs in our hands available to turn over to the Defense, I will turn them over. I'm not trying to stand on the letter of the law here. But I have not seen the photographs Mr. Neufeld mentions. I have no objection to letting them see them even though the law does not require us to do that. I want to get this thing going. So we have made all haste and I have worked over the weekend to get everybody up to speed so that we have a rebuttal witness list ready to go, all of the discovery that is required to be turned over, ready to go, and the photographs, as soon as we have them and they are collected, will be given to the Defense without--

THE COURT: Just as a matter of planning so that Mr. Neufeld and all the Defense experts can make plans to make time available to examine these items, when do you anticipate having the photographs and the reports available?

MS. CLARK: I'm going to have to check with everybody on that, your Honor, because as the court knows, our witnesses are so spread out everywhere, but as a matter of fact, that is being checked on right now. I have already asked that the message be sent and find out when we can we get those here.

THE COURT: Why don't we do this then. Why don't you report back to me at 1:30 this afternoon and let me know what the schedule is, but I appreciate your attitude on this.

MS. CLARK: Sure, sure.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Any other issues we need to address before we go to the Fuhrman tape issue?

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

THE COURT: All right. This is a comment for the purposes of making a timely objection, I take it then?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let's launch into the McKinny matter. This is in the vein of a 402 hearing. This is evidence being offered by the Defense with an objection by the Prosecution and I will hear from the Defense first.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Professor Uelmen.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, we would like to proceed by calling Miss McKinny to the witness stand to lay a foundation with respect to the manner which the tapes were compiled and the transcripts of the tapes that are no longer available.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: So if we could call Miss Laura McKinny to the witness stand.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Schwartz, you had something to say?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. We have on calendar today at nine o'clock a motion to quash a subpoena that was served by the Prosecution. We were wondering if we could handle that before we get into the 402. And we had a stipulation with Mr. Darden that this would be done in chambers, during our last appearance.

THE COURT: Well, I'm glad you had a stipulation with him, because it is not a stipulation with the court. What is your schedule today, gentlemen? Are you going to stay for the testimony of Miss McKinny?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.

THE COURT: This is really the more pressing issue that I need to resolve at this point.

MR. SCHWARTZ: That's fine.

THE COURT: So let me proceed with this.

MR. UELMEN: We certainly don't intend to utilize the screenplay at all during our presentation.

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson. All right. Miss McKinny, would you come forward, please.

MS. MCKINNY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning. Mrs. Robertson.

Laura Hart McKinny, (402) called as a witness by the Defendant, pursuant to evidence code section 402, 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.

MS. MCKINNY: I do.

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

MS. MCKINNY: Again, please. I didn't hear you.

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

MS. MCKINNY: My first name is Laura, L-A-U-R-A. My middle name is hart, H-A-R-T. My last name is McKinny, M-C K-I-N-N-Y.

MR. UELMEN: Good morning, Miss McKinny.

MS. CLARK: May I just have one moment, your Honor? I did not anticipate that we would begin with the 402 and Mr. Darden is prepared to cross-examine Miss McKinny and I'm prepared to do the argument, if the court--if that is all right with the court. We had split it that way. We ordinarily would not have done so, but this is not a procedure I anticipated and I'm asking leave of the court to allow Mr. Darden to cross-examine her and I will do the argument. Is that acceptable?

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: And Mr. Regwan, if you want to take a seat in the jury box, you are welcome to do so.

THE COURT: Actually, Miss Sager, why don't you take a seat in the jury box and let Mr. Regwan be in the--before the bar, since he may need to consult with his client. All right. Mr. Uelmen.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Miss McKinny, could you tell us your current occupation?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm currently employed as a film maker in residence at North Carolina school of the arts school of filmmaking, professor of screen writing there.

MR. UELMEN: Do you want to pull the microphone a little closer?

MS. MCKINNY: Shall I sit up?

MR. UELMEN: Well, you can just pull it toward you.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MS. MCKINNY: Okay.

MR. UELMEN: And the North Carolina school of the arts, is that a relatively new institution?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. The North Carolina school of the arts was started in 1965. It has just celebrated its 30th anniversary.

MR. UELMEN: And how long have you been employed at the North Carolina school of the arts?

MS. MCKINNY: Since 19--thank you--since 1993, September of 1993.

MR. UELMEN: And you came to the school in association with a new program in filmmaking?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. The North Carolina school of the arts already had their theater, dance, visual arts, music, design and production, and then in 1993 the school of filmmaking was the new school, and I was brought on board as one of the six founding faculty.

MR. UELMEN: And do you teach courses related to the preparation of screenplays?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Have you had some experience in the writing of screenplays?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I have.

MR. UELMEN: Could you briefly recount that experience for us.

MS. MCKINNY: I have been writing screenplays for a long time. I've written approximately six screenplays, a dozen treatments.

MR. UELMEN: And have any of your screenplays received any recognition or awards?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I won the writer's guild of America East Foundation award in 1984 for an original screenplay.

MR. UELMEN: And did that award include assigning a mentor to work with you in the development of screenplays?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. The award included a stipend which then their request--the requirement was then to write another original screenplay and you could use one of the mentors that the writer's guild suggested or you could ask for a mentor of your choosing and I wanted very much to work with Alvin Sergeant and I requested to work with him and was able to meet and befriend him through a mutual friend.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So Mr. Sergeant was serving as your mentor in the development of screenplays?

MS. MCKINNY: He was my mentor and friend.

MR. UELMEN: And have any of your screenplays been produced?

MS. MCKINNY: My first short piece was produced in 1979 or 1980, but no long form screenplay has been produced.

MR. UELMEN: Now, could you go back to 1985 and tell us what your occupation was in 1985.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I wore a couple of hats in 1985. I was a freelance screenwriter and I worked as a--as the senior learning skills counselor at UCLA.

MR. UELMEN: Could you describe what a senior learning skills counselor would do at UCLA?

MS. MCKINNY: I worked in the athletic department as a liaison from--with the letters of college and science, and I worked under the auspices of Terry Donohue with specifically high-risk athletes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, you didn't go directly from UCLA to North Carolina; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

MR. UELMEN: Was there some interruption of your career?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. Umm, I had--have had a family over the last ten years. I have two young children and was working at UCLA and writing. I also worked at Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District as a home instructor during that time period.

MR. UELMEN: So when you went to the North Carolina school of arts in 1993, you moved from the Los Angeles area back to North Carolina?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: So throughout the period from 1985 to 1993 you were residing in Los Angeles; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Correct.

MR. UELMEN: Now, did you have occasion to meet Officer Mark Fuhrman in 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you recount how that meeting took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I was sitting in a cafe in Westwood late one morning working on my laptop computer and Officer Fuhrman, who was not dressed in uniform, so a man essentially came up and asked me about my laptop. Someone had come up a short time earlier and asked me and I had explained how the laptop worked and that was a common practice. It was uncommon then to have a laptop and I had actually purchased it in part from the stipend I had won from the writer's guild award.

MR. UELMEN: So he was just a stranger who walked up and asked you about your laptop computer?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And you had never seen him or met him before?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: And you had no idea he was a Los Angeles Police Department officer?

MS. MCKINNY: Initially, no.

MR. UELMEN: Did he make mention of that in your initial conversation?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Please explain how that--how that came up?

MS. MCKINNY: At the time I was working on something to do with women in law enforcement. I'm not exactly clear on what I was typing at the exact moment he walked up, but generally I was looking over some notes or thinking about the extent to which women could succeed in areas of violent crime in law enforcement. There had been some rumblings in Santa Monica where I lived about a particular woman officer who was incapable of performing some--some acts and I was writing or thinking about that.

MR. UELMEN: So you expressed to him your interest in writing about women who are employed as police officers?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And he indicated to you that he had some strong feelings about that subject?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: What did he respond?

MS. MCKINNY: It was around that time that he told me he was an officer and had strong feelings about whether or not women should be on the Los Angeles Police Department and working specifically in areas of high crime.

MR. UELMEN: Did he tell you anything about any organization he was active in with respect to that issue?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. He mentioned men against women, which is actually policemen against policewomen, commonly called MAW.

MR. UELMEN: Now, as a result of this conversation did you agree to have further conversations with Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: How did that come about?

MS. MCKINNY: After he told me about this particular group, men against women, I--it stirred a curiosity and I was very interested in finding out why a group like that would be formed, what kind of frustrations some men working on the police department would have that would cause them to want to join a group like that and what kind of things they would do to stonewall or embarrass or humiliate women and also what kind of effect that had on women, how they would feel. So I thought that that particular issue was something that I really would like to explore and I would very much like to have his point of view as to why some men felt very strongly that some women were incapable of working in areas of high crime.

MR. UELMEN: Now, is this a frequent or common arrangement when someone is doing a screenplay or preparing a treatment for a screenplay, to consult with someone with firsthand experience?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I do. Thank you.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. MCKINNY: I work that way. I don't know how frequently all writers do. I would think frequently. If you are going to write about a particular issue and you want to be able to obtain different points of view, then you need to talk with people who have that kind of experience and you will need to be able to understand procedural issues in many different facets, so it is a very common practice for me. I do extensive interviews and with people and I shadow them with their permission at work just to see what kind of obstacles they have during the day, who their friends are, what their conversations are, so it is a common practice with me.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Was Mark Fuhrman the only person you were meeting with or consulting in the course of preparing this treatment?

