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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted, the Defendant not being present.)

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

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

(Pages 43637 through 43643, volume 214a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(Pages 43644 through 43657, volume 215a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

THE COURT: Let us go on the record. We are in the courtroom; however, this should be considered a chambers conference simply because of the amount of the lawyers that we have here. We have Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Douglas. And for the Prosecution we have Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Yochelson and also Mr. Fairtlough. All right. Counsel, what is your pleasure? Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: I will defer to Mr. Blasier.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. We just wanted to make sure that the record was clear that it is our position, and the position taken by Izazaga in paragraph 10 of that opinion, that rebuttal witnesses are discloseable. In fact, they are discloseable at the time that we disclose our Defense witness list which of course was a long time ago, so we are very firm in our request that we know who the rebuttal witnesses are as soon as possible and that we have discovery from those witnesses. We have a holiday weekend coming up. We have to arrange travel plans. If we have material, we will take them with us and work on them, otherwise there may be a delay and we don't want that to happen.

THE COURT: No, we don't want that to happen. Too much delay. All right. All right. Mr. Hodgman, good morning, sir.

MR. HODGMAN: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, in that regard we have indicated to the Defense this morning a number of witnesses that we intend to call and we have also indicated to the Defense the strength of our intent, so to speak, within the--along the spectrum of possible to a definite. And with regard to the possibles, there are a number of witnesses who may be called in connection with Mr. Heidstra and they include David Adkins, Christian Anders, Patricia Baret, B-A-R-E-T. Anders is A-N-D-E-R-S.


MR. HODGMAN: Adkins is A-D-K-I-N-S and a Mr. George fields. We have got Mr. William Bodziak, who has appeared earlier in this case, and he is more of the definite rebuttal witness. We have Beverly de Teresa, d-e, capital, T-E-R-E-S-A, and those are the witnesses we have indicated to the Defense today.

THE COURT: De Teresa is who?

MR. HODGMAN: She is with American Airlines. She was one of the flight attendants on the flight from L.A. to Chicago.

THE COURT: Got it. Okay.

MR. HODGMAN: The Defense has raised a concern as well with regard to various categories of photographs. They include photographs enhanced by the FBI, several of which were utilized in connection with Dr. Lee's testimony. Mr. Yochelson and I are going to examine the rest of any such enhanced photographs with an eye towards Brady material, and if anything is questionable at all, what we intend to do, if it is clear Brady material, obviously that is going over. If it is something that is questionable, we would like to submit that to the court and put that into discovery escrow so that the court can guide us.

THE COURT: All right. When do you anticipate being able to do that?

MR. HODGMAN: This afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Part of the problem with that procedure, though, is that Dr. Lee is an amazing guy and he could just look at a photo and say, you know, I see amazing things, and I'm just posing the practical question that this court may not have the same skills as an expert witness would have in evaluating the kind of thing under 1054.7. That is a concern. I mean, obviously I will look at these things, but if it is something that is subject to interpretation, I have to let you know that it is likely I'm going to require its disclosure if it is something that is going to be scientific evaluation and determination.

MR. HODGMAN: Understood.


MR. SCHECK: Point of clarification is that my understanding these are marketable enhancements of pictures that we already have.

MR. HODGMAN: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: In other words, so I mean it is a peculiar position to be in where we have one set of photographs--and it happened with the socks, the keys, the walkway, that we think are one thing that the Prosecution has given us and then they have now a set that are different. It is the same photographs.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Scheck, it is likely that you are going to get them, so let's not worry about them. I have expressed my concern.

MR. HODGMAN: I would simply like to take it one step at a time. I don't think we are talking a very large set, more of a sub-set of photos, and we will proceed accordingly. We will also examine, and by that I mean Mr. Yochelson and I, photos taken by Peter de Forest in connection with the recent examination of the socks with the same eye towards possible Brady material, and if there is something in the gray area, we will submit those to the court as well.

THE COURT: All right. As to Mr. de Forest, do you intend to call him as a witness?

MR. HODGMAN: At the moment we are uncertain. To be honest, uncertain. He potentially could testify to a lot, from zero to a lot. Let's put it that way.

MR. COCHRAN: We do have a--

THE COURT: When do you anticipate making a determination or being in a position to make a determination?

MR. HODGMAN: Well, I think things are going to get more and more refined as we see ultimately what the Defense does. I mean, they have given us an indication of how they intend to close out their case. Mr. Neufeld made certain representations this morning.