MR. DARDEN: Vague as to time.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: At the same time--well, let's start with Officer Fuhrman.

THE COURT: I'm still at the cafe in Westwood.

MR. UELMEN: Okay.

MR. UELMEN: Did you agree at the cafe in Westwood that you would continue to meet with Officer Fuhrman for purpose of getting this background information that you wanted?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: How soon after your initial meeting did you first sit down and talk with him in an interview format?

MS. MCKINNY: In early April.

MR. UELMEN: Now, this interview, where did--where did that take place?

MS. MCKINNY: We usually met at Alice's restaurant in Westwood. I believe it is on Westwood Boulevard.

MR. UELMEN: And again, briefly describe your purpose in having this meeting in April at Alice's restaurant.

MS. MCKINNY: I needed to hear his ideas, his thoughts, his feelings about some elements of police work.

MR. UELMEN: Did you tape-record that interview?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. That initial interview, a taped interview in April was taped. I believe that was April 2nd.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. Now, this I take it was the first of a series of interview meetings; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: About how many times did you sit down and conduct an interview of this nature with Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Approximately twelve to fifteen times.

MR. UELMEN: And were all of these interviews tape recorded?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: How many of them were tape recorded?

MS. MCKINNY: Umm, twelve to fourteen. One in particular I remember that was not tape recorded was one in 1993 with then I believe Detective Fuhrman, a gentleman who had optioned the property, and another woman officer that had been--who had been a partner with Detective Fuhrman.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. But your general practice was to tape-record the meetings between yourself and Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: What was your purpose in tape-recording them?

MS. MCKINNY: I knew that it seemed to me that he would be giving me a lot of information that would be hard for me to process because it is new, and I needed to hear his words for dialogue purposes to be able to construct accurate characters so that they would be clear. And I needed to--if it was a police procedural issue, I would need to listen to it again and be able to visualize it to be able to cinematically write it, and I didn't feel I would be able to take copious notes on a yellow pad that would enable me to listen actively, ask questions, participate and take the notes and then be able to clearly cinematically write it.

MR. UELMEN: And was Officer Fuhrman aware that you were tape-recording the conversations?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: You just put the tape recorder on the table?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Turned it on?

MS. MCKINNY: I turned it on.

MR. UELMEN: Were there times when you would turn the recorder off?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Describe those times.

MS. MCKINNY: I didn't automatically turn the recorder on when we would first begin the interview. I would turn it on when I felt that he was going to--he was ready to discuss perhaps some of the questions that I had given him ahead of time or it just seemed that it was the appropriate time to start taping.

MR. UELMEN: And were there occasional interruptions with people serving food or things of that nature?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, there were interruptions.

MR. UELMEN: And you would not record those interruptions?

MS. MCKINNY: Sometimes I would turn it off if I could see it would be a lengthy interruption.

MR. UELMEN: Now, after you concluded the interview, what would you do with the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: I would put the tape in my transcribing machine at home in front of my computer and transcribe the tape. My transcribing machine accommodates transcriptions because it modulates the speed of the--of the tape, so that you can slow it down or speed it up for--to be able to hear more clearly, and it also has an audible--it modulates the volume, and has a foot pedal to allow you to stop and start and rewind appropriately.

MR. UELMEN: So this is professional transcribing equipment that you use?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Did you have some experience in operating that equipment and transcribing tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I was a professional transcriber in college.

MR. UELMEN: And how long did you do that?

MS. MCKINNY: Two to three years. I worked for a retail credit company.

MR. UELMEN: And your job at retail credit company was actually transcribing taped interviews?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: What were your duties at retail credit?

MS. MCKINNY: My job was to transcribe reports that inspectors would give regarding people they were investigating.

MR. UELMEN: Now, were the transcriptions verbatim transcriptions of what was on the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: My transcriptions were of what Officer Fuhrman would say, what I would hear him to say and what I would say.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So what you put into the transcript were his words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Did you edit his words at all in the process of transcribing the tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: And in fact did you on at least one occasion tell Officer Fuhrman that the transcripts you were preparing were verbatim transcripts of what he was saying?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, in these transcripts was the--or in the interviews that were taped, was the word "Nigger" ever used?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, if that word appears in a transcript of the interview, it is because that word was spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: You never added that word to any of the transcription that you were preparing on any occasion when he didn't say the word, did you?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: After you transcribed the tapes, what did you do with the actual tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: I put them in a filing cabinet that is designed for tape storage.

MR. UELMEN: And you preserved them?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, have all of the tapes of all of your interviews with Officer Fuhrman been preserved?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: Could you explain what happened with respect to any tapes that are no longer still in existence.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I inadvertently recorded another interview over one tape and a similar situation with another tape.

MR. UELMEN: So when you taped over, it erased what was originally on the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall which interviews that happened to?

MS. MCKINNY: Our first interview, taped interview, and I believe it is numbered the ninth now.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. Now, the first interview is the one you have already referred to on April 2nd, 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: At Alice's restaurant?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall approximately when the ninth interview was?

MS. MCKINNY: Umm, I would have to look at it to be able to tell you.

MR. UELMEN: We will come back to that. Now, at the time you were preparing what is called a treatment for a screenplay; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: Could you explain the difference between a treatment and an actual screenplay?

MS. MCKINNY: A treatment is a narrative form of the story, it is in pros in paragraph form and it delineates the principle characters that, the protagonist, the antagonist, the secondary characters, the main problem in the story, what the obstacles are, possibly some dialogue, what the resolution might be.

MR. UELMEN: And the screenplay that you were contemplating was to be a fictional story, was it not?

MS. MCKINNY: It was fob a fictional story based on reality.

MR. UELMEN: Did you ever explain to Officer Fuhrman the role he would play in terms of your process of creating this story (Pros) ?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And what--could you explain to us what that role was to be (Proceeds) ?

MS. MCKINNY: To help give me some ideas from the point of view of some men who might be long to this particular group, men against women and how men would be frustrated by some of the actions of some women, what kind of--bless you--what kinds of things they would do to possibly stonewall women or make it uncomfortable with them, how they might react were they partnered with women, how they reacted to the administration, partner's relationships, procedural issues.

MR. UELMEN: So you wanted him to recount for you his own personal experience?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: Did you communicate to him in any way an expectation as to the nature of the information he was to convey to you?

MS. MCKINNY: The nature of the information that I wished that he would convey would be something that would help me develop a story wherein a very competent woman officer is transferred into a precinct where there is high crime and she is forced to work with a--an officer who is a member of this particular group, men against women. That was the structure or the--the characters that I really wanted to work with, and so the information that I needed from him was what--what would a working relationship be like, what would some of the frustrations be having to work with a woman officer, what would be some of her frustrations, and then possibly what could be some situations that might occur in a precinct such as this. It was structured after the 77th precinct.

MR. UELMEN: Now, was there any difference between the nature of the first interview and the subsequent interviews of Officer Fuhrman?

MR. DARDEN: That is vague, your Honor.

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

MS. MCKINNY: Could you repeat it, please.

MR. UELMEN: Was there any difference in the nature of the first interview that you conducted with Officer Fuhrman and then the later interviews as the project developed?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. In the first interviews I really needed to hear what he had to say, without directing him specifically and be able to hear his words, his dialogue, the kind of issues that he felt comfortable expressing to me, and then in the later--the later transcripts reflect that many of the points that we talk about are related to the story. I give general categories and he responds and the later interviews I believe some of them are transcribed in terms of categories. It is not question and answer; it is more of a specified topical interview and it also my transcriptions during some of the interviews, the later interviews, were reflecting my lack of time. I had just had one child and was having another child, and was working a couple of jobs, and I--and writing, so--and those things, so I had less time and I really just needed to have him answer certain questions, so there is a difference in the transcriptions.

MR. UELMEN: So the later interviews were much more directed to specific areas as opposed to getting background information?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, call for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Will leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, how quickly after the interviews took place did you prepare the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two I transcribed them.

MR. UELMEN: So your transcriptions were done right after the interviews had taken place while they were still fresh in your mind?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken.

MR. UELMEN: Why did you do the transcription within a day or two after the interview?

MS. MCKINNY: I was very interested in the project and again I had more time initially, I could work later hours, I could work early in the morning. My time was more fluid, but I really wanted to be able to transcribe them and hear the dialogue. It is easier to transcribe something especially when there is interruptions--it is easier to transcribe it when you are closer to the topic.

MR. UELMEN: And after you prepared a transcription of the interview, did you deliver a copy of that transcription to Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe the first transcript I sent to him along with some questions that I wanted to pursue in the following taped interview. At some point after most of our interviews during 1985, I gave him the collection of transcripts. I don't remember if I sent them each--sent him each transcript. I remember the first one difficult.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. So you recall specifically that after the first interview you sent him a copy of the transcript with a set of questions?

MS. MCKINNY: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: Was that in anticipation then of your second interview?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I had given him a series of questions to think about and see if he would like to answer those in preparation for our next interview.

MR. UELMEN: And then at the conclusion or at a point where you had conducted a number of interviews, you gave him a bound set of the transcripts?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. She didn't say anything about bound transcripts.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. Do you recall the form in which you gave him a set of transcripts?

MS. MCKINNY: I recall giving him at some point, after our initial `85 interviews, that collection of transcripts, transcriptions.

MR. UELMEN: In what form did you give them to him?

MS. MCKINNY: I had given it to him in a three-ring binder similar to the that I had bound mine.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, we have a three-page document, a copy has been supplied to the People, headed, "Fuhrman questions round two." We would ask these three pages be--

THE COURT: 1364.

MR. UELMEN: 1364 for identification.

THE COURT: You may.

(Deft's 1364 for id = 3-page document)

MR. UELMEN: Miss McKinny, I'm handing you a three-page document with numbered items from 1 through 31 and it is headed "Fuhrman." Could you look at that?

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recognize that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: What is that?

MS. MCKINNY: These are the questions that I sent to Officer Fuhrman after our first interview so that he could perhaps refresh his mind on what we had discussed and then he would know what kind of issues I would like to discuss the next time we met.

MR. UELMEN: So you were actually giving him questions in advance of the interview. For what purpose?

MS. MCKINNY: Well, time was limited. He was a very busy man and I wanted him to understand what issues I really needed to talk about.

MR. UELMEN: And did this list of questions contain specific references to the transcript that accompanied them?

MS. MCKINNY: Not every question. A few of the questions have references to page numbers of my original transcript.

MR. UELMEN: Well, for example, item 15 on your list of questions, does that refer to a specific page of the transcript that you are asking him to look at?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, item 15.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. Item 16, is that a question that you asked him in the follow-up interview?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And that question was: "How do you hire someone who is capable of shooting someone in the back, no. 1? And no. 2, on what ground would you determine who is capable of figuring out who the bad guys are?"

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, that is no. 16.

MR. UELMEN: Now, was that question drawn from a specific reference in the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: According to this, and my notes, that was referring to page 25 of the first taped interview.

MR. UELMEN: Are there other references in those questions to the transcript, either by quoting material in the transcript or referring to specific pages?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. Generally when there is a--when there is parentheses around a word, that indicates that it is something that we possibly discussed. For instance, no. 27, "Why is the chokehold considered brutality?" That would be something that we had discussed.

MR. UELMEN: Now, at any time in the course of your interviews did Officer Fuhrman ever indicate that there were any inaccuracies in the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: Now, at the same time that you were conducting this--these interviews with Officer Fuhrman, were you meeting with other persons associated with the Los Angeles Police Department?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I was, during that period. I went on--I met with approximately fifteen to twenty other officers from the Los Angeles Police Department, either through the Parker Center, on ride-alongs or some of the pt's at the Los Angeles Police Department academy, along with around 20 to 25 police cadets there at the Los Angeles Police Academy, women cadets.

MR. UELMEN: And did you also tape-record those meetings and interviews?

MS. MCKINNY: Many of them were tape-recorded. Some of the meetings and discussions with the--the cadet women were when I was there with them when they were in training and running and wrestling, watching them do that and observing their--their pre-training prior to entering Los Angeles Police Academy, so many of those were very informal and they weren't taped, but several of them were.

MR. UELMEN: Now, were all of the interviews you conducted with Officer Fuhrman just yourself and Officer Fuhrman or did you ever involve any third persons in the process?

MS. MCKINNY: No. There are several interviews where there are--where there is another party involved.

MR. UELMEN: And for what purpose was that done?

MS. MCKINNY: Sometimes it is to give me additional information, that it is hard to be able to do an inquiry when you are conducting the interview, because it is a one-on-one and you are looking at someone and trying to respond appropriately, you are not observing, so that was helpful information. One particular interview was of a woman who was going to pretend to be a woman who wanted to enter the police academy and Officer Fuhrman was going to talk with her about his feelings about that. Another interview was with a gentleman with whom I was working at UCLA, an athlete who was going to talk with Officer Fuhrman. Another was with a gentleman who had optioned the piece and it was more of a partial story conference.

MR. UELMEN: Now, did these interviews with the woman who was portraying someone interested in going into LAPD and with the gentleman who was a student of yours--at UCLA did you say?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. He was one of the students with whom I worked.

MR. UELMEN: Perhaps you could identify these individuals. Who were these persons who played these roles?

MS. MCKINNY: By name?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

MS. MCKINNY: The woman was Laurie Diaz. She was a personal friend who agreed to do this confidentially. And the gentleman was James Washington and the producer was John Flynn.

MR. UELMEN: And were these interviews tape-recorded as well?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, they were.

MR. UELMEN: And did the interviews with Laurie Diaz and James Washington also take place in 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Umm, did you find any of the comments that Officer Fuhrman was making in the course of your interviews offensive?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, compound, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: I'm--I heard your question and I didn't hear what happened with the court after that.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. UELMEN: You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Did you ever confront him or question him about the statements he was making?

MS. MCKINNY: Generally, no.

MR. UELMEN: Why not?

MS. MCKINNY: I had a journalistic approach to this project with all the people that I interviewed, and for me that means that when I'm trying to hear someone's point of view, even though I might not espouse their feelings, whether they are a man or a woman, I don't react in a way that will cause them to drop their feelings of confidentiality, their desire to communicate their ideas with me, so I don't respond in a way that will cause them to stop talking to me.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, at this point we would like to take Miss McKinny through each of the items in our offer of proof to have her authenticate the context of the conversation that in the case of the transcriptions it is an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said, and where we do have a tape-recording, to authenticate his voice.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: We do have a video that was prepared in advance which would display the text, and where we have the voice, play the voice accompanying the text. With the court's permission I would like to utilize that in the examination.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

THE COURT: Have you given a copy of this to the Prosecution?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed. We will mark the tape, the videotape, as Defense exhibit 1365.

(Deft's 1365 for id = videotape)

MR. UELMEN: Perhaps it would help if Miss McKinny were able to look at a copy of our offer of proof at the same time that we are displaying the text.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, perhaps it would save some time. I don't think that there is going to be any question about the authenticity of the tapes. The tapes speak for themselves. The only question is the transcripts where there are no tapes, and I think that having Miss McKinny go through tapes which do speak for themselves is just going to spend a lot of time doing--proving the obvious. We can probably save a lot of time by cutting to the chase and going to the transcripts where there are no tapes.

THE COURT: Well, there does have to be some foundation that she recognizes the voices and who is there, though, some basic foundation.

MR. UELMEN: I think one of the issues--

MS. CLARK: We can stipulate that she would identify her voice and that of Mark Fuhrman on the tapes.

MR. UELMEN: I think one of the issues your Honor has to address is how much consumption of time will be involved in presenting this to the jury. I think we can very expeditiously kind of give you a preview of precisely how this material would be presented to the jury so that your Honor is in a better position to rule.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let's at least start with the non-transcribed matters.

MS. CLARK: There is the additional issue of whether she has an independent recollection apart from the tapes and that would have to be established.

THE COURT: Well, I'm sure that will be on cross-examination gone into.

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

MS. CLARK: Well, the problem is foundationally speaking, your Honor, is that the tapes should not be played until that area is explored because then you get into a leading situation.

THE COURT: No.

MR. UELMEN: I intend to elicit, as we go through each excerpt, her memory of Detective Fuhrman speaking those words.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: All right. If I can approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: I'm handing you, Miss McKinny, a copy of the offer of proof that was prepared for the court containing excerpts from the transcripts and the tapes that were supplied pursuant to subpoena to the court.

THE COURT: All right. Which page are you referring to?

MR. UELMEN: We will begin on page 9.

MR. DARDEN: This is the amended offer of proof, your Honor, right? The amended offer?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Not the initial offer?

MR. UELMEN: Yes, the amended offer of proof. All right. If we could begin with--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Did you change the number in the amended offer of proof?

MR. UELMEN: No.

THE COURT: I will be referring to these excerpts in terms of the three categories we established, your Honor, B, being racial animosity and the use of racial epithets, which will include items B-1 through B-40, and actually we added one more, B-41. This a supplement to the offer of proof. And then--

THE COURT: Let me ask you just out of shear curiosity, did you actually anticipate that any court would allow you to have all 41 of these incidents? Isn't there some cumulative problem here or redundancy.

MR. UELMEN: Well, I certainly plan to address the question of the cumulative issue in the argument. If you like, I will address it now.

THE COURT: I'm just asking. Do you think--in presenting this issue to the court, do you think I really need to contemplate all 41 of these? Aren't there perhaps a half dozen of these that capture the essence of what you want to present?

MR. UELMEN: Well, we believe there are 17 to be exact that will be admissible for two purposes; not only to show the use of the word but to also show actual racial bias and hostility.

THE COURT: All right. Then why do I have to listen to 41? You have conceded at this point that the remainder is surplusage.

MR. UELMEN: Well, certainly I think we are entitled to elicit that there were 41, but in terms of the ones that would actually be displayed or heard, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the actual display or hearing of the epithets would--would be limited to the ones that have relevance beyond simply the use of the word "Nigger." I don't--I'm certainly not going to argue that--that there is any evidentiary significance to hearing just that word 41 times, but we believe the context in which the word is used in many of these examples goes beyond simply the use of a racial epithet.