MR. NEUFELD: I represented on the record yesterday, just for clarification again, and I will do it again, there is no more scientific evidence. We are done. The only thing that we have left is--are the Fuhrman witnesses and one person who was inside the Bronco and Menzione who you know about as a Chicago witness and that is it.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Possibly a security person who was there that morning, but there is no more scientific evidence. We are done. That is one of the things that we are most concerned with. Frankly, we don't need a lot of time to prepare for Adkins, Anders, Baret and fields. I don't mean to disparage my colleagues here, but what we do need a lot of time for is somebody on EDTA, somebody on DNA to deal with Gerdes' testimony. I mean, that is the things--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: That is the separate issue, too, okay? And frankly, the last item which you know about because they have--Marcia Clark has talked about it repeatedly, that is they have these photos of the gloves and they want to have videos of the gloves and still photographs of the gloves and do all that. Not only do we maybe have a Kelly-Frye issue, maybe we have other arguments to deal with about that, but at a minimum they have already announced their intention of putting on that evidence. Whether or not you will decide that it is admissible, we are entitled to all that discovery now, okay? There is no question about that. And we will have the additional problem with the delay.

THE COURT: Miss Clark did mention videos of the gloves and that she categorically stated she can state that the video evidence that they have, that you have, will show that the gloves Mr. Simpson is wearing in the video are Aris Lights based upon the configuration, the stitching, and other expert testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: She gave the date.

MR. NEUFELD: Videos and stills both.

MR. COCHRAN: January 21st or something like that.

Mr. Douglas: Right.

THE COURT: So if that is coming, we probably ought to see the--get copies of the photos and videos.


THE COURT: Why don't you inquire about that.

MR. HODGMAN: We are going to be meeting this afternoon, because part of this is simply refining what exactly is going to be used. As a matter of general intent, yeah, some glove evidence is coming. With regards to specific intent, specific items, we--

THE COURT: This is the California era.

MR. HODGMAN: We will be resolving that shortly and we will get the stuff to you.

MR. NEUFELD: The other thing is, you know, on the DNA and EDTA, we are done with all that portion of our case. In fact, we have been done with that portion of the case for a couple of weeks. And so it is hard to imagine that--and I'm not trying to suggest anything misguided by either Mr. Hodgman or by Mr. Yochelson, they are here as the messengers, but it just seems difficult to accept that they haven't decided yet whether they need to rebut our EDTA witnesses or our DNA witnesses.

THE COURT: But that is the same argument, you haven't decided whether or not you are going to call your client yet until the last shoe is ready to drop. So I mean, I understand their quandary that they are in. The court has to take into consideration its experience as a trial lawyer and I understand some of these decisions aren't made until the last minute. Look at what you got, you look in the eyes of the jury, you ask yourself can they endure another three days of this? And there is a lot of chess playing that goes on here. But Mr. Hodgman, the representation was pretty categorically made by Miss Clark so we probably ought to see that stuff forthwith about the gloves.

MR. HODGMAN: Okay. And your Honor, I can represent to the court that there is an event, for lack of better description, that will occur or should occur tomorrow that will be aiding us in refining what we are going to do, so I have told the Defense we are probably looking at Friday.

THE COURT: All right. Well, why don't do you this: The stuff that you have got and is available, produce it this afternoon and we will--I will set up a status conference for tomorrow. What time is convenient to you guys?

MR. HODGMAN: May I ask for clarification on that? When you say "Stuff," sort of like George Carlin stuff? What stuff are we talking about here?

THE COURT: The stuff that you are willing to cough up, stuff that I need to look at on the 1054.7 Brady, that stuff that you have ready--now ready to go, why don't you bring it down this afternoon. Then as far as tomorrow, my motivation here is to speed this along, so I will set this for just an informal status conference on the record, however, you need not dress up tomorrow. And ten o'clock tomorrow.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. One other item to put on the record in this regard. Another category of photographs were photomicrographs of Gary Sims. As opposed to Peter de Forest. We got a report from Peter de Forest. On July 17th he and Sims and Matheson reviewed the socks and took a whole series of microphotographs, and that we should have received in conjunction with the de Forest report of July 17th, so I think those should also be brought over for the in camera inspection.

MR. COCHRAN: We are going to try to do a stipulation on Greg Matheson. Would I be correct that we are going to be talking about Friday morning at the earliest basically? Would I be correct in assuming that?

THE COURT: Looks that way.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I just wanted--no rush. L.A. Times said that you warned me not to rush you and I thought that was a bad interpretation, Judge, because I wasn't rushing you at all.

THE COURT: It is a lot to think about, a lot to look at, a lot to review.

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

MR. COCHRAN: We were going to try to meet, but there is always something that breaks up our day.


MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much, Judge.


MR. NEUFELD: Also, do you have a package here you got from DOJ?

THE COURT: Yes, yes. Why don't you ask John the status.

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

(At 11:39 A.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, September 1, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)