THE COURT: Then wouldn't it be a more efficient use of my time, your time and the jury's time, if you limit yourself to the 17 that you think are the ones that are appropriately offered to the court?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: I think we are kind of jumping the gun at this point to start talking about editing it in terms of the--of the offer of proof. What we would like to do--and we can go through it very quickly. I mean, these will not take much time at all, and we have edited them down to the bare bones, so in each case it is just a couple of sentences surrounding the use of the word and Miss McKinny can put it in context and it won't take much time at all. And then at that point the court will be in a position to say, well, now we need to talk about what the jury should actually hear.

THE COURT: You are offering me 41 but you really only want 17?

MR. UELMEN: No, no, we want 41. I mean, I think that the counter argument obviously is going to be, well, you know, this was--was inadvertent, he didn't remember speaking these words seven or eight years ago in the context of a screenplay interview.

THE COURT: All right. Play your tape.

MR. UELMEN: Could we start with no. 1, please.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I thought we were going to start with the transcripts.

THE COURT: No. 1.

MR. UELMEN: No. 1 is from transcript no. 1. There is no sound.

(At 10:03 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: All right. That was no. 1.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall Officer Fuhrman speaking these words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where were they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: They were spoken on April 2nd in the first taped interview.

MR. UELMEN: All right. And this is the interview that the tape was inadvertently taped over; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And are these words that "We got females and dumb niggers and all your Mexicans that can't even write the name of the car they drive," is that an accurate record of Officer Fuhrman's actual words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And this transcription was made while those words were fresh in your memory?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: Foundational, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is leading, counsel, and it is the issue that is before the court, wouldn't you say?

MR. UELMEN: All right.

MR. UELMEN: Did you prepare this transcription of these words immediately after you heard them?

MR. DARDEN: It is also leading and vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: How soon after you heard these words did you prepare this transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: I prepared this transcript between a day--within a day or two of the interview.

MR. UELMEN: And as you look at these words now, are they an accurate reflection of what was on the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And they accurately record what Officer Fuhrman said to you on April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: All right. If we could have the second excerpt.

(At 10:05 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where were they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: They were spoken during the first taped interview in early April.

MR. UELMEN: And again that was recorded how soon after the words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two. That would have been recorded at the same time.

MR. UELMEN: The transcription?

MS. MCKINNY: That would have been transcribed at the same time the previous one was.

MR. UELMEN: Now, in there is certain--there is a blank. It says, "If I'm wrestling with some" blank "Nigger." Is the blank something that you put into the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And why would you do that?

MS. MCKINNY: It would have been a word that was inaudible, but I just wouldn't type out "Inaudible." That would let me know that it was something that I didn't understand.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So you would--if there were inaudible words that you could not record verbatim, you would indicate by inserting a blank into the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have the third excerpt, please.

(At 10:06 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where were they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: During the first taped interview.

MR. UELMEN: On April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: On April 2nd.

MR. UELMEN: And does the transcript accurately record what was said by Officer Fuhrman at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And how soon after did you make the transcription of this comment?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two of the interview.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Miss McKinny, with regards to this April 2nd interview, you transcribed the entire tape within a day or two?

MS. MCKINNY: Of interviews.

THE COURT: Of the interviews?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. In one sitting I transcribed the entire interview.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: No. 4, please.

(At 10:07 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recognize those words as being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Aside from "Fat Burger," yes.

MR. UELMEN: You don't recall a specific reference to Fat Burger?

MS. MCKINNY: I do reading it, but I don't have a recollection unless I read it.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which these words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about the way some--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Okay. We were talking about the way some suspects may be arrested, umm, and I'm not familiar with 22nd and Western, so it didn't set up a visual picture for me where Fat Burger was.

MR. UELMEN: Now, at the time of these interviews Officer Fuhrman was a patrol officer in Westwood; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: In this excerpt was he describing an event that actually took place?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. UELMEN: While he was working as a patrol officer in Westwood?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation, calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you explain how it came about that he described this incident to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: I need to see my original transcript to be able to read what comes before.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

MR. DARDEN: I will object to that procedure, your Honor.

THE COURT: On what basis?

MR. DARDEN: It is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: May I?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. UELMEN: I have here, Miss McKinny, a set of the transcripts that been prepared, including--

MR. DARDEN: She has indicated she hasn't needed her recollection--

THE COURT: She has indicated she needs to refresh her recollection from her original transcript is what she has indicated.

MR. UELMEN: Does the binder I have just handed you contain your transcription of the first interview on April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If you could refer to page 33 of that interview, does that page contain the Fat Burger excerpt?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Putting that in context, can you tell us whether this was an explanation or a description of an actual event?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Could you ask the question again, please. I was reading.

MR. UELMEN: Is the excerpt a description of an actual event?

MR. DARDEN: Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: This is a description of an actual event that took place according to Officer Fuhrman on the previous night.

MR. UELMEN: So he was telling you what had happened the night before; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have the next excerpt, please, no. 5.

(At 10:11 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Can you put them in context for us? What were you speaking about at the time?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about administration of LAPD, some of the other administration officers.

MR. UELMEN: So the reference to Commander Hickman, is that a reference to an actual person?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it is.

MR. UELMEN: And approximately when and where was this statement made?

MS. MCKINNY: This was made during the first taped interview an April 2nd.

MR. UELMEN: And is the transcript an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said at the time?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And it was made how soon after the conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two of the taped interview.

MR. UELMEN: If we could proceed to no. 6.

(At 10:13 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: When and where when they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: They were spoken during the first taped interview, April 2nd.

THE COURT: Counsel, why don't we just assume all of these are during the first interview until we get to--

MR. UELMEN: Fine, your Honor. I will proceed on that assumption.

MR. UELMEN: What were you talking about at the time, and in what context did this reference to Ethiopia come up?

MS. MCKINNY: I need to refer--it was a tangent, it wasn't specific to the story, but we had been talking about the media and the media's role in projecting a positive--positive work capacity for women.

MR. UELMEN: And this was an event or an event that was in the news at the time?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: Was--was there some topical nature of this--of this reference to Ethiopia?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have the next excerpt.

(At 10:14 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And the transcript that we just presented is an accurate record of what he said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: What--what were we talking about or what were you talking about at the time, in the context of discussing "People in someplace don't want niggers in their town"?

MS. MCKINNY: We were discussing where Officer Fuhrman grew up in Washington.

MR. UELMEN: In the state of Washington?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: So here he was recounting his own experience of growing up; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: Could you tell us whether--what Officer Fuhrman was describing was based on reality?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: In what context was this statement made in terms of whether it reflected actual events or whether it was fictional?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection. The question is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. What context was this comment made in?

MS. MCKINNY: He was talking about where he grew up. He grew up in Washington.

MR. DARDEN: May the record reflect the witness is reading a transcript before responding, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Actually, why don't you take that back, because she only has to refresh her recollection as to that one item. The issue here is testing her recollection since there is no tape-recording. Why don't you just close that and put it up on the--

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall--do you presently recall, during the first conversation, talking with Officer Fuhrman about his personal background and where he grew up?

MR. DARDEN: Leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: I recall talking with him about this particular issue, where he grew up.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have the next excerpt, please.

(At 10:17 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And is the transcript which just presented an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said in that first interview on April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And in what context were these words spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: We were discussing the difference between pt officers, physical training officers, at the academy, when Officer Fuhrman trained as opposed to pt officers at the academy at that particular time in 1985.

MR. UELMEN: All right. May we have the next excerpt.

(At 10:19 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall Officer Fuhrman speaking those words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And were these spoken in the first interview on April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Is the transcript an accurate reflection of what Officer Fuhrman said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And in what context was this statement made?

MS. MCKINNY: He was explaining the use of the chokehold and the reason for eliminating it.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Your Honor, that concludes the excerpts from the transcript no. 1, which was the first interview. We can now proceed to interviews where we do have audiotape available.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: If we can have the next excerpt, please.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People have offered to stipulate to the authenticity and I think the tapes speak for themselves.

THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen.

MR. UELMEN: Well, your Honor, we need to make the same showing in terms of the context in which these words were spoken.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, obviously the court has the entire transcript. To the extent that there is context available, the court already has it and the tapes speak for themselves. We have the entire tape of these. There is no need for this.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen, though, I think he does need to establish at least some basic foundation as to the voices. Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

(At 10:20 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And do you recognize his voice?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: This is an actual tape recording of an interview you conducted?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where did this conversation take place?

MS. MCKINNY: This was in April.

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

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may I inquire, what is the witness reading or looking at?

THE COURT: She has the offer of proof.

MR. UELMEN: The offer of proof.

THE COURT: Are you objecting to that?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. I have reviewed that.

THE COURT: Yes. Would you put that down, Miss McKinny, and turn it over.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

MR. UELMEN: When and where did this conversation take place?

MS. MCKINNY: This took place sometime in April.

MR. UELMEN: Of 1985?

MS. MCKINNY: Of 1985.

MR. UELMEN: All right. And do you recall the context in which these words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. We were talking about nicknames that officers or partners give to each other.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. Could we have the next--

THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. Miss McKinny, in your transcript you have down Baba, B-A-B-A. What i heard was Bubba. Do you distinguish between those two terms?

MS. MCKINNY: Is there a difference between those two terms?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Which is accurate, your transcript or the transcript that we just saw here?

MS. MCKINNY: B-U-B-B-A.

THE COURT: Bubba?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

THE COURT: So your original transcript is not accurate as to this specific term?

MS. MCKINNY: No, it is a misspelling.

MR. UELMEN: Could we have the next excerpt.

MS. CLARK: The People have offered to stipulate, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Miss McKinny, have you listened to all these other tapes?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: All the other tapes that you have given to the lawyers in this case?

MS. MCKINNY: I listened to them when I transcribed them, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen.

MR. UELMEN: Could we proceed?

THE COURT: No. If she is saying that these are all Mr. Fuhrman on the tapes, I don't need to hear any more. I have read the offer of proof. I've heard the tapes. I've read the transcripts.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: There are issues that come up, your Honor, in terms of the context of each of these statements. The People, for example, in their--in their brief, have argued that some of these involved the fictional role playing in which Detective Fuhrman or Officer Fuhrman at the time was entering into some sort of fictional context at the time he spoke. Of course our contention is that he still used the word and when he testified he didn't make an exception for fictional role playing, so that is simply a question for the jury, but as a foundational matter we believe that with just a couple of exceptions we can show that each of these uses of the word were in the context of conversation in which he was recounting actual experiences or giving his personal opinions and did not involve creating dialogue or role playing with respect to fictional characters, so--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: --we would like to proceed to show the context of each of the statements.

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this then: Then why was it necessary for me to take all of these tapes home with the offer of proof, with the transcripts, and read all this stuff and listen to all this stuff?

MR. UELMEN: Well, so your Honor could--could put this all into--into context.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. UELMEN: I mean, we are dealing with a very--

THE COURT: I've heard it.

MR. UELMEN: --selective--

THE COURT: I have read it; I have seen it.

MR. UELMEN: --selective editing.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: Could I have a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: We are in a position, your Honor, where not knowing how your Honor is going to rule on any of these offers, we believe we are entitled to make a record to show the admissibility.

THE COURT: You have the record. You have a written offer of proof.

MR. UELMEN: And the relevance.

THE COURT: You have these tape recordings. You have lodged the transcripts with the court. You have a record. What more do we need to do?

MR. UELMEN: Well, I think your Honor needs to have a sense of how this is going to be presented to the jury as well. I mean, our position is what we have done with a massive amount of material is to refine it, to edit it, to put it into a format where it can be very concisely and with great precision presented to the jury, just cut to the bare bones of what is relevant, without any--any embellishment. And I think that is a very relevant factor for your Honor to recognize in terms of considering what you are going to admit and allow the jury to hear. And I think it would be very helpful to your Honor to see just how and in what format and in what context we intend to present this material to the jury.

THE COURT: Uh-huh, but this video was submitted to the court yesterday afternoon, correct?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. As part of the offer of proof?

MR. UELMEN: That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. So I have seen it.

MR. UELMEN: But your Honor has not heard any testimony as to the context in which each of these statements were made.

THE COURT: But don't I have the transcript for that purpose?

MR. UELMEN: Well, the transcript--they are saying--they are objecting to her even looking at the transcript in terms of her own memory of the context in which these statements were made and the conversations took place. We believe we have a right to present the testimony of the witness who will actually testify before the jury to establish the context of each of these statements to show that in fact these are the opinions, these are the personal experiences of Officer Mark Fuhrman. These are not fiction, these are not the creations of a playwright. These are the words that he was speaking in terms of his own life experience.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed. Her comments on the context.

MR. UELMEN: All right. I will limit--

THE COURT: Understanding--understanding I have read it, I have listened to it.

MR. UELMEN: I will limit my questions as we go through each excerpt to simply having her put them in context.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we have--why do we need the witness' memory, as dim as it may be, ten years later for context when you have the entire tape conversation for context?

THE COURT: Well, we don't have the entire tape conversations. There are a lot of stops and starts here. It starts in the middle of conversations. It ends in the middle of the conversations. I don't know what the predicate was to all of these things. There are a lot of unanswered questions with these tapes.

MS. CLARK: And we are assuming that this witness can now present this?

THE COURT: That is a judgment call, isn't it? Proceed. Thank you.

MR. UELMEN: May we have the next excerpt.

(At 10:29 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Hold on. We are on no. 12, correct?

MR. UELMEN: Yes, no. 12.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: And it is going to be necessary to play all of the tapes to give her testimony to each of the contexts as opposed to letting her look at the transcript? She has got the proffer in front of her.

THE COURT: The tape and the spoken word is the best evidence at this point. All right. Mr. Harris, just rewind that shortly, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 12.

(At 10:29 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Can you tell us the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. This is related to the story. I would be--it would be helpful to look at the transcript, but to my best recollection, I was asking how--how an officer would approach a suspect and stop a suspect and these two suspects or the suspect, I believe they are black Muslims.

MR. UELMEN: All right. May we have the next excerpt.

(At 10:29 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: And do you recall the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: It is a similar context as the last.

MR. UELMEN: Was this immediately after the previous excerpt about stopping?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't know. I would have to see the transcript.

MR. UELMEN: Would it help if you looked at the transcript in terms of--

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, because there are two times where a suspect is stopped, one in a car, and I asked for that information, how an officer would stop a--what they considered to be a suspicious car, what kind of issues would come up in that, and then there is another time when an officer is stopping two suspects on a street, so there are two different times.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Would it refresh your memory to look at the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you look at the transcript for tape no. 1 at page 28.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your memory?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And in what context were those words spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: This would be the context regarding the black Muslims, stopping two suspects on the street who are black Muslims.

MR. UELMEN: In terms of where that would be likely to take place?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have no. 14, please.

(At 10:32 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: I remember it being said. I don't remember the context.

MR. UELMEN: Would it refresh your memory to look at the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you look at transcript no. 2 or transcript of tape no. 1, page 1.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your memory?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. Officer--

MR. UELMEN: And what--in what context were those words spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: Officer Fuhrman is explaining what it feels like to work on this particular mid-watch.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could we have no. 15, please.

(At 10:34 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And what was that?

MS. MCKINNY: My best recollection is it was a situation where I was asking how an officer would respond to transporting a suspect who had beaten up or hit a woman officer.

MR. UELMEN: All right. No. 16.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I'm going to impose an objection again. I do not--well, I don't know. Let me inquire of the court. Is this at all helpful to the court in giving it any additional information over and above what it already has in the Defense proffers?

THE COURT: This is the person who is conducting the conversations and interviews of Detective Fuhrman. She has unique personal knowledge as to each one of these individual situations.

MS. CLARK: What unique personal knowledge that she has imparted thus far that we haven't already gotten more of in the proffers themselves and the actual transcripts?

THE COURT: Well, at some point in time I'm going to ask that question, but I'm letting Mr. Uelmen go with what he feels is appropriate at this point.

MR. UELMEN: There are a number of excerpts we will get to in a moment where there were others present and an additional set of excerpts where we do not have a tape, your Honor, so I think this will be very helpful. Could we have the next excerpt.

(At 10:36 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words?

MS. MCKINNY: They were--I need to see them again.

MR. UELMEN: Could you repeat that?

THE COURT: I heard it.

(At 10:37 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe, yes, we were discussing fencing. It would be helpful to look at the transcript, but to my best recollection we were discussing what it would be like to be fencing two officers and Officer Fuhrman was saying that--something to the effect that even knowing fencing isn't particularly useful because that is not something that an officer would be called upon to use in the line of duty.

MR. UELMEN: So when you refer to fencing, you are referring to sword fights?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could we have the next one.

THE COURT: Hold on. Madam reporter? All right. We need to take a recess. All right. We are going to take a 15-minute recess at this time. And Miss McKinny, you may step down. Come back in fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And let me see Mr. Uelmen and Miss Clark.

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

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Counsel, the progress that we are making so far indicates to me that we are not going to finish this hearing this morning, and I've instructed the bailiffs to hold the jury over at the hotel for the afternoon to actually take them shopping this afternoon because I don't think we will get to it this afternoon. The Defense has now provided me with a handwritten list of the specific instances with regards to this first offer of proof, specifically racial epithets that the Defense is seeking to offer before the jury, and I will have Mrs. Robertson file this as addenda to the Defense offer of proof.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, what this list--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Excuse me.

MR. UELMEN: Yes, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: All right. Shall we attach this to the amended offer of proof? Previously the court had ordered the offers of proof and the response field because of the inflammatory nature of the content, and I have decided that given the fact that we are now publicly discussing the content that I'm going to unseal the proffer and the Prosecution response and I will instruct my staff to make that available over the noon hour. Secondly, Mr. Uelmen, over the recess I had the opportunity to sit and contemplate for a few moments, and I agree with the Prosecution, that the court does have I think ample context, having read the entire transcript with regards to each of the identified excerpts that you wish to play. However, I think that there is an overriding public interest in the nature of the offer that you are making, and I don't want this court to ever be in a position where there is any indication that this court would participate in suppressing information that is of vital public interest. I think that has already been expressed by the city attorney's office and it has been expressed by other interested entities that this information be made public. So what I'm going to suggest we do at this point, Mr. Uelmen, is that you play the--your video presentation to the court in its entirety without further interruption, I will hear it again, and that will be for the purpose of public dissemination of this information. But I have read and considered and listened to all of this.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Your Honor, if we could just make one request. There are some excerpts where, for example, it refers to Officer Fuhrman nodding, without describing the nature of the nod. It refers to a ripping motion in the course of the discussion of what you would do with a driver's license, which does not appear in the transcript. We would, with respect to those excerpts, request to stop the tape and just put a few questions to Miss McKinny.

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you about no. 15. Detective Fuhrman is heard to make some noises at the end of the tape which in my, I guess, screenwriter's imagination, thought he was discussing--this is where the context was how would a police officer respond to transporting a suspect who has been arrested for assaulting a police officer.

MR. UELMEN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And Fuhrman says, well, you would tell them you don't do that to anybody, any police officer, be they male or female, and then he makes some noises, which given the context of the other tapes, I interpreted as either baton shots or something like that, gestures similar to that, which are not recorded, so if that is the context of the gestures that are being made, I don't know. So I agree with you there may be some portions where you need to stop, but other than that, I think I understand the context.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

THE COURT: Are we clear?

MR. UELMEN: Could we back up then to 17?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: Yes. We have a problem with our court reporter.

THE COURT: No, we don't have a problem with our court reporter.

MR. UELMEN: We have a problem with us. The transcript simply reflects silence while the displayed portion of the excerpt is displayed, and then questions about that--that excerpt. If we could have a stipulation that at that point we could insert into the record the actual words of the--that were being displayed at the time.

THE COURT: Well, we are referring to the--by excerpt keyed to the offer of proof. The offer of proof also has the text, so the text is there. The record--the record I think is adequate.

MR. UELMEN: All right. And I also wanted to clarify that the list I gave your Honor of the 17 instances are instances that we contend are relevant both to show use of the word and to show racial bias.

THE COURT: I understand. Understood the first time.

MR. UELMEN: Not necessarily withdrawal of all 41 uses of the word.

THE COURT: All right. Let's start with 17. Let's resume with 17.

MR. UELMEN: May we have just a minute, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: Well, your Honor, the present format that we have on the tape is a 20-second delay between each excerpt.

THE COURT: That will give you the opportunity to say "This is excerpt 17."

MR. UELMEN: All right. And we intend to shorten that for our actual presentation to the jury, so that we don't have 20-second delays between each excerpt. Are we ready to proceed? This is excerpt B-17.

(At 11:00 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Can we have audio?

MR. UELMEN: We should.

(At 11:00 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Now, excerpt B-18.

(At 11:01 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Excerpts 19 and 20. What we have done is number each use of the word so this is one excerpt with two uses of the word.

(At 11:02 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Next we have excerpts 21 through 24, three uses--four uses of the word.

(At 11:03 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen--hold on, Mr. Harris. That is one of the enhanced versions?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: Yes, I believe it is, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: To reduce the background noise.

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. 25.

MR. UELMEN: No. 25.

(At 11:04 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: I believe that, too, is an enhanced tape, your Honor. No. 26.

(At 11:05 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Proceeding to 27, your Honor. The record should reflect that this is the interview in which Laurie Diaz is present and these comments are also directed to her.

(At 11:05 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: And no. 28 is likewise in the presence of Miss Diaz.

(At 11:06 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 29.

(At 11:06 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 30.

(At 11:06 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 31.

(At 11:07 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Sorry, Miss McKinny. Could you roll that back?

MS. MCKINNY: If you could roll that back, I believe my name was listed incorrectly on that, just as an addendum.

MR. UELMEN: The tape--

THE COURT: This is no. 31. Mr. Harris, would you run that back for us, please.

MS. MCKINNY: Thank you.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(At 11:08 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: At the beginning--the record should reflect the speaker is identified as McKinny incorrectly.

MR. UELMEN: Is that--

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: Is that Officer Fuhrman speaking?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it is.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you.

(At 11:09 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: 32.

MR. UELMEN: No. 32.

(At 11:09 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, numbers 33 through 37 we do not have audio. These are all taken from tape no. 9, which was inadvertently taped over. This is no. 33.

(At 11:10 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Should I put the words on the record, your Honor?

THE COURT: No, they are in the offer of proof, as I recollect, aren't they, counsel?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. So long as you refer in the record as to which offer this is, which is on--we are on 33 now, correct?

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: And I take it it is unnecessary to elicit from Miss McKinny her recollection of each of these?

THE COURT: I think since there is no tape, I think you do need to establish some foundation regarding when the transcript was done, accuracy, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

MR. UELMEN: Referring to what was just displayed as excerpt no. 33, Miss McKinny, do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: I need to read it again or look at the proffer, please.

MR. UELMEN: I'm sorry?

MS. MCKINNY: I need to read it again or look at the proffer, please.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Can you look at the offer of proof, no. 33.

MR. DARDEN: I would ask that the witness look at the monitor again. The proffer puts it in context.

THE COURT: That is true.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Would you display 33 again, please.

(At 11:10 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall that statement?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't have an independent recollection of that statement, no.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Now, if you could refer to your transcript no. 9 at page 1, I believe it is in the front of the collection of transcripts that you have there.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: Please.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

MR. UELMEN: Referring to your transcript no. 9 at page 1, do you have that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I do.

MR. UELMEN: Do those words appear in the transcript, "Now it is funny because guys in internal affairs"--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is offered to the witness to refresh her recollection.

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: May the witness close the book now, your Honor?

THE COURT: As soon as she finishes reading.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall these words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: In the context of this, yes.

MR. UELMEN: And in what context was that?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about a particular investigation, an investigation of IA, internal affairs, related to an incident in the story.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where did this conversation take place?

MS. MCKINNY: It took place in 1987, approximately the summer of `87.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the date in 1987?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't recall the exact date. It would have probably been in the summer or spring or early summer.

MR. UELMEN: Did you indicate a date on the transcript itself?

MS. MCKINNY: May I refer back to the transcript? I believe I did.

MR. UELMEN: If that would refresh your recollection.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

MR. DARDEN: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

MS. MCKINNY: The date on the transcript is--

THE COURT: Just read it to see if that refreshes your recollection as to when it was.

MS. MCKINNY: Oh.

MR. UELMEN: Is that--

MS. MCKINNY: I only recall that it was sometime in `87, in the spring or early summer, so that refreshes my recollection.

MR. UELMEN: In the spring or early summer of 1987?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And was that also in Los Angeles?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: That would be true with respect to offers 34, 35, 36 and 37, your Honor, that come from the same transcript.

MR. UELMEN: Do you actually recall word for word the words that Officer Fuhrman spoke on that occasion?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: Is the transcript an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: The transcript would be an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said.

MR. UELMEN: And did you make that transcript soon after the conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: How soon?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two.

MR. UELMEN: And you didn't change or in any way alter the words that you heard on the tape in preparing the transcript?

MR. DARDEN: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. UELMEN: Did you put into the transcript the words that you actually heard Officer Fuhrman speaking on the tape?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I transcribed the words I actually heard Officer Fuhrman speak.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Thank you. Could we proceed to excerpt 34.

(At 11:15 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall Officer Fuhrman speaking those words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And was that also in the spring or early summer of 1987 also?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: In the same conversation as the previous excerpt?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And does a script accurately reflect the words that Officer Fuhrman spoke?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: If we could proceed to no. 35.

(At 11:16 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: When and where were they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: That would be in the same interview in 1987.

MR. UELMEN: And does the transcript accurately reflect the words that Officer Fuhrman spoke on that occasion?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: No. 36.

(At 11:17 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I have no independent recollection of those words.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you look at transcript no. 9 at page 11.

MR. DARDEN: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Just read it to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection as to what was there?

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) I'm sorry, I haven't found it on page 9.

MR. UELMEN: No, page 11.

MS. MCKINNY: I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: That refreshes your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you remember the context in which these words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: In terms of accountability for police officer actions.

MR. UELMEN: And these words were spoken in the course of the same interview in the spring or early summer of 1987?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And the transcript accurately records what Officer Fuhrman said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: All right. No. 37.

(At 11:20 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I have no independent recollection of those words.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you look at the transcript for no. 9 at page 12.

MR. DARDEN: No foundation, objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which those words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about the problems between different racial groups and LAPD; specifically Hispanics, Mexicans, and blacks.

MR. UELMEN: All right. And these words were spoken in the course of the same conversation in the spring or early summer of 1987?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And does that transcript accurately record the words of Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Now, the next three excerpts, 38 and 39 and 40--well, specifically 38 and 40, make some reference to the 77th precinct.

MR. UELMEN: Did that have some particular relevance to the conversations with Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

THE COURT: Just so the record is straight, we don't have precincts in Los Angeles.

MR. UELMEN: Division.

THE COURT: Division.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you explain what the 77th division, what significance that had?

MS. MCKINNY: I had ridden along with some officers in the 77th and I was modeling this particular division after the 77th.

MR. UELMEN: For the screenplay?

MS. MCKINNY: For the screenplay, yes.

MR. UELMEN: And where is the 77th located?

MS. MCKINNY: I forget the exact street location, I'm sorry.

MR. UELMEN: Is that in south central Los Angeles?

MS. MCKINNY: Umm, yes. I just forget the exact location.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could we have excerpt no. 38, please.

(At 11:24 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Excerpt no. 39.

(At 11:25 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 40.

(At 11:26 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context of that excerpt, Miss McKinny?

MS. MCKINNY: It would be a helpful--

THE COURT: This is a discussion about the 77th?

MS. MCKINNY: It would be only in discussing the 77th and perhaps after a ride-along that I had done.

MR. UELMEN: Offer no. 41, your Honor, is not on the tape yet, it was added in our supplement to the Defense amended offer of proof after it was located on a transcript of tape no. 10. So if I could read it into the record?

THE COURT: It is actually a page 2 of your supplement, correct?

MR. UELMEN: Yes. "Came up with a new name for niggers. Anthrocide," A-N-T-H-R-O-C-I-D-E, "Dark gray color on Porsches, now nobody is going to mind being called an anthrocide do you think?"

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall Officer Fuhrman speaking those words?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And do you recall when and where that comment was made?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

THE COURT: Was that a misspelling?

MR. UELMEN: Umm, it was just done phonetically, your Honor, so it may well be.

MR. UELMEN: If you could refer to the transcript of tape no. 10 on page 16, please.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Anthracite. All right. Mr. Uelmen, what is the purpose of this at this point?

MR. UELMEN: Of 41?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Well, it is the most recent of all of the offers.

THE COURT: All right. What is the date on this?

MR. UELMEN: 1988.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Is it clear to the court there is no tape for this?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I mean no audiotape at all.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm unable to find it.

THE COURT: It is not very coherently put together.

MR. UELMEN: I think we may have the wrong transcript.

MS. MCKINNY: I'm looking at tape no. 10, page 16.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. I understand the problem.

THE COURT: I think we are looking at a transcript.

MR. UELMEN: What you have there is the transcript of tape no. 10, but what we want to refer to is your transcript no. 10.

THE COURT: No. 10. Why don't you show it to her, counsel? Could you have it in the book?

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I have it.

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

MR. UELMEN: We have a page of that transcript, page 16.

MS. MCKINNY: Thank you.

THE COURT: This is a half page?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I remember it from my transcript.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, counsel, which page?

MS. MCKINNY: You can take that back.

MR. UELMEN: Page no. 16.

THE COURT: 16.

MR. UELMEN: Of the McKinny transcript, no. 10.

THE COURT: Got it. Thank you.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: That appears under the name "Farrell"; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it does.

MR. UELMEN: Does that have some association for you in terms of how this occurred?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe there was an Officer Farrell with whom Officer Fuhrman had worked at one time and this is a portion of the tape in which there were categories and then transcribed--the transcriptions are Officer Fuhrman's words, but the categories are regarding my questions or the areas of conversation.

MR. UELMEN: And is the transcription an accurate record of words that were spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And do you recall approximately when this conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: To my best recollection I believe it was 1988. This particular example doesn't help me know that. There is something else on that tape that helps me know that it was 1988.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So in looking at that transcript, there were other portions that reminded you of the time that the conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: What was that?

MS. MCKINNY: There was one reference to being a good father, on being a father, and at the time I was either pregnant with my second child, son, my second son, or had just given birth, so I remember that reference particularly sticking, and then I think there is another reference to 1988 being the year of the gangs and the next year being something else. I don't recall it verbatim.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So that in context was a conversation that you recall taking place in 1988?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. I also remember this particular item because I didn't get it.

MR. UELMEN: You didn't get it?

MS. MCKINNY: I didn't understand. It was a joke that I didn't get.

MR. UELMEN: Now, this was a conversation that was taped over; is that correct, where the tape was reused?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.

MR. UELMEN: You haven't been able to locate the actual tape of this conversation?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: All right. But the transcript that you prepared, was that done shortly after the conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And is that an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: All right. We can now move on, your Honor, to the C category, the police misconduct excerpts. And the first nine of these--no, eight of these--the first eight of these are all drawn from the first transcribed conversation.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: So if we could roll no. 1 and then--

(At 11:35 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: And we could proceed directly to no. 2.

(At 11:36 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Now, this excerpt indicates in parenthetical in response to a question, "Have you done that before?" "Nods." Do you remember these words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And did you indicate in your transcription the reference to nods?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And could you explain what you meant by that?

MS. MCKINNY: That Officer Fuhrman nodded in the affirmative.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So he was nodding his head up and down?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: In an affirmative way?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: As though he were saying, yes, I have done that before?

MS. MCKINNY: Correct.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. Excerpt no. 3.

(At 11:37 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Excerpt no. 4.

(At 11:38 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: If we could just stop that for a moment.

MR. UELMEN: Referring back to the list of questions that you gave to Detective Fuhrman after this interview took place--

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: --do you still have that in front of you?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If you could look at question no. 16 of the follow-up questions you had posed for round two of your interviews.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Question no. 16 is: "How do you hire someone who is capable of shooting someone in the back, no. 1? And no. 2, on what grounds would you determine who is capable of figuring out who the bad guys are? Refer to page 25 of the transcript." Were you referring Detective Fuhrman specifically to this excerpt in posing that question?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. If we could proceed to excerpt no. 5.

(At 11:40 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Stop just a moment again.

MR. UELMEN: If you could again refer to the list of follow-up questions that you sent to Officer Fuhrman and look at question no. 20.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, that question actually quotes the phrase, "Most of these pukes couldn't do it"; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Was that a reference to that same language appearing in this excerpt, "Most of these pukes couldn't do it"?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: No. 6, please.

(At 11:42 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Stop for a moment.

MR. UELMEN: And once again, Miss McKinny, refer to the list of follow-up questions, no. 24.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: In question--follow-up question no. 24 you referred Officer Fuhrman specifically to page 30 of the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And posed a question about meeting the guy who killed two police officers; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Is that a reference to the information in this excerpt?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Do we have any idea who this person was?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

THE COURT: Do you have any belief that there was a real person to whom Detective Fuhrman was referring to?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't know.

THE COURT: Given your connection with UCLA, were you aware of any student who met that description?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I was not aware of that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. UELMEN: No. 7.

(At 11:45 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context of excerpt no. 7?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Was Officer Fuhrman describing an actual arrest in which he participated?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion, speculation, foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation. Rephrase the question.

MR. UELMEN: The excerpt starts out, "So under what did you arrest him?" Were you asking Officer Fuhrman about an arrest of a specific individual?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe I was. I would have to see my transcript to be able to give an accurate assessment, but yes, it--

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you look at transcript no. 1, pages 33 to 34.

MR. DARDEN: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And was he describing an event in which he had participated?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for speculation.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. UELMEN: Do you describe the context in which he described this arrest?

MS. MCKINNY: He was discussing a suspect that he had arrested.

MR. UELMEN: Do you know when or where this arrest had taken place?

MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: The previous evening.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. No. 8, please.

(At 11:49 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: We are ready to proceed to no. 9, which does have audio, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Excerpt no. 9, please.

(At 11:50 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you have a particularly vivid memory of that account?

MS. MCKINNY: Of course.

MR. UELMEN: Why is that?

MS. MCKINNY: It is, umm--it is vividly described.

MR. UELMEN: Do you remember any discomfort in hearing it for the first time?

MR. DARDEN: Relevance, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. It was one of the--it was very uncomfortable to sit through that, but as I mentioned before, I was in a journalistic mode of trying to get that type of information.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. Shall we proceed?

THE COURT: No, let's take a break now. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Miss McKinny, I'm going to direct you to come back at one o'clock.

MS. MCKINNY: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. We will stand in recess until one o'clock.

(At 11:58 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1995 1:02 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.

Laura Hart McKinny, (402) the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Miss McKinny is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Uelmen.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We had just completed, let's see, this was C-9.

MR. UELMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. UELMEN: So we are up to no. 10.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Good afternoon, Miss McKinny.

MS. MCKINNY: Good afternoon.

MR. UELMEN: If I could just clarify a couple of questions that came up this morning. You indicated that on one of the interviews you asked Laurie Diaz to participate?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And what instructions did you give her with respect to her participation in that interview?

THE COURT: I thought we asked that question already.

MR. UELMEN: I'm not sure it was clarified that she was actually role playing.

THE COURT: She was playing as a woman who was thinking about going on the police department, correct?

MR. UELMEN: Yes. That is the only point I wanted to clarify.

THE COURT: It is clear.

MR. UELMEN: She actually didn't want to be a police officer; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: She was just playing that role?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Was Detective Fuhrman told that she was playing a role or was he told that she wanted to be a police officer?

MS. MCKINNY: Initially he was told that she was a friend of mine who wanted to be--was considering going to the police academy and entering the CPA program to be a police officer.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. And you also indicated this morning that as the interviews progressed and you had less time available, the nature of the editing that you conducted was different with respect to the later transcripts than with respect to the first one?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you describe what you mean by that in terms of how the editing process differed?

MS. MCKINNY: Initially I was more exact in giving the questions and the answers. Later I sometimes omitted my question because I knew what it was and I didn't need to transcribe my question.

MR. UELMEN: So you did not use a question/answer format for the later transcriptions; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: It was more random. Sometimes again it was based on how much time I had to transcribe in consideration of family life, work and other projects that I was--in which I was involved.

MR. UELMEN: Did your editing ever involve changing anything that Officer Fuhrman said to you?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: So even in the later transcripts where you were editing out your questions, you were still putting verbatim the words that Officer Fuhrman used into the transcript?

MS. MCKINNY: The best that I could hear on the tape, yes.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. I believe we can proceed then with excerpt no. 10.

(At 1:06 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Excerpt number C-11.

THE COURT: Counsel, I'm a little concerned about the breaks in the tape, the fade in and out and obviously a stop/start there. Do you want to ask some questions about that?

MR. UELMEN: I can inquire about that.

MR. UELMEN: Was there any interruption in the taping that you can recall of this incident?

MS. MCKINNY: No, I can't recall any purposeful interruption of this incident.

MR. UELMEN: Was there any occasion when the tape recorder was moved in the course of tape-recording?

MS. MCKINNY: In this particular incident, again I don't recall. There were times when the batteries would run down and I would have to stop and replace the batteries. There were times when I had to--it would stop--the indicator would pop up and I would have to restart it again.

MR. UELMEN: As you heard this particular excerpt was anything left out of what was actually said by--by Officer Fuhrman?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: Not to my knowledge, but it is possible, but not to my knowledge.

MR. UELMEN: All right. If we could proceed then with excerpt no. 11.

(At 1:11 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: Just one further clarifying question.

MR. UELMEN: The excerpt you heard, did it capture the essence of what Officer Fuhrman was saying?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Speculation.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. We were discussing partner relationships.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. No. 11.

(At 1:11 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Now, in this excerpt there is a question asked by you with reference to an article that you have that does not appear in the transcript. Is this an example of the kind of editing that you were talking about?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, that would be an example of something that I might have edited. I don't have any of my other research material with me, but there had been some articles in the Los Angeles times that I had--I was referring to in this particular portion.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

MS. MCKINNY: And I believe I had the article there with me.

MR. UELMEN: Excerpt no. 12.

(At 1:14 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: There is a point in that excerpt where he makes a noise "Okay, let's go." Did you hear that?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you describe what was going on at that point?

MS. MCKINNY: It was the--he was making the sound that the skateboard would make when it was ran over by the tire of the car.

MR. UELMEN: So he was imitating kind of a bumping sound?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. No. 13.

(At 1:15 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: A couple questions about that excerpt. In your transcript I believe you had referred to some sort of motion made by Officer Fuhrman as he was describing taking the driver's license and then telling someone "You are a fucking jerk, you get out of here." Did he make some motion at that point? Do you recall this?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Could you describe the motion he made at that time?

MS. MCKINNY: It would be similar to one that you would make to rip up something with your two hands.

MR. UELMEN: Could you demonstrate that for us?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

MR. UELMEN: With your hands?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't remember exactly how he did it, but it would be something along that line, (Indicating).

MR. UELMEN: Pulling your hands apart?

MS. MCKINNY: Pulling your hands apart, ripping something up.

MR. UELMEN: As though you were tearing something?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: The transcript that we have on the video refers to "Officers only want to go so far and they are not chicken up to supervisors." As I heard that it sounded like "Kissin' up to supervisors." Do you recall whether one word or the other was used there?

MS. MCKINNY: The latter would be correct.

MR. UELMEN: It would be kissin' up?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Excerpt no. 14.

(At 1:17 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: In the middle of that excerpt there was a high-pitched voice saying "Thank you." Like "Thank you." Was that Officer Fuhrman speaking?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: What was he doing?

MS. MCKINNY: He was speaking in the voice of a woman officer who would have been thanking him or any other officer that he would be describing for doing whatever he did to help.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you. No. 15.

(At 1:20 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: No. 16.

(At 1:21 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Now, the female voice on that excerpt is the voice of Laurie Diaz?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: So this was the interview you had arranged to have Miss Diaz come in and role play?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: No. 17, please.

(At 1:24 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Once again the female voice on that excerpt is the voice of Laurie Diaz?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct. There is a slight error in the transcript there. Where it says "McKinny" that last time would be Laurie Diaz.

MR. UELMEN: Okay. The final comment was Miss Diaz, not your voice?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: The last excerpt in the police misconduct offer of proof no. 18, your Honor, is another one that we do not have audiotape for.

MR. UELMEN: So if you could observe this one carefully and I will have a few questions for you. If we could have no. 18.

(At 1:25 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And when and where were they spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: They were spoken in--I believe--I believe it was 19--the spring of `87.

MR. UELMEN: All right. And is this the interview you referred to earlier where the tape was inadvertently erased?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: This was no. 9?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: I believe we had some earlier excerpts from no. 9. And this transcript was prepared how long after the interview took place?

MS. MCKINNY: It would have been prepared within a day or two of the interview.

MR. UELMEN: And is the transcript an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: You didn't change any of his words?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, the final two offers relate to the attitude of the witness. They are excerpts from a tape that was made on July 28, 1994, after this case was initiated, and after Officer Fuhrman had testified as a witness at the preliminary hearing.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall meeting with Officer Fuhrman in July of 1994?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And did you tape-record that meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And did you prepare a transcript of that meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And what was the purpose of this meeting in July of 1994?

MS. MCKINNY: I was meeting with the gentleman who had optioned the property and Officer Fuhrman and myself. It was in part to be a story conference updating Officer Fuhrman with what was happening with the property at that time.

MR. UELMEN: And Mr. Flynn, who was he?

MS. MCKINNY: Mr. John Flynn, he was the gentleman who was the producer who had optioned the property, the script.

MR. UELMEN: All right. When you talk about the property, you are talking about the screenplay that you wrote?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I'm talking about the screenplay.

MR. UELMEN: And where did this meeting take place?

MS. MCKINNY: In Alice's restaurant in Westwood.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So you had returned from North Carolina for the purpose of this meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: I returned from North Carolina for the purpose of this meeting as well as other business meetings, yes.

MR. UELMEN: And did the subject of Officer Fuhrman's role as a witness in this case, the case of People versus O.J. Simpson, come up in the course of that conversation?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have excerpt D-1, please.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, this is irrelevant to the issue in front of the court.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

(At 1:28 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: And if we could have excerpt no. 2.

(At 1:29 P.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: That concludes our direct examination, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: If I could have one moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: I'm sorry, your Honor, I misspoke. Just a couple more questions.

MR. UELMEN: Was there any arrangement for Officer Fuhrman to receive any compensation for the role he played in assisting you with this screenplay?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And what was that arrangement?

MS. MCKINNY: We had a verbal agreement of $10,000 upon the sale of the screenplay.

MR. UELMEN: And was any credit in the screenplay itself given to Officer Fuhrman for the role that he played?

MS. MCKINNY: He was on the title page as technical advisor, Officer Mark Fuhrman.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So the title page indicates "Technical advisor, Officer Mark Fuhrman"?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And does the term "Technical advisor" have any meaning within the trade? What does "Technical advisor" mean?

MS. MCKINNY: It would mean to someone in the trade that the information--procedural information, some of the dialogue, some of the situations would have--would be fairly accurate and it indicated that--it would indicate that the writer went to some length to make sure that that information was accurate.

MR. UELMEN: Thank you.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. UELMEN: That concludes our examination.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon, Miss McKinny.

MS. MCKINNY: Good afternoon, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Doing okay?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm all right.

MR. DARDEN: Me, too. You had a financial arrangement with Mr. Fuhrman; is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: We had a verbal agreement, yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he was to receive $10,000 as a result of being the technical advisor in the screenplay?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And you made that agreement when?

MS. MCKINNY: In 1985.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Would this be at the April 2nd meeting or would it be before the April 2nd meeting?

MS. MCKINNY: It was sometime during that April to June period. I don't remember exactly when the agreement was, but it would have been sometime in June.

MR. DARDEN: Could it have been at your very first meeting, the first time you met him at Alice's restaurant?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't believe so, no.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But when you met Mr. Fuhrman, you told him that you were doing a screenplay, right?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: Is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I was--wanted to do a screenplay about a particular situation, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you tell him that it would be fictional?

MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted to do a fictional piece based on reality.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell him that it would be about female police officers and their--and their circumstances, the circumstances they confront as police officers in the LAPD?

MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell him that?

MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted it to be--to reflect how certain officers in--who were members of men against women responded to certain women in LAPD and what those frustrations the men were facing were like and what the frustrations and obstacles the women were facing as a result of that were like.

MR. DARDEN: Did you make it clear to Mr. Fuhrman that the screenplay would be a fictional piece of work?

MS. MCKINNY: I believe I already answered that question.

MR. DARDEN: Did you make it clear to Mr. Fuhrman that it would be a fictional piece of work?

MS. MCKINNY: I made it clear to Mr. Fuhrman, that was Officer Fuhrman, that it would be a dramatic fictional piece based on reality.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, is everything contained in the screenplay--well, strike that. You have written a screenplay; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY:</